Lords Sitting of 27 April 1841

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Salisbury, from Merchants and Traders in Surrey, for the Abolition of the Tolls on the Metropolitan Bridges.

THE EARL OF ROSSE—CATHOLIC PRIESTS.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that seeing the noble Marquess, the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, he wished to ask him a question. He had read in the usual channels of information a letter, purporting to be written by the noble Marquess to the noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant of the King's County in Ireland. Though that letter was not before their Lordships, it would really be affectation on his part to presume that it was not a genuine letter. But there were one or two expressions in it which he would not presume to be genuine until he beard them confirmed by the noble Mar-
1138
quess himself. The principal expression to which he alluded was treating a Roman Catholic priest, who was a party to the transaction to which the correspondence related, as a "Catholic rector." Now, the use of designations towards Catholic priests similar to those in the Established Church had been prohibited by the Catholic Relief Bill, He, therefore, was perfectly astonished, that the Protestant Minister of a really Protestant Sovereign should make use of such an expression in a letter written to a public officer. The question which he wished to ask the noble Marquess was, whether he had made use of the expression to which he had referred?
The Marquess of Normanbyreplied, that he had received a long letter from the Earl of Rosse, to which he had returned an answer. As for any expressions in them, as far as his own recollection served him, he thought he had used the term 'Catholic priest' when he referred to the gentleman in question; if, however, he had used the expression Catholic rector, it was an oversight of the moment, for if he had reflected, he should not have used it.

MR. BIDDULPH.
The Marquess of Normanbywished to avail himself of that opportunity to call the attention of the House to a statement made by a noble Earl a few nights ago, respecting the trial of certain persons for an attempt to assassinate Mr. Biddulph. There were one or two expressions referred to by the noble Earl, in reference to a letter which the noble Earl had read to the House from Mr. Biddulph, asserting, that Mr. Biddulph had not been consulted as to the panel of the jury, notwithstanding he had stated, on the authority of the Solicitor-general for Ireland, that Mr. Biddulph had approved of the jury list, and had not denied, that any persons should be challenged. The next day he had written to the Under-secretary for Ireland, to apply to the Solicitor-general, and the other counsel engaged in the prosecution, and to request them instantly to inform him as to the circumstances of the case, and more especially to call their attention to the letter of Mr. Biddulph. He had received answers to his letters from all the counsel, but one, engaged in this prosecution, and that one was absent from Dublin. He felt bound to read all these letters to their Lordships, in answer to the statement made in the letter of Mr. Bid-

1139
dulph. All these gentlemen coincided as to their conviction, that at the time of the trial, Mr. Biddulph was perfectly satisfied with the constitution of the jury; and one of these letters stated, that that gentleman had declared, that he would rather not have two of the persons on the jury whom he saw in court, and when he was asked the reason, he said, that they were strong politicians, but he had no doubt that they would find a verdict of guilty, if the evidence was clear. The noble Earl then proceeded to read the following letters. The first was from the Solicitor-general:—
"25th April, 1841.
"My Lord—I take the liberty of troubling your Lordship with a few lines on the subject of the late trial at Tullamore.
"I saw last night in the Report of the proceedings of the House of Lords, a statement, by the Earl of Charleville, of the contents of a letter, received by his Lordship from Mr. Biddulph. The precise language of that letter was not mentioned in the Report I saw, but it substantially was a denial of the correctness of my representations to your Lordship. If the matter rested between Mr. Biddulph and myself, I should, in consequence of that denial, feel bound to admit, that I had misunderstood what he had stated, though my own recollections on the subject are as positive as they could be. It is possible that one person may have fallen into a misconception, but it is not easy to suppose that many can have done so. When I had the honour of writing to your Lordship on a former occasion, I stated not only the result of my own recollection of what had occurred, but also the result of what the other counsel recollected on the subject.
"On that occasion I stated, that Mr. Clarke and Mr. Corballis were the only counsel in town. I take the liberty of enclosing to your Lordship, letters from each of those gentlemen.
"Mr. Berwick the other counsel for the Crown, on the trial, was not in town when I last wrote, but I have this morning requested him to state to me his recollections on the subject, and I take the liberty of enclosing his letter also.
"Mr. Berwick was the only Queen's counsel who was on the circuit at that time; he and Mr. Clarke are the personal friends of Mr. Biddulph, and what Mr. Berwick states did not occur in my hearing.
"I take the liberty of enclosing letters from Mr. Geale, and Mr. Seed, his principal assistant, as to their recollection of what occurred.
"On referring to the letter, which I took the liberty of addressing to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, and comparing the statements in it with those contained in the document I send, I trust your Lordship will be of opinion, that if I have misconceived the state-
1140
ments of Mr. Biddulph, five other gentlemen are guilty of a similar misconception.
"I have only to beg of your Lordship to do me the kindness of reading to the House of Lords my former letter, and those of the gentlemen herewith sent, and also to state, that I very respectfully court the fullest inquiry as to the conduct of the trial at Tullamore, and of my report of the facts that occurred there.
"I have the honour to be &c.
"RICHARD MOORE."
"The Marquess of Normanby."
24th April, 1841.
"Dear Solicitor-General,—In answer to your inquiry as to my recollection of the circumstances which occurred at Tullamore with relation to and at the time of striking the jury to try the prisoners in the case of Mr. Biddulph's prosecution, the following is as nearly as possible what my recollection serves me in stating to have taken place.
"Having, as you may recollect, on the day preceding the trial, arranged to indict the prisoners on the capital charge, and being most anxious, in consequence of the right of challenge to which the prisoners were entitled, that there should be as full an attendance as possible of jurors, so that there should be no possible objection to the formation of the jury, and Mr. Biddulph having, in communication with him, stated, that if there were a good attendance of the jurors on the grand panel, there would be an abundant number of excellent jurors, we took the precaution on the day before the trial, by application to the Chief Justice in open court, to have public notice given to and through the sub-sheriff, that the grand panel would be called over on the next morning on heavy fines, and that no fine once imposed should be taken off without very sufficient excuse shown to the court. The sub-sheriff was also, at your request, in open court, directed to circulate as widely as he could within the course of that day such intimation of the judge to any of the jurors who did not then appear to be in attendance.
"The following day, before the panel was called over, I requested of Mr. Biddulph to attend in court to assist with his local knowledge, to communicate his opinion as to the general attendance of jurors, and also any objection which might be fairly made to any individual juror. I also took care to see, that the gentlemen who belonged to the Crown-office were in attendance. Mr. Biddulph was, I think, beside me during the whole time the grand panel was calling over, and heard the names who answered. When the calling of the panel was completed, I begged of him to tell me what he thought of the attendance, informing him that the prisoners had a right to challenge forty peremptorily, and stating, that if from the attendance of jurors he apprehended, that objectionable jurors would be placed on the jury, the Crown had the power

1141
of putting but one on trial, which would re-duct the number of challenges for the prisoner to twenty. He told me there was a most abundant and respectable attendance, and that sixty at least might be struck off, and there would still remain an excellent jury. I recollect then saying to him, to bear in mind that his opinion was to be formed upon the number of names of those who had answered, and not from the names that had been called merely: and I asked him what he thought of those who had so answered and appeared: He said, that we need not be in the least afraid of putting both prisoners on trial, for that if sixty of those who first answered were struck off, there would be still sufficient to form an excellent jury. The sheriff then signed the panel. The attendances were upwards of 120. The clerk of the Crown then proceeded to call the jury. I then begged of Mr. Biddulph, and I think also of Mr. Brown, the stipendiary magistrate, to suggest to the Crown solicitor, as each juror was called to be sworn, any objection which they knew to such juror. Mr. Biddulph, as far as I can recollect, went and took his place under Mr. Geale, and after the jury were sworn, he returned to his place beside me, and stated, that he considered the jury to be a very fair jury; that there were but two who he would rather were not there, I asked him what his objection was to them, and he stated to me, as I best recollect that they were strong politicians; but he added, that if there was a good case laid before them in evidence, he had no doubt they would find an honest verdict. With this I felt fully satisfied, and certainly for the first two days of the trial I heard no objection made to any of the jury.
I remain, &c.,
"WALTER BERWICK."
"The Solicitor-general."
"My dear Solicitor-general—With the utmost surprise I observe by the report of the proceedings in the House of Lords, that Mr. Biddulph has written a letter to Lord Charleville denying that he ever approved of the jury sworn in his case. It has always been painful to me to differ in opinion with a gentleman on a matter of fact, but I owe it to what I believe to be the truth, to say, that my recollection is very different, Mr. Biddulph remained close to Mr. Clarke; while the panel was called over he was at some distance from me; when the jury was on the point of being sworn he was invited to come over to where the Crown solicitor Hood, in order to assist from his local knowledge in objecting to any improper person being put on the jury. After five or six jurors had been sworn, a juror whose name I do not know, being called to the book, Mr. Biddulph said to me I do not like that man. I replied that except he assigned a reason, his merely not liking him was not a sufficient objection, and he made no further objection to him. I communicated to you what Mr. Biddulph had
1142
said, and you having agreed with me the juror was sworn. Though I was close to Mr. Biddulph till the jury was sworn, he made no further objection, but, in answer lo a question put to him by you, expressed himself satisfied that the jury would do their duty, and during the three days of trial, to my knowledge, he never expressed a contrary opinion. This is my recollection of the facts of this case."
"I remain,
(Signed) "J. R. CORBALLIS."
"April 25, 1841.
"My dear Solicitor-general—Having a perfect recollection of what took place at tie time of the swearing of the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case (who sat next to me when the panel was calling over), I can safely say, that when it was ended he expressed his satisfaction not only with the number that attended, but the persons composing it, and in my presence and yours, declared that from sixty to eighty might be taken off it, and a good jury still remain to try the case; and this he said in reply to a question of yours, to ascertain whether you could with prudence put both the prisoners on their trial, so as to give them the privilege of forty challenges; he left where he was then sitting by me, to be near the Crown solicitor whilst the jury was swearing, and though the distance was but short, I did not hear him make any objection to any of them; after they were sworn he returned to his seat, when I asked him (as was natural), what he thought of the jury, when he assured me there could not be a better, and that he was convinced they would do their duty; in the course of the trial, which you know lasted such a length of time, I had frequent interviews with Mr. Biddulph, and he never expressed the slightest dissatisfaction with the jury; and from the very close intimacy and friendship which has always subsisted between him and me, I think had he entertained any doubt as to their propriety he would have mentioned it to me. I have only to add, that shortly after my return from circuit, I left town for a few days, and during my absence Mr. Biddulph came from the country, and dined with my family, and said he told me at Tullarmore he approved of the jury after they were sworn, and considered they would act honestly.
"I am, &c.,
(Signed) "W. D. CLAREE."
"April 25, 1841.
"Dear Sir—With reference to Mr. Geale's letter to you of the 20th ult., relative to the circumstances under which the jury was selected to try the persons charged with shooting Mr. Biddulph, and to Lord Charleville's statement with respect to a letter which he had received from that gentleman, in -which he stated that he had not approved of the 'panel,'—I beg to state, in compliance with your desire, that I should communicate my

1143
recollection of the facts, that I perfectly remember asking Mr. Biddulph, after the jury had been sworn, if he was satisfied with them, and he replied, 'that he was perfectly so,' adding 'that he thought it a very fair jury.' In this I cannot be mistaken, as Mr. Biddulph not only stated the same thing in my hearing to Mr. Edward Geale and other persons who were present; but I believe to yourself likewise, and also to Mr. Geale, who has already mentioned the circumstance in the letter before alluded to. I likewise perfectly well remember Mr. Biddulph having stated, when 116 or 127 jurors had answered their names from the panel, that there was quite sufficient to give the prisoners challenges to the amount of 60 or 80, and have a good jury afterwards.
"I have, &c.,
"S. SEED.
"The Solicitor-General, &c., &c., &c."
"April 25, 1841.
"Dear Sir—I have already given you a statement of the circumstances under which the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case were selected, which I can only repeat, and in addition to that now given by Mr. Seed, have to state that my son Edward, who is at present at Athlone, is aware of the same facts, and will fully corroborate Mr. Seed's statement.
"I will get him to write to you when he arrives in town.
"I am, &c.
(Signed) "PIERS GEALE.
"The Solicitor-General, &c., &c., &c."
In this case, the noble Marquess proceeded to say, that the matter did not rest on the balance of evidence, but was at once proved by the fact that Mr. Smith, the clerk of the Crown, told Mr. Biddulph that if he objected to the panel of the jury, he would, on the part of the Crown, put the prisoners on their trials separately, so as to diminish the challenges one-half. He could not sit down without reminding their Lordships that all the inconvenience had arisen from the circumstance of the noble Earl having brought forward a motion on a subject which was still before a court of justice. This had led to the greatest embarrassment, and, if such a course was persisted in, must be productive of much evil.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that if the noble Marquess had thought it consistent with his duty to have given him information of his intention to bring the subject forward to-night, he should have been better prepared than he was at that moment to address their Lordships. But the noble Marquess had thought proper to impugn his motives, and therefore he trusted
1144
to the sense of the justice of the House to have an opportunity allowed him of answering the noble Marquess. It would be in their recollection that he stated when he brought forward his motion that in this country, in cases of murder or violent assault, the next of kin (in cases where death had ensued) was allowed to employ his own solicitor and counsel, but this was not the practice in Ireland. All that he asked was, that in Ireland the next of kin should be allowed to prosecute. He did not bring his motion forward on the single case of Mr. Biddulph—he brought it forward on the general principle, and for that general principle he relied on the evidence given by the witnesses before the committee on the state of crime in Ireland, including the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench and all the Crown solicitors. He alluded to four cases—to the case of Mr. Biddulph, to the case of Mr. Powell, in Armagh, to the case of Samuel Gray, in Monaghan, and to the case of a man named Macleod, in Londonderry. He never expressed any opinion of his own as to the conduct of the jury in the course which they had thought proper to pursue. What he said was, that he objected to them previous to their being sworn as jurors. He stated, that three Ribbonmen, one a county delegate, one a county committee man, and another a parish master, had been introduced on the jury in the case of Mr. Biddulph. The noble Marquess had not ventured to deny that statement, and he was sure the noble Marquess would have done so before this had it been in his power. He was not answerable for any discrepancy between the statement of the Solicitor-general and any other person, In justice, however, to Mr. Biddulph, he trusted he might be permitted to read again that Gentleman's letter. Mr. Biddulph stated—
"That he had read with much attention the statement of the noble Earl, and the answer of the Marquis of Normanby, and the latter was by no means correct, let it emanate from what quarter it might. He had objected to a person on the jury, but he was told that the ground of his objection was not substantial, because he only acted on rumour. He had never expressed any opinion that the jury was a fair and impartial one, for he felt that they would never agree; but he said, that a better jury could not be formed out of the persons who remained, those whom he considered fair and impartial being exhausted—thus leaving him without an alternative,"

1145
Having read this letter he trusted that the House would acquit him of having made any statement without authority. He had yesterday received from Ireland the account of a murder committed in the day time, almost within sight of the excellent and venerable ex-Judge Moore. He had also received a letter from the county of Limerick which would show their Lordships the peaceful state of that county. The letter stated, that a murder had just been committed, that there had been within a few days two attacks upon the police, whose lives were endangered by the violence of the mob who assailed them, and that, in fact, life and property were not safe for a single night. He had also received a letter from the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, which his Lordship desired that he should read to the House. The letter was as follows;—
"My Lord,—In your Lordship's speech on your motion just before the recess respecting crime in Ireland, you were represented to have said that you considered the correspondence between yourself and me to be of a private nature, and that some of the letters were marked as such. I felt, at the time, that this statement was quite at variance with my own impression of the fact, but not having the letters by me in England, where I then was, I did not feel warranted in opposing my recollection to the more accurate sources of information which I believed were in your Lordship's reach. Having, immediately on my return here, referred to your Lordship's original letters to me, as well as to the copies of my answers, I do not find any of them marked 'private,' and in the absence of any such mark I do not consider that there was anything in the general nature of the correspondence to debar your Lordship or myself from treating the letters as documents of an official character. Had I thought otherwise, no advantage which I could have gained to the Government or to myself would have tempted me to sanction a public reference to them without a previous application to your Lordship for your Lordship's leave to do so; and I trust your Lordship will do me the justice to read this letter to the House of Lords, in order to correct the erroneous impression which the expression attributed to you has been calculated to produce respecting my conduct in this case."
His own impression was, that the first letter he received from Lord Ebrington was marked in the corner of the envelope "private." He had another reason for thinking this letter private, for in certain pipers for which he had moved, and which had been granted by their Lordships, this one had been referred to by the noble Mar-
1146
quess as of a private character. He regretted that these letters had been ma e public, for in one of them which he had intended for the private perusal of the Lord lieutenant, he had used the expression of those "evidently guilty men." The noble Marquess had, on the occasion of a late debate, stated to their Lordships, that he (the Earl of Charleville) "had insulted his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen," but in writing to Lord Rosse, he had referred "to the great tribute which Lord Charleville had paid to the address of the Roman Catholic clergymen to the people." So the noble Marquess was his foe to his face and his friend behind his back. Having been held forth as the calumniator of the Roman Catholic people, he had felt bound to make these remarks.
The Earl of Wicklowwished to bring the House back to the sole question before it, which was the exculpation of the noble Marquess for the statements he had formerly made. Alter the letters which had been read, he felt bound to say, that the noble Marquess was fully justified in making those statements with respect to the case of Mr. Biddulph on the information he had received, and was now fully justified in entertaining the same opinion of them as that which he had formerly expressed.
The Marquess of Normanbymust beg to defend himself from the charge of a want of courtesy, for he had that morning written to the noble Earl giving him notice of his intention to make the statement. He would not follow the noble Earl through the various topics introduced by him in his speech, but he must say, that noble Earl appeared to be well prepared with every document necessary for a long address. He would only now remark that he could not acquiesce in the statement that there were three Ribbon-men on the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case. The noble Lord had complained of the publication of the letter to the Earl of Rosse, but it was moved for and ordered to be produced on a motion made at the request of the noble Earl himself. So he trusted, that the Earl of Rosse, would know on whose shoulders the blame, if any, ought properly to lie. He regretted that the noble Earl had adopted the very inconvenient course of raising exciting topics of discussion and debate on every opportunity which afforded itself, however unsuited or ill timed.
The Earl of Charlevillewould only say one word in answer to the remarks of the noble Marquess. He had stated, that he had given him notice of his intention to bring forward this subject, but, in reality, the note which the noble Marquess had sent to his house that morning contained no such information. It merely stated, that he intended to communicate something to the House, and gave him no idea of the subject respecting which the statement was to be made. [The Marquess of Normanby: You had better read the note.] Very well. The note was as follows:—
"Lord Normanby presents his compliments to Lord Charleville, and begs to inform him that it is his intention, at the sitting of the House this evening, to make a communication, at which Lord Charleville may like to be present."
Now, from that note what idea could he possibly form of the subject on which the noble Marquess intended to address their Lordships? Might he not naturally think that that communication referred to some proceedings which occurred last evening in another place.
The Marquess of Westmeathwould not allow the present opportunity to pass by without expressing his entire approbation of the course pursued by his noble Friend, with respect to the matter which he had originally brought before their notice, and his strong condemnation of the inconsistent erroneous, and uncertain conduct of the noble Marquess, who on every occasion concealed his ignorance and want of information by an affected air of conscious rectitude and triumph.
Subject at an end.

WEST-INDIA MAILS.
The Earl of Falmouthrose, according to notice, to present petitions from the boroughs and populous places of Cornwall, on the subject of the removal of the West-India packet stations from Falmouth to Dartmouth. In so doings their Lordships would forgive him if he briefly referred to the history of this business. The importance of having the best station for the delivery and reception of the West-India mails, had attracted the attention of the Lords of the Admiralty to the subject, and they had appointed a Committee to consider the comparative advantages of the different ports for the objects which they had in view. This committee made a report, in which it was recommended to the Lords of the Admiralty that Fal-
1148
mouth should no longer be continued the station for the West-India mails, and that Dartmouth should be used in its stead. In consequence of this report of the committee a meeting was held in the county of Cornwall, and a more populous or more respectable meeting was never assembled. The gentlemen then present, though landsmen, for the most part, were, from the frequent discussions on the subject, well acquainted with the question. They well knew, from practical experience, that Falmouth was by far the most convenient port for the West-India packets. In 1810 they had been for a time removed to Plymouth, but they shortly afterwards were brought back again, in consequence of the superiority of Falmouth 5 and in 1822, when a similar excitement prevailed, he had communicated with the noble Viscount (Melville) then at the head of the Admiralty, and he distinctly told him that there was no intention to remove the packets from Falmouth, and for this reason, that all nautical men knew the superior elegibility of that port. The introduction of railways did not alter the question, because there was no railway to Dartmouth more than there was to Falmouth. If it had been intended to remove the packets to Southampton, neither he, nor as he had reason to believe, the present petitioners would have objected to the experiment being tried, but no advantage of that kind could be claimed for Dartmouth. With regard to the report by which this change had been recommended, the committee from which it proceeded was composed of three gentlemen, as to whose competency he had nothing to object, although he might think, perhaps, that more than one naval man, whatever might be his knowledge and experience, ought to have been called in; but their report must stand on its own merits, and, if not good in itself, the names who recommended it availed nothing. The qualifications, or requirements as they were called, which this report stated to be necessary for a station for the packets, were known by all nautical men to be possessed by Falmouth in an extraordinary degree. It was not a naval port—a point deemed of much importance by the committee—and in every respect it had those requisites which they thought desirable. Well, having stated what qualifications were necessary, the committee without having added, that Falmouth possessed them not, came to this logical conclusion, "For these reasons we recommend Dartmouth." They had been

1149
appointed to consider the comparative advantages of the different ports, and yet they distinctly stated, that they would express no opinion as to the comparative advantages of the various ports. Thus, in fact, declining to do that which was one of the chief objects of their employment. But they had pointed out the superiority of Dartmouth to Falmouth on the ground of saving two hours in the time at which letters would reach London; and would their Lordships believe it! in order to make out this saving they had actually overstated, to the amount of sixteen miles, the distance from Falmouth to Exeter, which, according to the ordinary mail time, would take one hour and a half in travelling. Thus, according to their own showing, there would be but little gain even on this individual point, and that, too, in a long and varying passage both by sea and land. Was it, then, to be wondered at, that the whole county had with one voice cried out against such a report? This had been the case without distinction of sect or party, and they had forced its re-consideration upon the Government. But how was it re-considered? Why, by being sent back to the gentlemen from whom it had emanated, and they had only repeated their declaration that Dartmouth was the best port. They had then shifted their ground altogether, and had said that they had other reasons besides the alleged saving of time. It might be so. But what were they? That was all he—that was all the petitioners—wished to know. Why was a port which had been the packet station for a century and a half to be changed without any reasons being assigned? Why was a county which threw up a million and a half annually in mineral wealth, with a population of 300,000, to be so treated? For his own share in the business, he was influenced by no undue motives. He had not an acre of ground within many miles of Falmouth. The county had been aggrieved, but he urged this question on the consideration of Government and their Lordships not as a county matter. It was a matter deeply affecting the commercial interests of the country at large. The noble Earl then presented petitions from Truro, Falmouth, Bodmin, Penryn, St. Ives, and other places in the county of Cornwall, praying that some sufficient grounds should.be assigned previously to the removal of the West-India packet station from Falmouth to Dartmouth.
Viscount Melbourne: Though this sub-
1150
ject only comes before the House on the presentation of some petitions, I will take the opportunity of briefly stating the grounds on which we have determined to act according to the recommendations of the report furnished to us on the comparative advantages of the different, ports. I fully believe, that the subject has excited the deepest, interest, in the county of Cornwall, and I also fully believe, though the noble Earl who has brought it forward has shared in that interest, that he has been influenced by feelings of no personal nature, and that he has looked upon the question as nothing more than merely a county question, I can assure the noble Earl that, we have no desire to injure the county of Cornwall, and I cannot think that the contemplated change could produce a serious injury to that county. That change does not involve the removal of the packets from Falmouth as the port of departure. With that we have nothing to do. The company who have contracted to carry our letters have expressed their determination to depart from Southampton. That is no concern of ours. All that we have decided is the port at which the mails should be put on board. Now, if we consent to the prayer of the petitioners and to the wish of the noble Earl, and go again into the question of the comparative eligibility of each port, it does not necessarily follow that our decision would then be in favour of Falmouth. There are other places to compete with it. There is Southampton, possessing, as it certainly does, many advantages, and the noble Earl says, that he himself, would not be inclined to oppose the selection of that port. The Lords of the Admiralty, when this question came before them, appointed three gentlemen, perfectly competent from nautical skill and practical experience to form an opinion, to fix upon that port which appeared to them to possess in most respects the various requisites for the object in view. Well, how does the matter now stand? These gentlemen deeply and deliberately consider the subject, and after such consideration they give their decision. The noble Earl finds fault with their report because they have not gone through the various ports, and stated the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each, but they declare distinctly that in every respect Dartmouth is the best. What more could fairly be expected of them? Having taken the

1151
opinion of those gentlemen, universally admitted to be well qualified to arrive at a sound and correct conclusion, would it be right if we determine not to follow the advice which they have given us? The noble Earl and the petitioners, whose case he has so zealously advocated, only ask for inquiry, but the company which has undertaken the contract is desirous of making its arrangements as speedily as possible, and ought not now to be exposed to interruption and disturbance by fresh inquiry and renewed investigation. I believe, myself, that Dartmouth is the best port for the purpose, but, if it be not, the small benefit gained by another decision in this point of view would be, in my opinion, more than compensated for by the evil and inconvenience to which any further change must necessarily give rise.
The Earl of Minto, not having a local knowledge of the various ports, and consequently not being fully acquainted with the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each of them, could not express any direct opinion on the subject under debate, but he was at the same time desirous that the question should be rightly understood, and should stand on its fair footing. The question, then, was, not as to the port from which the packets should depart, but at which the mails should be put on board of such packets. This had nothing to do with the question of retaining Falmouth as a Government packet station. No matter where the company might fix their place of departure, the Government packets would continue to sail from Falmouth, or whatever other port the Admiralty might think best suited for that purpose.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that the course of the Government in having, after submitting this question to gentlemen competent to decide it, determined to adhere to their decision, was perfectly fair. Still he would venture to say, that there was not a person connected with that line of communication who was not surprised at the decision which had been pronounced, although by competent persons doubtless. However, he could not concur with his noble Friend in thinking that Falmouth was a very desirable port, or that it was very accessible for communication; nor did he think Dartmouth was more desirable. It was to be observed, that the company still persisted in taking Southampton as the port of departure; and certainly there were
1152
recommendations about that port, such as its nearness—being accessible in three hours from London—which in time of war could not be compensated by any advantage that could accrue from going to the far end of Cornwall. Though he thought their Lordships could not interfere with the steps taken by Government in this case, and though their adoption of the decision of their commissioners was, in his opinion, perfectly fair, yet he could not but concur with his noble Friend, that the decision itself was rather singular.
Viscount Melvillesaid, he was as much surprised as his noble Friend to hear that Dartmouth had been selected, though the Government were perfectly right in following the decision of the gentlemen who had been referred to.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, in reply, that if Dartmouth was merely to be a place of call, Falmouth would answer much better even for that purpose; and he had reason to believe, that it would be preferred by the contractors. He believed that in fact the company had objected to allow these vessels to call at Dartmouth. The noble Earl concluded by moving for a copy of the report of the commission appointed to inquire as to the port best fitted to be a port of departure for the West-India mail-packets; and also for copies of the correspondence which had taken place on the subject between the said commission and the parties interested.
Petitions to lie on the Table.
Motion agreed to.

DRAINAGE BILL.
The Marquess of Normanbystated, that he had been requested by several noble Lords to put off to a future evening the Borough Improvements and Drainage of Towns Bills, which stood fixed for that evening, in order that some further time might be given for the consideration of the clauses which had reference to Scotland. He should therefore move that the further consideration of these bills be postponed till Friday.
Bills postponed.—Adjourned.