Lords Sitting of 16 February 1843

MINUTES.
NEW PEERS SWORN.—Lord Teynham sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother; Valentine Earl of Kenmare, Created.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Peers Oaths and Declarations.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Lord Chancellor, from Cambridge University, against the Union of the Sees of Bangor and St. Asaph.—By Lord Monteagle, from Bath, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn and Provision Laws.—From Thomas Arnold, and Robert Henning Parr, of Poole, for the Attendance of the proper Officer of this House at a Trial about to take place at the ensuing Assizes at Dorset.—By Lord Beaumont, from Andrew Macartney, for an Alteration of the Law regarding the Spiritual Instruction of Roman Catholics in Work houses.

SWEARING IN OF PEERS.
Lord Campbelllaid a bill on the Table of the House, the object of which was, that the time for swearing in Peers as Members of the House should be extended. He did not expect that any opposition would be given to the bill, though it went to alter on a particular point the proceedings of that House. At present Peers who were to be sworn in must take the oaths before four o'clock. The consequence was, that if an argument on an appeal case were going on when a Peer came up to be sworn, counsel was interrupted—his address, and the legal proceedings of the House, were terminated for the day. He proposed that in future the oaths might be taken at any time between nine o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the afternoon. He did not intend that the bill should refer to the other House of Parliament, because the reason which induced him to introduce it with regard to the House of Lords, namely,

695
that their Lordships were sitting in the day time as a Court of Judicature, did not apply to the other House.
Bill read a first time.

THE RIGHT OF SEARCH.
Lord Broughamsaid, he was anxious to state what the fact really was with respect to the American negotiations upon the Right of Search, because the matter still appeared to be misunderstood on the other side of the Channel. Those who at first argued that France ought to resist all right of search, because America would not endure it, now said that England refused to ratify the American treaty because America made an alteration in it, by which America was exempted from its operation. Now, the only alteration made in the treaty was one which exempted the American coast from the right of search, in the same way that the coast of Eng land, Scotland, and Ireland were exempted, observing, because no slave-trading existed there; but American vessels were to be searched, and America herself proposed that they should be searched in Africa, the West Indies, and every where except the few degree of the coast of North America. Nothing, therefore, could be more preposterous than the allegation now made as to the reason why England refused to ratify the treaty. Whilst upon the subject, he would take that opportunity of stating that he was wrong in saying, on a previous evening, that the American Senate joined in the preliminary proceedings on which the American proposition of the right of search was founded. It was, however, only by accident that the Senate did not join in those proceedings; but the proposition was founded upon a vote, an almost unanimous vote of the House of Representatives, the representatives of the American people. He was sorry to find that in consequence of a mistranslation of what had fallen from him, he had given some offence in France. He had been represented to have said, that not above a million of people in France were the friends of the slave-trade; what he really did say was, that not one person in a million in France was friendly to that execrable traffic.
The Lord Chancellor:It must be a mistranslation, because it makes you speak nonsense.
Lord Brougham:It is perfectly unintelligible as given

AFFGHANISTAN.
The Marquess of Lansdownewished to know whether the noble Duke opposite intended to submit his motion relative to the military operations in Affghanistan, on Monday next, in the same terms in which he had originally given notice of it for to-day. If, however, the noble Duke intended to vary the terms of the motion, he was sure the noble Duke would see the necessity of giving notice of it.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, the motion would not be precisely in the terms of the notice as it stood on the paper. He would endeavour to lay a copy of the motion before the House to-morrow.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, the course proposed to be taken by the noble Duke was perfectly satisfactory. It was important that their Lordships should have an opportunity of considering the precise terms of the motion before it was brought forward.
The Duke of Wellingtonrepeated, that he would, if possible, give notice of the precise terms of the motion to-morrow.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that as this was the first day on which the House had met since the papers relative to the operations in Affghanistan had been presented, it might be convenient to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the noble Duke to what appeared to be either an omission or an accident, in consequence of which two or three material documents had not been produced. The information contained in the papers was certainly most ample, but if any of their Lordships had already had time to look at the volume, they would perceive that two or three documents were referred to, which were not included amongst the papers. One of these documents was obviously most important. In May, 1842, very peremptory directions were issued by the Governor-general to General Pollock, desiring the latter immediately to commence a retreat. It appeared that General Pollock did not obey these directions; and in the papers before the House reference is made to a letter written by General Pollock, and dated the 13th of May, as explaining the grounds on which he acted. He had looked carefully through the papers for that letter of the 13th of May, but it was not to be found. That letter could not fail to be of importance in considering the subject. Again, at a subsequent period, reference was made to a letter which

697
might or might not be of importance, but which certainly might be expected to be produced, namely, a letter written by Mr. Clarke, the political agent, dated the 5th of May, and with respect to which the Governor-general himself makes the observation, that on perusing the letter it appeared to him that Mr. Clarke was in possession of the views of General Pollock. That letter also was not to be found amongst the papers. Here were two letters which were directly referred to which were not produced; but, beyond that, it appeared that very peremptory orders were issued to General Nott directing him to evacuate Candahar, and General Nott took upon himself not to execute those orders. It would, indeed, be extraordinary if General Nott took on himself to depart from the instructions he received, without stating to the Governor-general the grounds on which he acted, and yet in the papers presented to the House there was no communication from General Nott to the Governor-general in any degree explanatory of this point. He had felt it his duty to take the earliest opportunity, after perceiving the absence of the documents he had referred to, to call the attention of the noble Duke to the subject, and to ask whether those documents existed in the public offices, and, if so, whether there would be any objection to produce them to complete the chain of evidence?
The Duke of Wellingtonwas understood to say, that he would make inquiry on the subject, and give an answer to-morrow.
The Marquess of Clanricardehoped the noble Duke would have no objection to lay before the House copies of the famous proclamations. He was not going to argue whether they were connected with the subject or not, but as he believed they had been presented to the House of Commons, and were, besides, papers so notorious, he thought their Lordships ought to be in possession of them.
Subject at an end.
Their Lordships adjourned.