Lords Sitting of 25 July 1843

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.—1a. Court of Exchequer; Fines and Penalties (Ireland); Public Works (Ireland).
2a. Woollen, etc., Manufactures; Bridges (Ireland).
3a. and passed:—Schoolmasters Widows' Fund Validity (Scotland).
Private. — Reported.—Berwick-upon-Tweed Corporation; Edinburgh Water.
3a. and passed: — Gilbert's (or Miller's) Estate; Tay Ferries.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Marquess of Downshire, from a Protestant Association In Dublin, for Inquiry into the conduct of the Ecclesiastical Commission.—By Earl Stanhope, from the Bakers of Ireland, for Redress of their Grievances.—By Lord Campbell, from "Birmingham, against the Charitable Pawn Offices Bill.— From Cot Fishermen of the Rivers Suir, Nare, and Barrow, for Relief.—From Merchant Seamen of Newburgh, for Amending the Act relating to the Merchant Seamen's Fund.

LANDLORDS AND TENANTS.
Lord Portman,in moving the reading of the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Landlords and Tenants Bill, in order that it might be discharged, said he did so because many Members of the House were not then prepared to enter into a discussion of the principle; and as he had not intended to pass the bill this year, his object would be gained if the bill were attentively considered in the recess, being assured that their Lordships would concur in any law which was safe for the landlord and good for the tenant.
Lord Redesdalesaid, that the bill was unnecessary, and would be unwise: this was the opinion of most noble Lords, with whom he had conversed, and he stated it to prevent any erroneous impression going abroad, in consequence of the noble Lord's observations in withdrawing the bill, that their Lordships were friendly to the principle.
Order discharged.

FINE ARTS—HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
Lord Broughamwished to notice something which had occurred in the Houses of Parliament building committee that morning with reference to the commission, of which his noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was a member. The commission had issued an advertisement, addressed to all the artists of this country, inviting them to send in drawings or models of an ornamental nature for the two Houses of Parliament. He looked upon this, not so much as a matter of delay, because their Lordships could sit in the new Houses before they were adorned, and they might be adorned during the long recess, but he was afraid it would be a source of great

1325
expense. He was far from saying whet the wisdom and generosity of Parliament might do, hut it was only charity to give those persons who were likely to send in models or drawings timely notice that they would do so at their own risk. The artists must be told they would be wrong if they thought thereby that they were certain of public orders to execute the work, or if they took for granted, that they would obtain remuneration for their labour.
The Marquess of Lansdowne,as the only one of their Lordships' House who had lately attended the Fine Arts' Commission, said that great care had been taken, in all the notices with regard to the works alluded to, to guard the artists against supposing that they would receive any remuneration besides that specifically stated in the notice. No expense would be incurred, except for the prizes, for the cartoons. With regard to them, persons bad to go out of their usual habits of study, which they could not be expected to do without a remuneration in the shape of prizes. With respect to other departments of the art, they would only have to execute works in accordance with their usual studies: the object was only to give specimens of the public proficiency of each artist. He should be as jealous as his noble Friend, if any. great expense were to be incurred; but a committee of the other House had advised that advantage should be taken of the decoration of the new Houses to give encouragement to art.

APPREHENSION OF OFFENDERS (FRANCE.)
The Marquess of Lansdownecalled the attention of the House to the subject of two bills which had recently passed the House, for giving effect to the treaties with France and the United States of America, for facilitating the apprehension of criminal offenders, upon which he had intended to have made a few observations on the third reading, but had been prevented in consequence of the bill having been read a third time during his absence. The general policy of those bills it was impossible for him or for the Parliament to doubt, and the only opposition he entertained to the treaties was, that one, without sufficient reason, did not go to the same extent as the other. The treaty with America enumerated a much larger body of offences, and went much further than the treaty which had been concluded with France. The reason for not extending the French treaty as far as the American was wholly insufficient.
1326
Some of the most aggravated crimes were not to be found in the treaty with France, and the omission extended to what he had always considered one of the gravest offences— the crime of arson. That was wholly omitted; and on stating his objection in committee he had been told that the only ground why the same extension was not given in one treaty as in the other vas, that it would have overturned the draft of a proposal of old date, which was suggested at the peace of Amiens, and which did not go to the extent of the American treaty. When, however, they were acting after forty years delay, he could not think this a sufficient reason, and he must conclude that some objections had been stated in the course of the negotiations which had not been stated to the House, which prevented the French embracing the full extent given to the American treaty. He could see no reason for this difference, and the extension was more necessary in the case of France than of the United States. He begged therefore to move
"An humble address to her Majesty for copies of correspondence between the Governments of Great Britain and France for the last ten years relating to the apprehension of criminal offenders in each country respectively."
The Earl of Aberdeensaid the noble Marquess would agree with him that there was a sufficient reason for not agreeing to his motion when he told hint that no such correspondence existed; there was not, indeed, even an official communication on the subject. He quite agreed with his noble Friend, that the principle of these treaties being the same, it was desirable to give to them the greatest possible extent that could be given for the benefit of both countries. The French government had been anxious to renew the proposal of the treaty of Amiens; they had proposed it in 1815, and many times afterwards; but the proposal was always declined by this country; there were, however, no negotiations on the subject. He had thought, as a commencement of a new system, it was not desirable to extend the description of crimes. The convention was made only temporarily for a year, and six months' notice was to be given should there be a wish to determine it. Although the French government was desirous, in the first instance, to include a larger number of crimes, in his opinion it had been desirable to confine the catalogue of crimes; yet, if the present treaty should not be found at-

1327
tended with inconvenience, it would not be difficult to give it, on renewal, a more extended operation.
Lord Campbelltrusted, that by some fu-tare negotiation on the subject, the present state of the relations, in this respect, might be considerably improved; and lie particularly directed attention to the case of fraudulent bankruptcy, which ought to be provided against in any treaty, in order that parties who had cheated their creditors might he given up to punishment.
Motion withdrawn.

SEA FISHERIES—IRELAND.
The Earl of Glengall,on presenting a petition from certain deep-sea fishermen of Waterford, said, in consequence of the decline of the fisheries, from want of due encouragement, the number of fishermen had decreased between 1830 and 1836 from 64,700 to 54,000. In this interval the loan system bad been abandoned, and the public money formerly granted for the encouragement of the fisheries had been reduced to 61 l. per annum. On the other hand, 14,000 l. were annually expended upon the Scotch fisheries without diminution. He wished the fishery board in Ireland to be reconstructed: there were already 8,000 l. in hand applicable to the purpose, and if 10,000 l. or 15,000 l. additional were devoted to the same purpose, much would be done and profitable employment would be found for many thousand persons. It might be expedient even to recur to the loan system, and to do something to restore and repair the small piers and harbours by which the boats were protected.
Lord Monteagleobserved, that the loan system for encouraging the fisheries in Ireland had been continued, until it was found to produce no benefit to the people of that country. The act which regulated the fisheries in Ireland were all but inoperative, in consequence of the difficulty of enforcing its provisions. It entirely depended upon penalties; but means had been devised to evade those penalties. There had, for a long time, existed great doubts among the people of Ireland as to the rights of persons to fish. The act to which he had referred was intended to define those rights; and he thought it would be a wise proceeding on the part of the Government, if they were to send round inspectors to ascertain and to explain to the people what those rights strictly were.
The Duke of Wellingtonbegged to say,
1328
that attention in the proper quarter should be given to the subject.
Petition laid on the Table.
Adjourned.