Lords Sitting of 12 March 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Consolidated Fund; Loan.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Cirencester, for the Repeal of the Law of Settlement.—From Bradford and other places, for a Permanent and Effective Irish Poor Law.—From Cornwall, respecting the Tidal Harbour Conservancy.—From Wrestling worth and other places, for Repeal of the Poor Removal Act.

THE OXFORD AND BIRMINGHAM JUNCTION RAILWAY.
The EARL of RIPONpresented a petition from the Chairman of the Oxford and Birmingham Junction Railway, and of the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Dudley Railway Companies, complaining of the conduct of the North Western (London and Birmingham) Railway Company, in collusively purchasing shares of the Oxford and Birmingham Railway Company, whereby they had obtained the means of defeating the object which Parliament had in view when it passed an Act last Session, authorizing the Great Western Company to purchase the Oxford and Birmingham line. The noble Earl stated, that as he was informed, the London and Birmingham Company had purchased a majority of the shares in the Oxford and Birmingham line, in consequence of which they had prevented the sale of that line to the Great Western Company. By this proceeding the public suffered; for the object which Parliament had in view when it sanctioned the arrangement for uniting the Oxford and Birmingham line with the Great Western was, that it should be a competing line with the London and Birmingham. It was also a part of the arrangement that the Great Western Company should reduce their rate of charges, and a Bill was at present before the other House for effecting that object. The public, therefore, would lose in two respects by the manœuvre to which the London and Birmingham Company had resorted.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that the question which the petition brought under the notice of the House was one of great importance. It did not affect two rival companies merely, but intimately concerned the public interests. The facts of the case were briefly these: Last Session a Bill was brought into the other House to enable the Great Western Company to purchase the Oxford and Birmingham Railway. This measure was advocated on the broad ground that the Oxford and Birmingham line was to be a competing line with that of the London and Birmingham Company, and that it was for the interest of the public that such competition should exist. The Bill was opposed by the London and Birmingham Company with the utmost pertinacity and vigour. It passed through Committee; but was subsequently defeated on some technical point. The Bill was then recommitted, and ultimately passed through the House of Commons. Arrived in their Lordships' House, the Bill had to pass the same ordeal which it had undergone in the Commons; all the influence of the London and Birmingham Company was brought to bear against it; but the object of the measure was so manifestly advantageous to the public, that it triumphed over the opposition to which it was exposed, was read a third time, and received the Royal Assent. The London and Birmingham Company having failed to defeat the measure openly, now resolved to effect their object collusively. They proceeded very adroitly. They purchased 38,000 out of the 50,000 shares which formed the stock of the Oxford and Birmingham Company, and distributed them amongst their dependants, whose names were regularly registered. A meeting was then called for the purpose of adding to the number of the board of directors; and, by the proceedings adopted at that meeting, the partisans of the London and Birmingham Company were placed in the direction. It was hardly necessary to state that now the Oxford and Birmingham Company in name, but the London and Birmingham Company in reality, refused to complete the bargain with the Great Western Company, and thus the public was deprived of the advantage of a competing line. It was impossible not to perceive that the London and Birmingham Company had, by collusion, defeated the intention of the Legislature, and he would recommend that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the case.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that a primâ facie case of fraud upon Parliament had been established against the London and Birmingham Company, and measures must be adopted to put a stop to such proceedings. If, however, the transaction referred to was about to become the subject of legal investigation, as he was informed was the case, it would be advisable to delay the appointment of a Committee until after the legal tribunal should have pronounced its decision.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, that he had made inquiries, and ascertained that no legal proceedings were about to be instituted in the case.
LORD WYNFORDthought inquiry was necessary.
The DUKE of BUCKINGHAMexpressed a doubt as to the propriety of the House interfering in the matter. He understood that the shares of the Oxford and Birmingham Railway were bought and sold openly in the market.
LORD BEAUMONTwas not convinced of the necessity of inquiry. The London and Birmingham Company could not purchase the Oxford and Birmingham line without coming to Parliament for an Act, and when they did so, Parliament would have it in its power to take notice of their proceedings.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, it was not necessary for the London and Birmingham Company to come to Parliament for a Bill to enable them to purchase the Oxford and Birmingham line, because they had got possession of it already; and instead of it being a competing line with their own, they would make it subordinate to it.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, there was no doubt this was a matter of public importance, and their Lordships were bound to see that the objects of the former Act were not defeated by fraud and collusion. He questioned, however, whether it would be expedient for their Lordships to interfere at this stage. There was no allegation that Parliament had been imposed upon: the gravamen of the allegation was the manner in which an Act had been carried into execution, which was a matter within the jurisdiction of a court of law or equity rather than of the House. As an Act of Parliament must be obtained before certain parties could effect the object they were said to have in view, no mischief could arise unless their Lordships were parties to it by passing the Bill Both Houses,
1228
therefore, would have an opportunity of investigating the merits of the case.
LORD BROUGHAMAfter a few remarks from LORD BROUGHAM,
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEremarked that the case divided itself into two parts: one, a supposed infraction of the law; and the other, the bearing upon the public interests, as they might be affected by some system of contrivance, which had been alleged to have been applied in this case, and which might be equally applicable in other railway cases; and he reminded the House that there had been recently constituted, by Act of Parliament, a board, the particular duty of which was to report to the Crown and to Parliament with respect to the manner in which the public interest was affected by railway companies, and suggested that before any further steps were taken in this matter, it should be referred to that board, with an order to report specially to the House in what way the particular circumstances of the case bore upon the public interest.
After some further conversation,
LORD LYNDHURSTgave notice, that on Tuesday next he would move the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the allegations of the petition. He also begged to move that the petition be printed with the Votes.
Agreed to.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
LORD BROUGHAMpresented a petition from the inhabitants of Bradford, in Wiltshire, stating that they attributed the increase of pauperism, which was now going on in this country, to the increased price of provisions and the distressed state of trade; and they proceeded to make a most important statement, to which he (Lord Brougham) wished to call the particular attention of the House, namely, that they having heavy rates to pay for the support of their own poor, did emphatically object to being also burdened with the support of the Irish poor, while the property of Ireland was allowed to escape the payment, not only of the poor rates, but the income tax, the assessed taxes, and other taxes. The petition concluded by imploring their Lordships to pass a law throwing upon Ireland the support of its own poor; and to take care in framing such a law that provisions were introduced to prevent abuse. He (Lord Brougham) would give no opinion upon this subject further than to say, that the longer he lived to see the

1229
present extraordinary state of things, the more he was impressed with alarm at its continued existence. He feared it would soon come to this, that if we sent 10,000,000 l. to Ireland this year, we should require to send another 10,000,000 l. or 20,000,000 l. next year; and the consequence would be that our poor would be going over to Ireland to get a share of the money we were pouring into that country. He had been informed that 3,100 poor persons had landed at Liverpool from Ireland in a single day last week—the largest number that had yet arrived on any one day—many of whom said that they had received 2s. 6d. each to take them over here. He would tell the people of Bradford and others to take a leaf out of the Irish book, and give their poor 2s. 6d. each to take them over to Ireland.
The EARL of DEVONremarked, that the noble and learned Lord who had just spoken, had made one statement which he felt sure, when he came to consider it coolly, he would think he ought not to have made without some good foundation in fact, The noble and learned Lord had stated, as a fact which he appeared to wish the House to take upon his assertion, that hundreds upon hundreds of poor people had been sent from Ireland, who had received 2s. 6d. a head from the landlords of Ireland. Now, he (the Earl of Devon) begged to say that he did not believe there was one word of truth in that assertion; and the noble and learned Lord would perhaps forgive him for venturing to suggest that statements of this sort, containing imputations upon a large, and he would venture to add respectable body of men, ought not to be made without some more foundation than the noble and learned Lord appeared to have in the present instance.
LORD BROUGHAM: I can only say that I firmly believe the statement; that I completely and entirely believe it; and I believe it because I have had it from most respectable persons.
The EARL of DEVON: Is the noble and learned Lord replying, or explaining?
LORD BROUGHAM: Whichever I please.
The EARL of DEVON: I call the noble and learned Lord to order. He has a right to explain, but not to reply.
LORD BROUGHAM: I shall show that the noble Lord is completely out of order.
The EARL of DEVON: I am speaking to order. I have a right to be heard; and
1230
I will take the sense of the House upon it.
LORD BROUGHAM: Well, take the sense of the House. I have no objection. But I am speaking to order; and I have a right to interrupt a person speaking to order. [A pause.] So it turns out I am in order so far. Have I not a right—having made a Motion that the petition lie on the Table—have I not a right, I say, to reply? But even if I had not, have I not a right to make a second Motion, that the petition he referred to a Committee? How could the noble Lord pretend to know how I was to conclude my Motion? He says I have no right to speak, except to explain. How did he know but I was about to explain? He gets up, and states that he does not believe my statement, and that there is no foundation for it; does not that give me a right to reaffirm my statement? I repeat that I do believe that statement, and that I have perfectly good authority for it. The noble Lord impeaches that statement because he chooses to disbelieve it; but I restate that I believe the statement, and that I disbelieve the counter-statement. I beg to say, also, that a more offensive mode of expressing disbelief I have never heard since I was a Member of either House of Parliament. The noble Lord says he believes not a word of the truth of a statement which I am authorized by my informants to make. Now, my belief is, that every one tittle of that statement is strictly, correctly, and literally true. I have never stated that every one of the 3,100 of the persons I referred to came over with 2s. 6d. in his pocket. I expressly qualified, and limited, and restricted my statement by saying that at least several came over. I appeal to your Lordships if those were not the words I used; understating, as I always do, my case, for my belief is that a large number of persons come over at the expense of others. My information comes from persons in Liverpool, who have examined the immigrants who came over, and who have satisfied themselves from their own examinations of the truth of the statement. I shall give my noble Friend, who is a Member of the Committee that is now sitting on Criminal Law, an opportunity of examining and sifting the statement; for I am about to call, or rather I have already called, before the Committee, two or three of my informants, most respectable individuals in Liverpool, and who on oath will repeat their information to my noble Friend.
The EARL of DESARTsaid, if the statement of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) were true, the immigrants who came over from Ireland to England had been the most extraordinary and wonderful exception to the general rule. But he did not rise so much to speak of that, as to ask the noble and learned Lord to what end he made those continued imputations on the Irish, whether generally or individually? If he intended these imputations against individuals, he ought to give their names; for facts were not always so very closely or correctly stated as to lead the persons concerned in each particular case to conclude that they were the parties who had the misfortune to fall under the noble and learned Lord's censure. Why, he would ask, did the noble and learned Lord apply these perpetual stings, which could be only productive of irritation? When the noble and learned Lord rose up night after night to weary their Lordships with listening and replying to continual attacks of this kind, did he never reflect that it must be very hard upon Peers connected with Ireland, who could not boast of either the eloquence or the varied talents of the noble and learned Lord, to be obliged to force themselves on the House, and attempt to wield their feeble weapons of uninteresting expression, after the eloquence and sarcasms of the noble and learned Lord had delighted or amused the House? But even his varied powers could not invest a dispute of this kind with interest, and therefore he would call upon their Lordships to forget topics of recriminatien, and apply their energies and attention to the great measures relating to Ireland, which would shortly come before that House.
LORD BROUGHAM: Perhaps I may be allowed, without being thought out of order, to answer the question put to me by the noble Earl. I am asked to what end I make these repeated attacks. I make them for one end, and one end only—to endeavour to awaken the Irish landlords and the Irish people at large to the absolute necessity of looking to themselves for the support of their own poor, and not of looking to England for the support of the Irish poor. And I have a second view behind that, upon the supposition, and, I will add, upon the assumption, that I shall fail in maintaining that object of making the Irish look to the sustentation of their own poor—that I wish to impress upon your Lordships and upon the Government
1232
the necessity of abstaining from the wild and visionary attempt to feed the Irish poor.
The EARL of CLAREreferred to the second allegation in the petition presented by the noble and learned Lord, that property in Ireland was allowed to escape from payment of the poor rate. In answer to that, he begged to state that he that day read in a Limerick paper a report of a meeting of the board of guardians of that city, in which the necessity of imposing a poor rate of 6s. in the pound was submitted to the board of guardians of that union. The discussion was postponed for one week, in the hope that it might not be necessary to impose so heavy a burden on the ratepayers of the electoral division. Their Lordships, then, would know what authority to give to the statement of the petition presented by his noble and learned Friend.
LORD BROUGHAM: Nothing could be more correct than the statement of his noble Friend, and nothing was more true than that there was such a statement in the petition. He had read it to their Lordships only as the statement of the petition; he had never given it as his own. There was a poor law in Ireland—he would not say it was a well-framed one. He had never given any opinion on the necessity of giving a new poor law to that country, or of extending the English poor law to Ireland. But his statement bore on the condition of Ireland in this extraordinary emergency.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I desire to say only a few words on the subject to which your Lordships' attention has been called by what has passed to-night. I do not wish to be supposed to acquiesce in the statement of my noble and learned Friend, that the Government of this country have contemplated for a moment—either now or at any other time—an absurdity so monstrous, an absurdity so mischievous, as to suppose they could undertake the sustenance of the people of Ireland at the expense of the State, independently of the exertions of the people of Ireland themselves. I will say for the present Administration, that they have at no time entertained such an idea; and I will say on behalf of the Irish people and the Irish gentry, that they do not, as I believe, prefer any such petition. What the Government of this country has done, has been in an emergency—as my noble and learned Friend termed it—an emergency unparalleled. Seeing the poorer

1233
classes of this kingdom—for Ireland is a part of this kingdom—labouring under an amount of calamity from which it was impossible to extricate themselves, they have not thought it unbecoming the moral character, as well as the political situation, of the richer part of the United Kingdom, to come to the aid of the distressed portion, to carry them, as far as they could carry them, through that emergency. More than that they have not attempted—more than that they will not attempt. They have done perhaps what may be in some respects injudicious — certainly what, in some respects, has produced effects and consequences which could not be contemplated to the extent that have occurred, under the daily increase of the great calamity which has made itself known only by degrees; but they have the satisfaction of knowing that they have, at least, by that interference which my noble and learned Friend seems to deprecate—they have, at least, saved human life. Were I to be now drawn into a consideration of this subject, I could prove to my noble and learned Friend, and to this House, that had it not been for that interference, overwhelming as this calamity is, in which we have seen the angel of death spread his wings far and wide, from north to south, and from east to west, in that country, for the thousands who, I fear, have fallen victims to the stroke, there would have been hundreds of thousands. My Lords, for myself I cannot regret any part which I may have taken as one of Her Majesty's advisers, in endeavouring—not to extinguish, not to put a stop to the calamity, for that must depend upon the counsels of the Almighty—but to mitigate, as far as human means permitted, the intensity and depth of such a misfortune, as I pray to God the world may never witness again, as I know the world has rarely witnessed the like before. But in that we have constantly kept in view the necessity of rousing the exertions of the Irish people; we have made on our parts efforts, not as principals, but as auxiliaries, requiring, in every case where assistance was given, that local exertions should be made. I do not say that those exertions have in all cases and at all times corresponded with our expectations; but in a great many cases, I will say in a multitude of cases, they have. I am confident that at this moment the feeling of that part of the United Kingdom is more awakened to a sense of the duty that they owe themselves, than it has ever been at
1234
any other period. I believe that there is a rising spirit of exertion in that country; but exertions to be made by a people laid prostrate by the magnitude of the evil with which they have to contend, cannot be adequate; and I will not believe, in that mortal struggle in which they are now engaged, a British Parliament will censure Her Majesty's Ministers for having endeavoured to save them in the struggle, and uphold them through the conflict, the issue of which, as it affects the lives and fortunes of millions of people, remains yet to be seen. I need not tell my noble and learned Friend, that in making this temporary effort, we have not overlooked the necessity to which he has pointed, of providing for the future. I need not tell my noble and learned Friend, because he has himself adverted to it, that Parliament is at this moment engaged in framing a poor law, upon which he has abstained from giving an opinion; but from which, though declining to give any opinion of his own, he may at least collect the fact, that both Her Majesty's Ministers, the other House of Parliament, and the public, are prepared for the necessity of making such a law. When we come to see that Bill sent up to this House, it will be my duty to state what its provisions are; it will be my duty to invite the co-operation of your Lordships, to invite more especially the co-operation of my noble and learned Friend himself—and that support I am sure he will give—to make that poor law as perfect as possible. But in the meantime, let it be understood, that in the exercise, I will not say of generosity, but of generosity combined with justice, to that part of the United Kingdom, we are not overlooking the necessity of imposing a burden in which all will have their full share, and will be placed under the obligation of making some of the largest sacrifices that ever landed interest, or a wealthy gentry—ceasing for the moment to be rich, but having once possessed riches—has been called upon to make, to rescue the country in which they live from the misfortune with which the hand of God has visited it. I shall say no more till that Bill comes before us; but I desire once more to have it distinctly understood that all these measures do not proceed upon the principle of taking upon ourselves the principal part in the sustentation of the people of Ireland, but upon the principle of assisting them in the situation in which they have the misfortune now to be placed. I thought it

1235
due to the Government of the country—I thought it due to the liberality of vast majorities of the other House of Parliament, as evinced in recent discussions—I thought it due to that liberality, which beyond the doors of both Houses of Parliament has marked the public sentiment and general feeling upon this subject, to say this much as to the steps taken by Government, under a conviction that this was not the moment to call upon the poor to maintain themselves, when deprived of the means of maintaining themselves, but that it was the moment to administer a loyal, a generous, a just relief to those persons in their misfortune.
Petition read and laid upon the Table.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYhaving presented a petition from a board of guardians in the county of Down, complaining of the present mode of assessment, said it was not his intention to offer a single observation upon the subject, to which their Lordships' attention had been called, after that most eloquent speech delivered by the noble Marquess. He hoped that what they had heard would at least have the effect of inducing the noble and learned Lord, in the interval before the new Poor Law Bill came up to them, to abstain making his animadversions night after night.

THE CROWN JEWELS.
VISCOUNT STRANGFORDsaid, in accordance with the permission he had obtained from the courtesy of the noble Marquess, he was desirous of asking a question regarding a matter which had been for a long time the subject of negotiation between this Court and that of Hanover. He alluded to the long-protracted discussion on the subject of the jewels claimed by both parties. If this matter related exclusively to the illustrious parties interested, he need not say that a feeling of respect and propriety would lead him to abstain from all allusion to it; but, in point of fact, it had now become what might be called a State question, and, as such, it was possible that one day or other it might affect that perfect cordiality which, on every account it was so desirable to maintain between two countries so situated. Their Lordships must not think that he overrated the value and importance of this cordiality, when he reminded them that they had lately had a very remarkable proof of it, when the old English feelings and predilections of the Sovereign of Hanover induced him to en-
1236
deavour, at all hazards—and he must be allowed to tell their Lordships that some of them were very great—to resist the introduction into his dominions of a system of commercial restriction highly hostile and prejudicial to the interests and industry of his native land. It was not, then, as a matter of personal right that he brought this matter forward; but under the constitution of the country in which the King of Hanover lived, he was bound to assert the rights of his Crown, and of those who might succeed him; and the estates of his kingdom were equally bound to see that he did fulfil that duty. Into the question of law respecting rights it became him (Viscount Strangford) in no way to enter; he might say that he knew very little of law beyond that very generally known maxim—that nine points of it were comprised in the word possession. Looking at this as a public, and not as a private matter, he hoped he might, without indiscretion, venture to ask the noble Marquess in what state the question was, and whether there was any objection to the production of such communications as might have taken place between the two Governments respecting the Crown jewels of the late King?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEcertainly should not object to give the noble Viscount the information for which he asked, and that was to answer the question, in what state the matter stood, whilst he at the same time should most decidedly object to the production of any documents upon the subject. He must premise to the information he was about to give their Lordships, a remark that this was a question in which the public of this country was in no way directly interested, any further than it must be concerned and interested in anything that affected the personal interests and personal feelings of the illlustrious Person who sat on the Throne. The spirit of the case was this. It was pretty well known to many of their Lordships, as well as to the noble Viscount himself, that for many years this discussion had now been going on. After the decease of the late King of England, it appeared that a certain doubt arose respecting the right of property in a very considerable amount of jewels which had belonged to the Crown of Hanover, which had belonged to George III., and to her late Majesty Queen Charlotte. Great doubt arose, and it became a very complicated question to determine in whom the right of possession of all those jewels rested, that right

1237
being different with respect to different descriptions of those jewels, and it being extremely difficult to separate those questions which might affect the various rights of the House of Hanover in the first instance, of his late Majesty King George III., or of her late Majesty Queen Charlotte, to dispose of those jewels. Under these circumstances, certain proceedings were instituted in the courts of justice, more particularly touching the right to jewels held under Queen Charlotte's will, whilst a diplomatic correspondence was commenced with the Hanoverian Government with reference to those supposed to belong to the Crown of Hanover. But after a certain time those illustrious parties adopted a course he thought alike creditable to themselves and becoming the particular situation in which they were placed, both as respected the public and as respected their position towards each other. They determined, instead of having recourse to courts of justice, to request three of the most eminent lawyers in this country to become arbiters in the questions to whom those jewels belonged, and to whom they should be assigned, binding themselves, not by law, because by law they could not bind themselves, but binding themselves in honour to abide by that decision. Those three eminent lawyers, for some time, investigated this question, and in the summer of 1846 they came to a determination as to the nature of a report which they were to present relating to those questions. They had determined upon the substance of such a report; but at the very moment that report was about to be put into a formal shape, the Lord Chief Justice Tindal, who was one of those commissioners, died—the others being Lord Lyndhurst and Lord Langdale. This put a stop to the case. It had been subsequently proposed by the Court of Hanover that the two remaining commissioners should choose a third, and proceed to make a decision. An objection, and a sound objection, was taken, that this would involve a reconsideration of the whole case, and of all the arguments and proceedings which had been held. It was then proposed by Her Majesty's Government, in the name of Her Majesty, to the Court of Hanover, that, it being notorious that the three commissioners had been unanimous in their opinion with respect to one description of those jewels, namely, those which had been in the possession, and were supposed to have belonged, to her late Majesty Queen Char-
1238
lotte, the two commissioners being enabled to state distinctly what had been the opinion of the three, including the opinion of the eminent person deceased, this should be acted upon and adopted as a decision of the commissioners, and with this it was proposed to have a fresh inquiry with respect to the other branch which then remained to be investigated. That proposition was not agreeable to the Court of Hanover. That was the proposition, however, made by Her Majesty's Government in the name of Her Majesty, and which at this moment had been again placed under the consideration of the Court of Hanover. That their Lordships might be enabled to take a correct view of this subject, he hoped he might be permitted to read the declaration made by the two surviving commissioners, after the loss of their colleague, containing the unanimous opinion of those commissioners on the question:—
"With respect to the jewels which Queen Charlotte found on her arrival in England—as represented by her Majesty—we are all of opinion on the evidence adduced, and have decided that there is no sufficient proof of title in her Majesty to authorize us to report that she had a right to dispose of them by will. This part of the case we considered as decided. With regard to the other class of jewels, those bequeathed by the German will of King George the Second, we have not come to any decision. The subject gave occasion for considerable discussion at our last conference; and before we had an opportunity of again meeting, the sudden death of Chief Justice Tindal, our colleague, occurred, and no further proceedings have since taken place on the commission. It is possible, after the decision respecting this second class of jewels, that there might have still remained some points, as to the identity of certain of the jewels requiring further consideration."
This was the decision of the commissioners, which was unanimous as to one particular class of jewels, namely, those bequeathed by her late Majesty Queen Charlotte. As to the second class, it had been Her Majesty's wish that a fresh communication should be made with respect to putting the matter in the course of inquiry, he meant as to those jewels of minor amount which belonged to the House of Hanover, and were bequeathed by George II. He had now put their Lordships in possession of all the facts; but he would again remind them that the subject was one in which Parliament and the public of this country had no concern. He had not thought it right to withhold the information the noble Lord desired: but having stated the facts exactly as they now stood, he considered the more proper course now would be to abstain from anything like in-

1239
terference in the matter on the part of Parliament, and inclined to the hope that their Lordships would not do anything which might influence arrangements for a just and equitable decision which should should receive the consent of all parties.
LORD BROUGHAMwould just say, in justice to the King of Hanover, that he did not think the Court of Hanover called upon to take this judgment of the commissioners as if it were an award made, when, in fact, the award had not been made. Till an arbitration was over, no one could tell but there might be a change of opinion in the arbitrators; and the decision of the second point might in this case have influenced that upon the first. The best course would be to appoint a third person in the place of Chief Justice Tindal, and let him take the statement of the two surviving arbitrators, and form his opiniou.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEdid not at all mean to say that the King of Hanover was bound to give way, but only that the proposition was made to him; it was quite open to him in honour either to to accede to it or decline it.
LORD BROUGHAMwas sure the noble Marquess so meant, that the Court of Hanover was not bound, even morally or in candour.
The LORD CHANCELLORremarked that the noble Viscount had referred to the saying, "that possession is nine points of the law." If it was meant to insinuate that any use was likely to be made by Her Majesty of the fact of possession, that insinuation was utterly unfounded. The history of the proceeding, the gratuitous offer to refer the whole to three persons selected for the purpose, and approved by both parties, with the entire determination, of course, of abiding by their opinion—these things negatived the existence of any intention of abiding by the fact of possession. A reference had been adopted for the purpose of really ascertaining what were the rights of the parties, and of acting upon the determination arrived at by the individuals selected. The noble Viscount might be perfectly satisfied that the maxim alluded to did not apply to this case.
House adjourned.