Sitting of 4 May 1814

GOVERNOR GORE.
Mr. Whitbreadrepeated his inquiries respecting the civil governor of Upper Canada, who, he was informed, had been absent two years from his command, and yet received all the emoluments of it.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he was happy to have an opportunity of answering the hon. member's question. Governor Gore had received leave of absence for three months previously to the breaking out of hostilities between this country and America. Immediately upon that event taking place, he expressed his wish to return; but if he had returned, he would, from the nature of his office, have had the command of the militia of Upper Canada. It was thought better, however, that the person who commanded the regular forces should also command the militia, and therefore it was intimated to governor Gore that his return to his government was not immediately required. The hon. member had been misinformed with respect to the emoluments; he only received one half.
Mr. Creeveyrose to ask a question re-

649
specting Mr. Le Marchant. He was informed, that he had been suspended, some time back, by lord Palmerston, the secretary at war, he (Mr. Le Marchant) being then paymaster of the foreign depôts. He wished to know what had occurred since to render him fit for the place he had recently been appointed to.
No answer was given.
Mr. Whitbreadprofessed himself not satisfied with the reply of the hon. member respecting governor Gore. He thought it was not a creditable account to give to the House; and if the nature of the office was such, that the civil governor of a colony was to be recalled, and placed upon half-pay, in the event of a war happening in such colony, he thought there ought to be some alteration made.
Mr. Goulburncontended, that it would be very hard upon governor Gore, if he had been required to abandon his post because government did not think it expedient that he should return to it at a particular crisis of political affairs there.
Mr. Whitbread.—Then, if the governor had been upon the spot at the time the war with America broke out, it would have been the duty of government to have recalled him, and given him half-pay?
Mr. Goulburn.—It certainly would not have been the duty of government to do so.
Mr. P. Mooreasked, whether governor Gore had not been recalled for misdemeanors?
Mr. Goulburn.—Certainly not.

CAPTAIN COLVILLE.
Mr. Whitbreadbegged leave to call the attention of the House once more to the case of this individual; to inquire if he was alive; and if alive, whether he had been released. He thought the present state of Europe was such as no longer to justify his detention.
Mr. Goulburncould not take upon himself to say whether he was alive or not; but he had had a conversation respecting him with the Secretary of State for the home department.
Mr. Peelinformed the hon. member, that he certainly was alive, but he did not know what was the intention of government with regard to his liberation.

PRISONERS OF WAR.
Mr. Wynnwished to draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to an omission which he considered as remarkable, in the convention between this country and France. In the article relating to the exchange of prisoners, it
650
had been usual to stipulate, that the exchange should take place upon the said prisoners paying whatever debts they might have contracted. It was so stipulated in the Preliminary Treaty of 1801. In the present Convention, however, this had been omitted; and the omission he knew had caused considerable uneasiness in several parts of the country where the prisoners resided; as more than ordinary credit had been granted to them, relying upon such a stipulation in the event of a peace. He thought the omission could not have occurred without some reason; and to remove the apprehensions that existed, some explanation, of it was desirable.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was not prepared to give any precise explanation upon the subject, as it was one that would be for the consideration of the respective governments.

SUBSIDIARY TREATIES, &C.
Mr. Whitbreadobserved, that the right hon. gentleman had not yet given any notice of the day when he meant to move the consideration of the Treaties of Subsidy and Alliance in a Committee of Supply. He hoped he would give ample notice to allow time for any member to move for those papers relating to the negociations at Chatillon, the knowledge of which was become more necessary now than ever. According to the second article of those treaties it was stipulated, that upon the refusal, by the late emperor of France, to accede to certain proposals, certain acts were to be done by the contracting parties. How could they know what these proposals were, without the communication of the papers referred to? There was another and a most extraordinary treaty also, of which no mention had been made, though he wished to know whether it was in existence, and likely to be laid before the House. He alluded to a treaty, signed on the 11th of April, with the late emperor of France, by all the allies, except England; and in furtherance of the stipulations of which treaty, an English officer was now acting, by superintending the removal of Buonaparté from France to the island of Elba. There might be good reasons for not communicating this treaty to the House; but he wished to know whether such a treaty was in existence, and whether the government intended to refuse it or not.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply

651
to the first question of the hon. member, said, that he should certainly give sufficient notice for considering the treaties in a Committee of Supply. With regard to the other treaty he could only say, that he had no doubt all the engagements into which this country had entered would be duly communicated to parliament.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he had received no reply to his questions. He would repeat them. Was there such a treaty in existence? Was the English minister required to sign it, and did he refuse to do so? Was not a British officer now acting in furtherance of its stipulations by attending Buonapartè to the coast?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, they were questions which he did not think it proper to answer.
In reply to another question put by Mr. Wynn to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting the prisoners of war, we understood him to reply, that the arrangement with regard to their debts would take place previously to their embarkation.

SINKING FUND.
Mr. P. Grenfellrose to make his promised motion for papers respecting the Sinking Fund; and after having defended himself from the charge made against him by the hon. member for Surrey, of having misrepresented the opinion of Mr. Pitt on the clause in Mr. Fox's Bill on that subject, was proceeding to read an extract from the debates of that period; when the Speaker submitted to the House how far such a proceeding would be consistent with their usages. A short conversation on this subject ensued, in which Mr. Thornton, Mr. Tierney, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Whitbread, and Mr. Bankes participated. Mr. Grenfell then resumed his speech, read the extract to which he had alluded, and concluded by moving, "That there be laid before this House, an account of all monies expended by the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, together with the amount of capital stock obtained for the same in any of the public funds, bearing interest at 3l. per cent. per ann., from the commencement of the year 1793 to the end of the year 1801."
Mr. Huskissonapplauded the object of the hon. mover; and took the opportunity to recommend to government, now that the happy discontinuance of war would enable them to do so, the utmost vigilance and economy in the domestic expenditure of the country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerperfectly coincided in the propriety of the recommendation of his hon. friend. In one respect, however, it was the intention of government to propose an increase of expenditure. The country owed a vast debt of gratitude to our brave army and navy for those glorious efforts by which the contest in which we had been engaged was at length brought to a successful termination. That debt ought to be in some degree diminished by an attention to the comforts of those gallant men; and it was therefore in contemplation to propose an increase of their half pay.
The motion was then agreed to, as were also the following:
1. That there be laid before this House, an account of the average price, in money, at which every 100 l. of the said capital stock has been obtained in each year respectively. 2. An account showing the price, in money, payable for every 100 l. capital stock (without distinguishing between the reduced annuities and the consolidated annuities), by every contributor to the loans raised for the public service, from the commencement of the year 1793 to the end of the year 1801. 3. An account of the money expended by the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, together with the amount of the capital stock obtained for the same in any of the public funds, bearing interest at 3l. per cent. per ann., between the 12th of June 1813, and the latest period to which the same can be made up. 4. An account of the average price, in money, at which every 100 l. of the said capital stock has been thus obtained during the same period. 5. An account of all monies actually expended by the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt in the purchase of capital stock in each year, from the 1st of February 1793 to the 1st of February 1814. 6. An account of the amount, in money, raised by loans for the public service in each year, from the 1st of February 1793 to the 1st of February, 1814.

SLAVE TRADE
Lord Grenvillerose to call their lordships' attention to the subject of the African Slave Trade. It had been for some time his intention to propose to the House to agree to an Address to the Prince Regent, requesting his Royal Highness, in the course of the negociations for the restoration of a general peace, to use his endeavours to procure from the allied sovereigns, and whatever other powers might be parties to the negociation, a renunciation of the African Slave Trade. He had delayed it till now, however, in consequence of an understanding that a similar proposition was to be moved in the other House, and then to be sent up to their lordships for their concurrence. It appeared, that the matter had taken there a different course; from some objection in point of form, he believed. He therefore thought it right to delay his proposition no longer, being most anxious to obtain their lordships' concurrence in a resolution
648
which he trusted would be unanimously adopted, as it had been unanimously agreed to in the other House. It would be a libel on their lordships' House to imagine that they could desire to remain behind in their exertions to promote an object in every point of view so desirable. It was for this reason, anticipating no objection from any quarter, that he now gave notice, that he should to-morrow submit a proposition to their lordships to agree to an Address of the nature which he had stated. If he had thought that there was any likelihood of opposition, he should certainly have conceived it his duty, from respect to their lordships, and the importance of the subject, to have given a longer notice; and if any intimation should be given him that there was any intention in any quarter to oppose the proposition, he should still give a longer notice. Not anticipating any objection, however, nor any opposition which was likely to create debate, and in the hope of an unanimous concurrence on the part of their lordships, he should submit the proposition for the Address to-morrow; and moved that the House be summoned.
The House was accordingly ordered to be summoned for to-morrow.