Sitting of 17 July 1820

CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
Mr. Plunkettsaid, he held two petitions in his hand, relative to the claims of his Roman Catholic fellow subjects, which he did not mean at present to lay before the House. He would not expatiate on the subject to which those petitions related, but would rather apply himself to explain why he did not now intend to bring them forward. One of those petitions was from the Ro-

497
man Catholic inhabitants of certain parishes in Dublin. It was numerously and most respectably signed, and complained of the civil disabilities by which the Roman Catholics were affected. The other petition was generally signed on behalf of the whole Roman catholic population of Ireland. The signatures to it were extremely numerous; and he thought he did not state too much when he said that it spoke the general sentiments of the Roman Catholics of the sister country. He did not mean to make any motion on this subject in the present session. He had come to this determination, after giving the matter the best consideration in his power. He felt that, while the momentous question which was now before parliament and the public remained undisposed of, he should be wanting in the respect that was due to the throne, to the parliament, and to the country, if he were to distract their attention by introducing so important a question as the rights of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The present crisis of the country was one, he conceived, of extreme embarrassment, big with great public calamity, and therefore requiring the undivided attention of every honest and conscientious man. Under such circumstances, he should ill discharge his duty, if he introduced any measure that could distract the attention of parliament from the great question to which he had alluded, or which could tend in any degree to disturb or agitate the public mind. He would not, therefore, bring forward, at present, the claims of the Roman Catholics. At the same time he must say, that the question connected with those petitions was one not only of such deep interest to the county, but of such pressing urgency, that it would not be proper to keep it back for any protracted period.

BARRACK AGREEMENT BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the report of the above bill be now received.
Mr. Calcraftfelt himself compelled to renew his opposition to this measure. The right hon. gentleman had told them, that, unless this bargain was completed, the Horse-Guards would be without barracks. This he denied; because they might still occupy the barracks which they previously had. The right hon. gentleman had thrown the blame of this proceeding on the contractor, who was
498
said to have gone on with the work hastily. That, however, could not be; because the ground on which the barracks were building was the property of the Crown, and it was impossible that it could have been placed in the contractor's possession except by the officers of the Crown. The contractor denied that he proceeded on his own risk, and declared that he acted under the contract signed by government before parliament knew any thing of the matter. He had also to object, that this proceeding had not been conducted on the principle of competition. Competition, however, there was none. The present was a most improper time for the expenditure of the public money on any object that could be foregone. If barracks were really wanted, they could be procured for infinitely less than the sum now about to be laid out. He could see no necessity for the measure; and if the House threw the matter back to government, they would find that the plan would be reduced to something like a proper scale.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer defendedthe contract, as an eligible one for the public.
Mr. Wilsoncontended, that 5,400 l. per annum, was too great a rent for the premises in question. The contract was made at the rate of 7½ per cent, which was most exorbitant.
Mr. Leonardwas bound to oppose a measure which would, for many years, cost the country 5,400 l. per annum for bare walls. He could not see any necessity for going to such an extraordinary expense for a regiment consisting only of 400 men and 300 horses.
The question being put, "That the report be now received," the House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 74.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

Denison, Wm.

Allen, John H.

Duncannon, visc.

Anson, hon. G.

Dundas, C.

Aubrey, sir John

Ebrington, viscount

Barrett, S. M.

Evans, Wm.

Bernal, Ralph

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Bright, H.

Fitzgerald, lord W.

Buxton, Fowell

Fleming, John

Boughton, W. R.

Glenorchy, lord

Bennet, John

Graham, J. R. G.

Calthorpe, hon. F.

Haldimand, Wm.

Calvert, C.

Hamilton, lord A.

Campbell, hon. J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Clifford, Aug.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Concannon, lord

Hughes, W. L.

Davies, T. H.

Hume, Jos.

499

Hutchinson, C. H.

Robinson, sir G.

Langston, J. H.

Rowley, sir W.

Lemon, sir W.

Rumbold, C.

Lushington, Dr.

Russell, lord W.

Lennard, T. B.

Russell, R. G.

Lockhart, J. J.

Smith, Robt.

Martin, John

Scudamore, R.

Maxwell, J.

Sefton, earl of

Monck, J. B.

Titchfield, marq.

Moore, Peter

Townshend, lord C.

Mostyn, sir T.

Taylor, M. A.

Nugent, lord

Western, C. C.

Ord, Wm.

Wells, J.

Ossulston, visc.

Whitbread, W. H.

Parnell, sir H.

Whitbread, Sam.

Pares, Thos.

Williams, W.

Peirse, Henry

Wood, M.

Powlett, hon. W.

Wynn, sir W.W.

Price, Rt.

Wilson, sir R.

Prittie, hon. F. A.

TELLERS.

Pryse, P.

Calcraft, J.

Robarts, Abr.

Wilson, T.

Robarts, G.

CITY PETITION—THE QUEEN.
Mr. Sheriff Rothwellappeared at the bar, and presented the petition relative to the proceedings against the queen, which had this day been agreed to by the lord-mayor, aldermen, and commoners of the city of London, in common-council assembled.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, the petition was agreed to by a very large majority of the common-council. Indeed, scarcely ten hands had been held up against it.
The petition was read. The petitioners stated, that they had learned, with great regret, that a bill of Pains and Penalties had been introduced in the House of Lords against her majesty, having for its object to degrade her from her rank, and to dissolve the marriage between her and his majesty. That the principle on which this measure was founded was never resorted to except in the worst of times; and the petitioners could not but express their sorrow that it was brought forward on evidence that would not be received in ordinary cases. The petitioners contemplated with great satisfaction the caution observed by this hon. House, in the course of a proceeding which tended to lower the dignity of the Crown, and to endanger the peace of the country. In conclusion, the petitioners prayed the House to reject the bill if it should come before them.

MOTION RESPECTING THE QUEEN'S PLATE.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid:—I rise, in pursuance of the notice which I gave to the House on Saturday, to move an
500
address to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House copies of all official papers relative to the service of plate presented, in 1808, by his late majesty to her majesty the queen, then princess of Wales. It is a matter of regret to me, that any intention should have been supposed to exist on my part to take the House by surprise in the motion which I then made. On the contrary, it was my most anxious desire to afford every opportunity for explanation to his majesty's ministers. I was aware that my hon. and learned freind, the solicitor-general of the queen, had made the earliest communication upon the subject to the noble lord, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, and in consequence of that communication I gave less notice than I should otherwise have done; but I utterly deny any wish or intention on my part to take the House by surprise, and I am perfectly convinced, that if either in fact Or in intention any such circumstance had taken place, it would have received the heaviest displeasure of her majesty the queen. The reason that I was anxious on Saturday not to postpone the motion, notwithstanding the absence of the noble lord, was, that I was not aware the House would sit to-morrow, and that I was therefore apprehensive no other opportunity would occur of introducing the subject.—Having now, I trust, set myself right with the House upon this point, I shall shortly detail the circumstances upon which the motion with which it is my intention to conclude is founded. In the year 180S, his late majesty was graciously pleased to order, for the use of her majesty the queen, then princess of Wales, a service of plate. The service was made after her majesty's own taste, and was presented by the king himself to her majesty, for her use and enjoyment. The order came through the lord chamberlain; the service was paid for by the lord chamberlain; and till the year 1814 her majesty continued in possession of the plate, without question or control. At that period her majesty was residing in apartments in Kensington palace, and upon her quitting that residence for the continent, the plate was delivered over by her to Mr. Mash, of the lord Chamberlain's office, with an express understanding and an entire belief on her part, that it was the property of her majesty, and that if ever she returned to this country

501
it would be reclaimed for her use. Upon her return to this country, her majesty found herself without any one of those articles which could contribute to her use, comfort or enjoyment. She found herself in a state of destitution, which, I believe and hope, for the honour of the country, is utterly unprecedented in the case of any queen of England.—Under these circumstances, her majesty being not only without a residence, but being literally without any one article for her daily use, was pleased to direct that an application should be made to Mr. Mash for the service of plate. Mr. Mash replied, that he did not conceive himself authorized to deliver the plate to her majesty without the authority of the lord chamberlain. Upon application being made to the lord chamberlain, that noble lord replied to her majesty's lady in waiting in the following terms:—"The lord chamberlain availed himself of the earliest occasion to bring the subject of the note with which he was honoured by lady Anne Hamilton before the king; and it having been ascertained by official documents, that the plate in question is Crown property, his majesty was not pleased to issue any orders for removing it from the jewel office where it is deposited." Such being the answer of the lord chamberlain, I trust I shall not be considered guilty of any indecorum, or of any breach of that most valuable order of this House, which prohibits members from adverting in any manner to the name of the king, if I treat the letter of the lord chamberlain as having received the sanction and authority of his majesty's ministers. I shall treat it as having issued from the noble lord himself, and I do believe and trust the noble lord will consent to that view of the question, and not be induced, as some others have been, to shake responsibility from his own shoulders upon persons who are wholly irresponsible. At the same time, I must certainly say, that if I were to confess my own honest sentiments, I am persuaded the liberal and gentlemanly disposition of the noble lord would never have dictated such advice as appears to have been given from the contents of this letter, but that it must have emanated from some person anxious to raise himself by the depression of her majesty, and base enough to stoop to the disgusting task of irritating the royal mind to acts which can only tend to the degradation of the Crown, and to the injury of the best interests of the
502
country.—With respect to the course which has been pursued upon the present occasion, it appears to me that there are only two possible grounds or rather surmises, for they do not deserve the name of grounds, upon which his majesty's advisers can have proceeded. The first is that the plate was bonâfide the property of the Crown; that it was purchased by the lord chamberlain for the Crown; that it was never for a moment divested out of the Crown; that it was strictly a loan to her majesty; and therefore, that though her majesty enjoyed the use of it, that permission was an indulgence on the part of the Crown, and might be put an end to whenever the Crown pleased. In the first place, admitting that this plate was bonâfide the property of the Crown, I shall require something more than bare assertion, to believe, that when the plate was delivered to her majesty, it was intended that she should only have a qualified use and enjoyment of it. Such a supposition is contrary to all past experience; for when plate has been ordered by the lord chamberlain, paid for by the lord chamberlain, and delivered to princes of foreign states, and ambassadors, is there any instance in which such a construction has been set up, or in which a demand of restitution has been made? But if the present was supposed to be accompanied with any condition, it is a little extraordinary that the Crown should have thought proper to order that the plate should be manufactured according to the taste and fancy of her majesty. In my humble opinion it is not very respectful to the memory of his late majesty, to suppose that he should have annexed any conditions to an act of bounty to her majesty, to whom upon all occasions he had evinced his most gracious favour and protection. But admitting that there was an understanding that if her majesty went abroad she should forfeit for a time the use of this plate, I will put it to the House whether, in common decency and common sense, it ought to be refused to her upon her return? Is it consistent with either justice or feeling, that because her majesty is accused she should be treated as if she were condemned; and that before any investigation has taken place, she should be thrown into a situation of degradation and disgrace? Is it just or manly to condemn her majesty to a situation, in which she is not only prevented from enjoying her high rights and

503
privileges as a sovereign, but even from possessing those ordinary comforts to which an English lady is entitled? God have mercy upon the heart of that man who was capable of suggesting to his majesty such advice, who could so far forget what was due to himself and his sovereign as to recommend measures tending to involve the Crown in disgrace, and excite indignation from one end of the country to the other. The people of England feel this—if the queen has been guilty of any misconduct, the time will soon arrive when her fate is to be decided; let her be tried openly, honestly, and according to due course of law; but God forbid that she should be vexed with these mean and petty insults. There is one other view of this subject which I hardly dare to anticipate in my own mind, and to which I shall merely advert to as a case which is barely possible; I mean, that when the plate was presented to her majesty, she was afemme couverte, and consequently not legally capable of holding property for herself. I cannot believe that this will be stated in argument on the other side, because I cannot suppose it possible that his majesty, who has been so long separated from the queen, could ever be persuaded to avail himself of such a plea. I pray this House to consider whether I am not founded in calling upon it to render its aid and assistance to her majesty under these circumstances. If the decision of this subject were left to the judgment and feeling of the noble lord, un-biassed by any other consideration, such are the sentiments which I entertain of the noble lord's liberality, that I am confident he would be the first man in this House to repudiate a course which can have no other effect than to insult and to irritate. Had the right hon. colleague of the noble lord been present (and I did hope that the right hon. gentleman would not have left the House before this question was brought under discussion) I might have appealed to him, with the certainty of obtaining the powerful aid and assistance of one, who has expressed his regard and affection for her majesty. I think the House will not expect me to press this subject farther, or to enter into the minute details of her majesty's household arrangements. I shall only add, that at the present moment there is not a single article in her majesty's possession which is not hired, and which is not utterly unadapted to her rank and station. I hope the
504
House will feel this, and give me credit for stating the truth without entering into further particulars. Feeling, as I do, that the domestic concerns of any branch of the royal family can never be pryed into with a nice and scrutinizing eye, without infinite injury and detriment to the best interests of the country, I trust the noble will spare me the necessity of persevering in this course, not by coming forward with reasons of state, but by admitting that the circumstances of this case have been misapprehended, and by giving an assurance that an order will be immediately issued for the restitution of her majesty's property. Sure I am that if this course be adopted by the noble lord, it will be congenial to the feelings of a great majority of this House, and most satisfactory to the people of this country. I shall conclude by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, copies of all Official Papers relating to a Service of Plate presented to her majesty the queen by his late majesty, in 1808, and used by her majesty till her departure from England in 1814."
Lord Castlereaghregretted very much that he should have been absent on Saturday when the hon. and learned gentleman first made this motion; but still more did he lament both the mode in which it had been brought forward, and the course which the hon. and learned gentleman had thought fit to adopt in his absence. He certainly had received a letter from the queen's solicitor-general, communicating the intention to bring this motion on; but he would leave it to the judgment of the House to decide whether it was customary to submit a motion to parliament on a subject so immediately connected with the interior economy of the royal family, without having previously exhausted every other reasonable means of attaining the object in view, and whether such a course was likely to produce the desired effect. He would not impute any improper motives to the hon. and learned gentleman. The hon. and learned gentleman had been pleased to give him credit for entertaining proper feelings and sentiments on the subject, and he was disposed to render to the hon. and learned gentleman the same justice; but, with every disposition to view the hon. and learned gentleman's conduct fairly and liberally,

505
he was unable to reduce it to the standard of fair parliamentary dealing, and he was sure that in the hon, and learned gentleman's place he should have acted a different part. Would it not have been more consistent with a fair parliamentary course of proceeding, if the hon. and learned gentleman had abstained from making an actual motion at a time when there was no individual minister of the Crown present who could give any information on the subject? The hon. and learned gentleman was no doubt placed in a peculiar situation, in which he must be supposed to act under the directions of others, although he (lord Castlereagh) did not know of whom. Though he was bound to believe that the hon. and learned gentleman had been influenced solely by a sense of duty, yet when he considered the course which had been taken by the hon. and learned gentleman on Saturday, and heard the acrimony of remark in which the hon. and learned gentleman had just indulged, he must say that the hon. and learned gentleman could not have acted otherwise if his object had been to aggravate the feelings of the people, and to stimulate the worst part of the populace to expressions of discontent, and to repeat those acts of outrage of which he had himself been an eye-witness, and in the course of which even the palace of the sovereign had been insulted. If the hon. and learned gentleman had even used the diligence which became him as an advocate, he could not have come down and made a speech so remarkable for gross ignorance of the subject, and so pregnant with remarks calculated to act as firebrands out of that House. He thought, therefore, it was not too much to say, that when he himself was not in the House, the hon. and learned gentleman should have ascertained of his right hon. friend whether he could give him any information on the subject before he made his motion; and that he should not have made any observations calculated to do so much mischief, or put any questions on the subject of these papers, till a minister of the Crown was present who could answer them. The very fact of his (lord Castlereagh's) absence (and he charged himself of course with the responsibility of not being in the House to do his duty) ought to have restrained the hon. and learned gentleman. Standing in the situation in which he did, he was bound to express his feelings on the occasion;
506
and in doing so, he hoped he had not expressed himself more strongly than the nature of the case required. He came now to consider the circumstance on account of which the House were to have their feelings tortured, and the public mind was to be excited, by statements apparently made for the purpose of carrying forward that system of inflaming the passions of the people, which seemed to be so steadily acted upon. He should state to the House what he knew of this transaction; and in doing so he could assure the hon. and learned gentleman that he was not actuated by any desire to avoid the responsibility which he might be thought to have incurred. About three weeks ago (and it was not an unimportant feature of the case that it was of three weeks' standing, notwithstanding the pressing haste which prevented the learned gentleman from waiting two days), before the question took an official shape, a communication was received by his noble friend at the head of his majesty's government, from the lord chamberlain, stating that her majesty had applied for the restoration of this plate. His noble friend said, in answer, that it was not intended to refuse the queen either a proper residence, or furniture becoming her station; and that when a place of residence was fixed on, the question of plate and furniture would be considered at the same time. He was sure the sense of the House and of the country would bear him out when he declared, that if, on the queen's arrival in this country, she had conducted herself with that feeling which became her sex, and that dignity which became her station, there was no person who would not have wished her majesty to receive every thing that could conduce to her comfort and convenience under her present situation. But when her majesty condescended to listen to the meanest advisers—when she suffered herself to become an instrument in the hands of the basest populace of the country, who presumed to insult the palace of her sovereign and her husband, as he (lord Castlereagh) had the misfortune of personally witnessing, he had no hesitation to declare, in defiance of every taunt that the hon. and learned gentleman might throw out in that House or elsewhere, that he should show himself to be insensible to the dignity of his station as a minister of the Crown, if he were to compromise its

507
honour by advising his sovereign to become the dupe of such arts. It her majesty's present residence in town was not a suitable one, he was persuaded that no difficulty would be thrown in the way of making an arrangement by which her majesty might find herself—not indeed in a royal palace—but in such a residence as her present circumstances might lead her to desire. But when the question was taken up m this manner,—when the hon. and learned gentleman came down to the House to make a garbled statement— which he believed the hon. and learned gentleman would not have made had he not been misled—he felt it to be his duty, and he thought the House would think it was its duty, not to enter into every quarrel which might be raised by a discontented member of the royal family; for, if the House were disposed to entertain these questions, they would soon have an ample harvest of such discussions. The hon. and learned gentleman had described this plate as a present to the queen from his late majesty; and a great attempt had now been made, as on other occasions, to embark the character of the late venerable monarch in the question at issue, and to make him an authority for bearing down the proceedings now pending before parliament. The House, he trusted, would guard against this attempt. If assertions were made on the one side, it might be necessary to meet them with assertions on the other; and he would leave the House to judge of the situation in which they would be placed, if called upon to investigate the disputes of the royal family with nothing to guide them but assertions. With respect to the plate in question (which had long been a topic of treasury correspondence), it was so far from being the property of her majesty, as stated by the hon. and learned gentleman, that it was no more the intention of his late majesty to give that plate to the princess of Wales, than it was to give her Kensington palace. His majesty never alienated the Crown possession of this plate, nor could he, of his own personal authority, legally do it. The facts were simply these: his late majesty consented to appropriate a part of Kensington palace for the residence of the present queen, then princess of Wales, and gave the usual orders to have it fitted with every thing suitable for her reception. By tins order property to the amount of about 25,000 l. was appropriated for the use of the royal personage at Ken-
508
sington palace. In this property the plate was included, and so little was it a fact that it was made up by order of the king, and after the taste and fashion of her majesty, that a part of it was the plate of king William's, which was sought for out. of the royal plate, for the purpose of being appropriated to the princess of Wales's use while she resided in Kensington palace. The very entry at the time in the lord chamberlain's books, from whose department, and not from the privy purse, the plate and other articles were furnished, was conclusive upon the manner in which the plate was sent to the royal personage; for the title of the inventory of the plate was gravely and learnedly entered in the books in this manner: "List of his majesty's plate in loan to her royal highness the princess of Wales, in Kensington palace."—[Dr. Lushington: "What is the date?"] He belived the date was in 1814. If the queen, therefore, ever carried this plate from Kensington palace to any other residence, she exercised a discretion in which she was not warranted by the terms of possession she held of it. It was the practice of the members of the royal family, who resided in the royal palaces, to have plate out of the Crown collection furnished them for their use while they so resided, and what was done in the princess of Wales's case at Kensington was merely what was done in similar cases in all the other palaces. But as the hon. and learned gentleman had been pleased to allude to the probable view which his late majesty would take, if he were now alive, of this transaction, it was fair for him to state, which he could do from undoubted authority, the view that the late king did actually take of the matter at the very time of its occurrence. The princess of Wales not being satisfied with the plate, lord Aylesford went to the king and explained this circumstance, afraid that he might have given offence; and the king then stated, that he had no more personal control over that plate than he had over the Crown lands. How the, subject could be revived now, he was utterly at a loss to conjecture. It must have required all the dexterity of her majesty's learned counsel to have brought it under the consideration of parliament. That it came forward under the advice of those hon. and learned gentlemen was evident by the fruits, and pretty fruits they were, which the agitation of the question was so well calculated to produce. If any satis-

509
factory inquiry had been their object, why not have resorted to either his noble friend at the head of his majesty's government, or the lord chamberlain, who would have explained the real state of the case, and afforded every accommodation which her majesty's situation required. Instead, however, of taking this course, they took that which was less likely to lead to a silent result. He held in his hand a copy of the official letter on which this grave proceeding before parliament was founded, and he thought that the reading of it would decide the fate of this the hon. and learned gentleman's first legal effort in this cause. The hon. and learned gentleman had recently asked leave to attend at the bar of the House of Lords, as one of her majesty's counsel, and he could not help hoping that the hon. and learned gentleman's professional exertions there would prove more successful than they were likely to be on the present occasion. The letter was from lady Ann Hamilton, and addressed to the lord chamberlain, in the following terms:—"lady Ann Hamilton is commanded by her majesty queen Caroline to desire Mr. Mash will deliver the silver plate, her property, given her by king George 3rd. to the bearer, John Hieronymous, her majesty's steward."
The lord chamberlain, however, was not so much alive to her majesty's owner-ship as was expected. He would here ob-serve, that the lord chamberlain's answer, which had been read by the hon. and learned gentleman, stating that his majesty had not given any orders for the removal of the plate from the Jewel-office, was so far from being a harsh answer, that it was positively the only one he could give. He again complained of the hon. and learned gentleman, because he either did not understand the question, or had neglected to give it that diligent attention which became a man of business. This was not the first time her majesty had mistaken the real tenure by which she held this plate; which, as he had before stated was merely intended for her use in Kensington Palace. When the princess of Wales was making her arrangements for going to the continent in 1814, she desired her servants to take a more authoritative step than that which lady Ann Hamilton had recently taken under her instructions, for she had actually ordered them to pack up this plate, with the intention of taking it with her. It was actually packed up for that purpose, but was stopped before
510
it could be removed by the following official communication from the lord chamberlain's office:—
"Mr. Mash presents his compliments, and sends an inventory of the king's plate, and requests the same may be immediately packed up for the purpose of being kept in the Jewel-office, until her royal high-ness's return from the continent.'
The plate was accordingly, by this official interposition, prevented from being removed from the country. If it had gone out of the country, he (lord Castle-reagh) did not know—perhaps the hon. and learned gentleman could inform him —by what process it could have been brought back. This, however, was not the only step taken by her majesty, on this subject; as the following notification would explain:—
"Sir William Gell is commanded by the princess of Wales to direct that her royal highness's plate, in the care of the lord chamberlain s department, shall be delivered to Mr. Hooper, her agent, for the purpose of being sent to her as quick as possible, as she has at present an absolute necessity for its use. Dated at Geneva, September 28th, 1814."
The answer given to that application was—
"That the lord chamberlain had no authority to allow any part thereof to be removed, as required by sir William Gell's order."
This was the exact state of the case, which the impatience of the hon. and learned gentleman prevented his taking the pains of ascertaining before he made the motion. So much for "the wretched feeling and degraded system" that was said to have dictated the course pursued at present to her majesty, as if it was the first time the subject was started, and as if it had arisen from the present situation in which her majesty was unhappily placed. He now hoped that the House was aware of the real nature of the case, and that it would perceive for what purpose this question had been agitated. If the only object had been to consult her majesty's personal satisfaction and convenience, his noble friend's answer was surely decisive upon the point—it offered to the queen at once a suitable supply of plate for any residence she might select. He again asserted, that this was an attempt to lacerate the peace of the country, by dragging the present question into discussion. He had thought indeed

511
that the want of success which had hitherto attended such attempts would prevent their recurrence; but as this was unhappily not the case, he trusted the House would mark with reprobation this effort to involve it in discussions which must bring into view those details which they could not lay open with either propriety or delicacy to the royal family, and which certainly could not be made matter of discussion there with any advantage to any of the parties concerned. He confessed that he had been provoked to, forget his duty; and a minister could not be guilty of a greater neglect of it than by entering so much into a detail of circumstances that ought to be left to the conduct of the Crown itself, and which were never intended to be made the subject of parliamentary inquiry. If this question could even be shown, by any tortured construction, to affect her majesty's comfort, under her present circumstances, the queen's advisers ought to know that his majesty's ministers were not inaccessible to such claims. Every convenience which they thought proper to ask for the comfort of her najesty would freely be given. Why, then, did they not in this case resort to that channel for information? Why, too, wait a for night after the answer of the lord chamberlain to lady Ann Hamilton's letter (which he owned he considered a most extraordinary application) and then not wait a day for the presence of a minister in his place to give a necessary explanation? If the hon. and learned gentleman had waited so long, he might have seen the propriety of not rushing into such a question, without himself consulting those persons who were likely to give him accurate information respecting the transaction. That course the hon. and learned gentleman had been certainly bound to take before he introduced a topic so little calculated to add to the dignity or honour of the Crown, or the character of the country. But, instead of communicating previously with the ministers of the Crown the hon. and learned gentleman had even brought the matter forward when he knew there were none of them in the House who had any information on the subject. The agitation of such a topic, in the absence of proper information, could only have a tendency to lower the dignity of her majesty, or to create, if that were possible, a disinclination to extend to her whatever indulgences her situation might be susceptible of. He had already said enough to show the de-
512
sire that existed to furnish her majesty with plate, or whatever else might conduce to her personal comfort; but with reference to this Crown plate, she was, as the documents he had read proved, utterly mistaken as to the mode in which it had been intrusted to her. So far from this plate belonging to the queen, her majesty might just as well claim his (lord Castlereagh's) estate, and the king had just as much right to dispose of the one as of the other. The plate consisted of old Crown plate of king William's with other articles, not provided out of the privy purse, but furnished from the lord chamberlain's department, which necessarily made them public, not private property. After what he had said, he was persuaded that the House would cordially join with him in putting a decided negative on the present motion.
Lord Archibald Hamilton,although he was by no means satisfied with all the points of the noble lord's answer, he was ready to admit that in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord upon the subject of this plate, the motion of his hon. and learned friend must fall to the ground. If he understood the noble lord right, he contended that his late majesty had not the power of alienating this Crown plate. If so, of course the queen could put in no claim of property for herself to plate so situated. He was perfectly convinced, however, that if her majesty had not supposed herself invested with the right of possessing this plate, she would never have put in the claim she had done respecting it. Her majesty had evidently all along thought the property to be hers, and provided for her own use. She had ordered it to be packed up; she had subsequently sent for it because she was impressed with that conviction. This opinion it now doubtless appeared was an error. If it were true that the late king never did order this plate for her majesty as a present, then, of course, there was an end to the claim which her majesty believed she had in this property. There were one or two observations, however, which he felt himself under the necessity of making in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord. The noble lord had arraigned the conduct of the hon. and learned member who had introduced this subject very severely, and, he might say, unwarrantably, as coming forward with a complaint of an unusual kind, and unfit for parliamentary investigation, and the noble

513
lord had also put in a claim for the considerate attention due to his majesty's ministers, in consequence of their desire to consult the comfort and convenience of the queen. He (lord Archibald Hamilton) was perfectly ready to admit that such painful subjects as this ought not to be lightly or unnecessarily made matters of discussion in that House; he admitted they were unfit subjects for investigation there, and ought not to be started until all hopes of explanation elsewhere had vanished. But he asked, was not the particular situation of the queen one which prompted her to seek redress for a grievance any where but from his majesty's ministers? What had been the treatment which her majesty had received at their hands? When the noble lord talked of the artful inflammation of the public mind, and of the system by which he said it was kept up, he would ask the noble lord in his turn, to what was that irritation to be traced but to the course pursued against her majesty To what but the unmerited degradation to which ministers at the outset consigned her was this spirit to be ascribed? Need he go back further than the exclusion of her majesty's name from the Liturgy; to show the sort of treatment she had received from those who now wanted to claim credit for their forbearance? When the queen came over to this country had she any suitable residence provided for her? She was refused a proper vessel for her conveyance; she was refused the use of a palace for her establishment. Had she not been from beginning to end exposed to ever degradation and difficulty. He would appeal to any man whether her majesty had even the ordinary means of communication with ministers; and at that moment she was deprived of the aid of her attorney and solicitor-general. But that was not all. She had to complain of injustice, not merely from ministers, but from that portion of the press that favoured their views. When the queen was said to excite clamour, what would be said to the late attack upon her in a morning paper, which maintained the opinions of his majesty's government, and which was understood to receive their protection and support; and in which it had been proclaimed from one end of the kingdom to the other, that her majesty stood in the way of the public peace, and ought to be got rid of, either as a martyr or a criminal. Ought not government to redress the wrong thus inflicted on her ma-
514
jesty? If they had the power to do so, and yet refrained, were they not highly culpable? He repeated, that it appeared from the noble lord's own statement, that every step which had been taken by her majesty respecting this plate, was taken under the firm conviction that the late king had given it to her, and that it was her own. And here he must say, that it would not be inconsistent with the liberal feelings of the noble lord, of the administration generally, or of their royal master, had some means been adopted of supplying her majesty's wants without compelling her to have recourse to the expedient of hiring the necessary appendages to her table. This fact, along with the rest, must go to the public, and added to his firm conviction, that there never was and never could be brought before the House a subject so unfortunate and so injurious as the present to the interests of the royal family and the country at large.
Mr. R. Martinopposed the motion.
Mr. Hutchinsonregretted that a subject like this, which had no connection with the merits of the great case, should be brought forward in the present agitated state of the public feeling. On the question of her majesty's innocence, he wished to be understood as having formed no opinion. He gave great credit to his noble friend for the candour of his avowal, that after the statement of the noble lord, the motion ought not to be persevered in; or, in other words, that the noble lord had made out a complete case. That frank avowal did his noble friend great credit. A more complete answer, or a more incontrovertible case than that of the noble lord, he (Mr. H.) had certainly never heard; at the same time he thought that the decorous manner in which the hon. and learned gentleman had that evening argued the question on his side, was very much to his honour. It would be presumptuous of him to use such language in speaking of the hon. and learned gentleman, did we not live in times in which, in the most grave assemblies, the most indecorous and improper behaviour and arguments were witnessed. From persons so misconducting themselves, the hon. and learned gentleman had honourably distinguished himself. Still, however, he could not help regretting the language which, according to those channels of information, by which what occurred there was so accurately conveyed to the public, had been

515
used by the hon. and learned gentleman on Saturday. In the present inflamed state of the public mind, he certainly regretted, that the hon. and learned gentleman had not better informed himself with respect to the merits of the question, before he ventured (he used the word in a parliamentary sense, and without meaning the slightest disrespect) to introduce into his observations, language not justifiable by the facts of the case; before he stated, that, "of all the despicable, base, petty, contemptible insults and oppressions to which her majesty had been subjected, the present was the most disgraceful." It was much to be lamented, that, in the present state of the public mind, a person of the hon. and learned gentleman's respectable character and talents, should have used language which the noble lord opposite had shown was not justifiable by the facts of the case. Adverting to what had been said by his noble friend who had just sat down, of the public press he declared himself a warm friend to the liberty of the press, so much as even to prefer the abuse of it to any unconstitutional restraint; but he could not help observing without great pain, an attempt, as he considered, made in certain publications to impede the course of justice, by most unjust and disgraceful excitements; and he felt bound to say, that if the constituted authorities possessed the power of punishing publications which no man could read without indignation and horror, it was their duty to do so. The observation of his noble friend on a paragraph before alluded to in that House, which had appeared several days since in the Morning Post, were perfectly justifiable; nothing could be more indefensible than the language of that paragraph relating to her majesty, nor any more revolting to the feelings of every well-constituted mind. He was sorry to observe in other publications, and some of them highly respectable, topics only calculated to heighten the irritation of the public mind, the manner of treating which went the length of encouraging even the destruction of witnesses. If a stranger could imagine that such language as that he adverted to could be used with impunity, his impression must be, that there were neither morals nor law, humanity nor justice, in the country where such proceedings were tolerated. In very recent publications, the witnesses who, to the disgrace of the country, had been maltreated at Dover, were epithetized
516
As "wretches" of "villainous appearance," as "a cargo of human impurity," as "enfans perdus;" that England was too hot to hold them, with a denunciation against their return by no means darkly expressed. Such writings, under the garb of liberality and impartial justice, were in direct hostility to both, and tended to promote that spirit which every honest and enlightened man could not be too forward to restrain. He would again repeat, that he was a sincere friend to the liberty of the press— to economy—to the reform of every abuse, and of that greatest of all, the state of the representation in that House. He was an enemy to Alien acts, and was as anxious as most men to cultivate and merit the approbation of the people; but he as unequivocally declared, that he would most strenuously resist any attempt made to overawe parliament in the discharge of a painful duty; or to effect, by intimidation, that which should now only be obtained after the most patient investigation. Such threats or attempts he would resist with as steady a determination as that which he trusted should always mark his endeavours to obtain for the people a redress of grievances, and for individuals justice, conformable to the true principles of the constitution. He regretted the necessity of saying so much on this subject, and that the present discussion, which he considered most injurious to the cause of her majesty, had been forced upon the consideration of the House. He verily believed, that the present temper and spirit abroad had been created by gross mismanagement in this great pending cause, which, for one, he very much deplored, had not always been concealed from public view; but nevertheless, without wishing now to enter into any retrospective details, it was his conviction that the mismanagement to which he alluded, had mainly excited the present flame and spirit in the public mind. The instant ministers had been in possession, which they now state they were several months ago, of a series of evidence, it was their duty to have immediately instituted proceedings; but on the contrary, their own measures since in this country and elsewhere had effected the mischief deplored by all. He said this however in passing, and not in the spirit of complaint it was now too late, such reflections being now useless. Parliament were now called upon to pronounce between the queen and the country, and at such an awful moment he could not too

517
often deprecate all incitement to confusion. I He agreed fully with that part of the hon. civilian's argument, that the names of illustrious individuals should not be introduced into the debates of that House. The learned civilian had himself most strictly adhered to this line, and which he (Mr. H.) could not but regret had not been pursued by others, who had been reported to have held language as unconstitutional as it was unparliamentary, and as-indecent as it was illiberal. He most sincerely hoped that her majesty, if innocent, would come out of the investigation as pure as her warmest friends could wish her; and that, if she should appear to have been persecuted, punishment and disgrace might be heaped upon her persecutors. But all he asked, and all he demanded, was, justice, and that no means of intimidation should be resorted to, either within these walls or elsewhere, to disturb the great public authorities in the discharge of the painful and sacred duty entrusted to them.
Lord A. Hamilton,in explanation, observed, that his hon. friend had interpreted rather too largely what had fallen from him. What he had said was, that he understood from the statement of the noble lord opposite, that the king neither had given nor could give any plate under the circumstances in which the plate in question was placed. But he coupled with that declaration a statement, that it appeared to him that the inference from the reasoning used by the noble lord was, that the king could on no occasion make a present of plate; from which inference he totally dissented.
Mr. Stuart Wortleydeclared, that he had never entered the House with more painful feelings than on that evening, impressed as he was with the conviction, that if the case which had been stated by the hon. and learned gentleman on Saturday were borne out by the fact, those who had advised his majesty on the occasion had rendered themselves deeply responsible for such advice. It was therefore a great relief to him, it must have been a great relief to the House, and even to the hon. and learned gentleman himself, to hear the satisfactory explanation of the noble lord. He hoped this circumstance would be a lesson to the public and to the House, and that they would guard against the attempts which were constantly making to delude and deceive, and to create a false impression on this subject. He felt called upon to acknowledge that,
518
on some account or other, it did appear that some of the proceedings taken by her majesty were so taken for the express purpose of agitating and inflaming the country. He most conscientiously believed that the hon. and learned gentleman would never have brought the present motion forward if he had known the facts; but it certainly appeared from the noble lord's statement that either the queen, or somebody about her majesty, must have known that her majesty was not entitled to the plate in question, and therefore that the claim was made only to agitate and inflame the public mind.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that it was not competent to the Crown to dispose of any property in the custody of the lord chamberlain, as the property of the Crown, without the sanction of its responsible advisers. If his majesty had been advised by the board of Treasury to dispose of any plate deposited in the Jewel-office, a warrant signed by the Crown and countersigned by the Treasury, would be the only legal instrument for the conveyance of that plate. But in the transaction under consideration, that had not been the case. He (Mr. Huskisson) happened to be in the Treasury in 1808, when orders were given to fit up apartments in Kensington-palace for her majesty, then princess of Wales. Application was made in the usual way to the lord chamberlain, for furniture and other requisites for those apartments, and as a part of those requisities, for a suitable service of plate. The latter part of the application had occasioned a considerable discussion between the lord Chamberlain and the Treasury. He (Mr. Huskisson) had suggested to the lords of the Treasury that it might be desirable, with a view to a diminution of the expense, to ascertain whether there might not be in the possession of the lord chamberlain plate not used. An inquiry was accordingly made, and it was ascertained that the lord chamberlain had in his possession, as property of the Crown, plate which hid not been used since the time of king William. That plate was remodelled, and appropriated to the purpose required. To suppose for a moment that it was a personal present from his late majesty to the princess of Wales was a supposition wholly unsupported by facts. When the plate was delivered, in 1808, an entry (as described by his noble friend) was made by the lord chamberlain, that it was his

519
majesty's plate lent for the specific use of the princess of Wales in Kensington Palace. Such was the ordinary practice. When the duke of Cambridge occupied apartments in St. James's Palace, plate and furniture were sent to him from the lord chamberlain. When, in consequence of the fire in the palace, his royal highness removed to a private house, the plate was restored to the Crown. In all cases it was merely an accommodation suited to the specific residence granted by the king for the time. At Windsor it was the same. The plate used there was for that particular palace, and could not be removed without such a warrant as would give the means of distinctly tracing it. After the discussion in 1814, when the matter was distinctly explained to Mr Hooper, her majesty's agent, he was asstonished that her majesty, or her agents, could have any misconception on the subject. A personal present from her majesty it could not be, unless it had been purchased out of the privy purse.
Dr. Lushingtonwas persuaded that, after the various observations which had been levelled at him in the course of the present discussion, the House would have the candour and kindness to indulge him for a few minutes. He could assure them, that he would not occupy their attention by any answer to the noble lord's personal remarks on him, or on the exercise of his humble talents. His character, as a legal adviser of her majesty, had been wholly unsought for by him. However, as notwithstanding his humble abilities, her majesty had been pleased to honour him with her selection, he would endeavour to discharge, whatever share might fall upon him, of the duties of her majesty's legal advisers, with fidelity and zeal. The manner in which he had brought forward his motion on Saturday, had not been accurately described by the noble lord. The facts were these; and he thought that he owed it to his own character to state them. On Friday he, for the first time, became acquainted with the circumstances connected with the plate. It was then settled between her majesty's solicitor-general and himself, that he (her majesty's solicitor-general) should make a motion on the subject on Saturday. It was not until late on Saturday that he (Dr. Lushington) was apprised by his hon. and learned friend that he was compelled to leave town, and that the task must therefore fall on his (Dr.
520
Lushington's) shoulders. Thus he was unexpectedly involved in the responsibility of bringing the subject forward. He had himself suggested to his hon. and learned friend the propriety of sending notice to the noble lord opposite of his intention, in order to prevent the noble lord from being taken by surprise. When he (Dr. Lushington) came down to the House, he asked the chancellor of the exchequer if the noble lord might be expected The right hon. gentleman's answer was, that he did not exactly know; but that it was not improbable that his noble friend would come down. While he was waiting in the hope of seeing the noble lord enter the House, the business proceeded with more than usual rapidity, and the Speaker, coming to his name in the paper, called on him. What could he do? Was he, as the only responsible adviser of her majesty present, to postpone her majesty's case, when he could not know the possibility of bringing it forward on another day, for it was not then settled that the House should sit tomorrow? Was he, under such circumstances, and merely out of respect to the noble lord, to neglect his duty If in the step which he had taken he had erred, he declared that it was not with the slightest intention of avoiding the full and fair discussion of the subject. It had been said by the noble lord that motions of this description were made for the sole purpose of inflaming the passions of the people, and exciting out of doors an agitation extremely inimical to impartial justice. He (Dr. Lushington) declared, that if he had known any better way than by an application to that House, of securing the object in view, he would not have resorted to such an application; for, as far as his humble advice might influence her majesty, her majesty should never intrude on the notice of the people, except in a case of deep and unavoidable necessity. But, notwithstanding the observations of the noble lord on the character of the intercourse between her majesty and his majesty's ministers, he was decidedly of opinion that her majesty had not experienced from his majesty's ministers the liberal and respectful treatment to which, as their sovereign, she wa3 entitled. One instance of this he would call to the recollection of the House, and he would appeal to their justice and candour if it did not bear him out in the remark which he had just made.

521
The House would remember, that when her majesty wrote to the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty, requesting that a yacht might be provided to convey her majesty to this country, that noble lord simply stated, in his answer, that his majesty was out of town, and therefore that he could not reply to her majesty's request. Now he (Dr. Lushington) said this, that when the queen of the country made such an application, it was the duty of the noble lord at the head of the Admiralty, to go whithersoever his majesty might happen to be at the time, and without delay to communicate her majesty's request to the king. When her majesty received a note of that description, so worded—when she saw that her request was neglected, and that she was compelled to take refuge in a common packet-boat, it was certainly no great encouragement to her majesty to apply to his majesty's ministers again on any subject connected with her comfort and accommodation. The noble lord had accused him with having proceeded on a garbled statement of the facts. Where was the garbling? He had read to the House the whole of the official documents in his possession, But he had not been quite so negligent in the discharge of his duties as the noble lord appeared to suppose him to be. He had applied to those who made the plate, and had been told that the plate in question was made by order of the lord chamberlain, paid for by him, and delivered to her majesty; and that it was plate on which her majesty's taste and judgment had been consulted in the manufacture; not old plate. It had been truly observed, that the conduct of her majesty afforded abundant proof that she conceived the plate was a grant to her from his late majesty. Whatever might be the facts as to the plate being locally attached, and possessing an irremovable character, it was not to be supposed that her majesty could possibly be aware of them. This was still more apparent from the circumstance mentioned by the noble lord, namely, that in l814 the queen sought to take the plate with her to the continent, which showed her conviction that it was her property; and that when she was abroad she again applied for it, which proved that her conviction on the subject remained unchanged. It was not, therefore, just to suppose that he had been employed to advocate a claim which was not believed to be founded in
522
truth and justice. It was observable that no doubt had been raised upon this question until after the calamity which rendered his late majesty no longer capable of holding the reins of government. To the memory of his late majesty's conduct towards her present majesty, he might safely appeal. He entertained a confident persuasion, that if it had pleased God to spare to his late majesty the possession of his faculties, and consequently of his royal authority, England would never have had to rue the agitation of a question which shook it to the very centre. After all that had passed in former times, it was not too much to suppose, that in the present instance his late majesty would have extended that protection to the queen which she had uniformly received from him. The noble lord had alluded to some conversation of the earl of Aylesford with his majesty on the subject; but, in investigations of much less importance, hearsay evidence was always looked upon as most unsatisfactory. He would only add one or two observations on what had fallen from some other hon. members. He should have hoped that the hon. members for Yorkshire and Cork would have felt a little more indulgence than they had evinced for the difficulties and embarrassments under which her majesty must naturally labour. He should have hoped that they would not have taken the present opportunity to vent their disapprobation of her majesty's conduct, without knowing how far that conduct might have been dictated by necessity. It was true that her majesty did not want money; but she was in utter want of a proper establishment, and of all that appertained to her convenience; of accommodation for horses, for carriages, and for every thing else which might enable her majesty to appear in public in a way consistent with her dignity. As to her majesty's appearing so frequently in the streets, was she to be compelled to live constantly in a house where she was not for a moment secure from the intrusion of the public? He appealed to every hon. member who had passed by her majesty's residence, whether he had not always seen all the blinds drawn? If that were not done, her majesty would be exposed to the gaze of all who chose to look in upon her. Was her majesty to keep herself there as a prisoner? Was her majesty, for the sake of consulting the fastidious opinions of cer-

523
tain hon, gentlemen, to be guilty of the wretched affectation of remaining in a state of confinement? He must say, therefore, that the observations which had fallen from the hon. members to whom he alluded were by no means creditable to their feelings in the aspersed and calamitous condition in which her majesty was placed. The right hon. member for Chichester had stated, that it was not in the power of the Crown to grant such plate as that which was the subject of the motion. That was a fact which he (Dr. Lushington) would not dispute. On such a subject he was not competent to contend with the right hon. gentleman. But would the right hon. gentleman say that it was not usual for the king to make presents out of the civil list? He (Dr. Lushington) believed that it was very usual; and how therefore could it be expected that her majesty should be acquainted with the precise formalities of the subject? He trusted that, whatever might be those formalities, the House would agree with him, that in substance her majesty's request could not with any regard to liberal feeling be refused. Of this he was persuaded, that every act of his majesty's ministers, which showed a regard and a compassion for the painful circumstances under which the queen laboured, would be beheld by the people with admiration and joy, and the more especially, the more directly it might appear to emanate from the king himself. Conduct of that kind would tend infinitely more to allay the existing discord than any severity, however authorised by form. This at least he hoped—that whatever blame might attach for the present proceeding would attach to her majesty's law advisers. If they had been indiscreet, let not her majesty be implicated in their indiscretion. For himself, that which he had done was a matter not of choice but of necessity. It was his duty to offer himself to the House on the present occasion, and he deeply regretted the absence of his hon. and learned friend, who would have done much more justice to her majesty than it was in his humble power to do.
Lord Castlereaghobserved, that the communication from the hon. and learned gentleman of his intention to make his motion on Saturday, although dated on Friday, did not reach his office until Saturday, and him personally until Saturday evening. He was at a loss to con-
524
ceive why the hon. and learned gentleman had not given public notice in the House on Friday evening of his intention. What he complained of in the conduct of the hon. and learned gentleman was, that as it was not proposed that at the earliest the House should adjourn before today, the hon. and learned gentleman had not contented himself on Saturday with giving notice of his motion for this evening. He perfectly agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman, that under the existing circumstances the conduct of her majesty's advocates should always be judged of in the most liberal manner."
Mr. Hutchinsonwas sure that the hon. and learned gentleman did not mean to put words into his mouth which he had never uttered; but he (Mr. Hutchinson) had distinctly stated, and he begged not to be misunderstood, that he had not formed any opinion on the merits of the great question. He was in the recollection of the House, if he had said of her majesty any thing which could justify the term of "fastidious opinions," which the hon. and learned gentleman had imputed to him by name—or at least as member for Cork. The whole of his argument had been confined to disapprobation of the advice under which the present motion had been made. He was convinced that her majesty supposed she had a right to the plate in question, but he decidedly disapproved of advice which tended to injure her majesty by the injudicious and imprudent agitation of the present question. It was totally unfounded to assert that he had said any thing to asperse the queen.
The motion was then put, and negatived.

IONIAN ISLANDS.
The Earl of Lauderdalerose to move for the production of certain papers relative to some recent transactions in Parga, and the general administration of affairs in the Ionian islands by Sir T. Maitland. Although there was no reason to believe his motion would be opposed, the House would permit him to enter a little into the subject, with a view of showing the justice and propriety by which general Maitland's conduct had been marked. It would not indeed be difficult to show that he had rendered a service, and an essential service, to his country. It might be curious to trace the misrepresentations which had been circulated with reference to his government to their origin. At first those misrepresentations related only to the provisions of the treaties concerning Parga. The censure did not extend to the present high commissioner; but pamphlets had been since published, some with and some without names; and a review also had appeared, which, affecting to blame those pamphlets, gave additional force to the calumnies the contained. For the character of the officer in question he might well be supposed to feel great esteem, and no small regard for his person; and therefore he trusted their lordships would excuse his taking this opportunity of vindicating that character from unjust aspersions. The statements which he alluded to branched into a variety of accusations; the first of which was, that he had neglected his duty in making an improvident bargain for the people of Parga; secondly, that he had expended large sums of money; thirdly, that he had adopted a system of impolitic and oppressive taxation, by which an insurrection had been produced; and, lastly, that he had assumed an exorbitant power, which he exercised oppressively. Now, with regard to the provision in the treaty of Paris, as it respected Parga, he wished those who formed such decided opinions on the subject had adverted to it with a little mote care. The
486
island of Parga was occupied as a military station, on one condition only, of attending to the benefit of the people. We came to no agreement with the Pargui-notes, and came under no obligation to them. This was the statement of general Campbell; no one indeed, who knew how Parga was placed at the conclusion of the treaty of Paris would deny that fact. It was then stipulated, that Parga should be restored to the Porte; and indeed the expediency of keeping it in our own hands was only to be maintained by a total misrepresentation and mis-description of that island. It was without any port, and its means of subsistence were all derived from the coast of Albania. It could not have been defended against a strong force without new fortifications, and at least a regiment of men. The subjection of vessels coming to it to a quarantine of 40 days would have rendered its foreign intercourse most inconvenient. Now, what was sir T. Maitland's conduct? He was either to make a convention with Turkey for securing the privileges of the Parguinotes before he gave up the island, or obtain a guarantee for their future security. In effect, the strongest stipulations were made for their protection and good government; and arrangements made by which those who chose it might retire. But then it was complained that an incorrect valuation had been made, and that the Parguinotes had not been justly dealt with. It was not however, usual to let individuals set a final valuation on their own property. Three commissioners had been appointed, who were conceived to be well qualified for the task, and they had named the sum of 280,000 l., whilst the agent for the Turks estimated the value at 56,000 l. only. After a deduction of 33 per cent, which was the established regulation in the West Indies, sir T. Maitland secured to the Parguinotes payment of the sum of 150,000 l. He himself had the most accurate information that the Parguinotes were entirely satisfied with the arrangement when first made. As there was not a sufficient quantity of Spanish dollars, a part was paid in gold, and there was no truth in the story of base money having been introduced. Many cases occurred of claims amongst the Parguinotes, and of debts and mortgages, 700 of which cases had been decided in three weeks. He would not read the authentic documents which he had in his possession with reference to these circumstances, but they

487
contained a body of irresistible evidence. The papers already produced clearly proved that sir T. Maitland was not drawing on the British treasury, but that he was carrying on all the purposes of his commission from the military funds. By the treaty of Paris we were pledged only to maintain the troops stationed in the Ionian islands; but, from an improvement of the revenues, sir T. Maitland had been able to pay the whole Mediterranean staff. That officer looked forward to a yet greater augmentation of the revenue, and he did not wish to see the convention settled till the amount of its produce could be ascertained. It had been urged, that the new system of taxation was extremely onerous—that it impoverished the rich and oppressed the poor. The fact was, that since the constitution of the Ionian states, sir. T. Maitland had imposed but one new tax—that upon olive oil, which had, he believed, the effect of increasing the produce on every proprietor's estate. Again it was said, that this was done without consulting the whole senate, and under the sanction of a committee only. Now no person had ever manifested a greater respect for the forms of the constitution, or a stronger disposition to maintain them. With regard to the charge of having established a monopoly of the corn trade, he had in the first instance put an end to a monopoly that before existed; but commercial intercourse was not there quite so free as it was in some other places, and Parga was actually threatened with famine by means of a combination of merchants in Corfu. It was for this reason that corn was ordered to be purchased at the public expense, and this system was to continue till the same danger should have ceased. The effect merely was to raise the price a little higher than it formerly had been. He now came to another charge—that of imposing local taxes; and the whole of this resolved itself into an impost for the purpose of finishing a canal in Cephalonia, which was approved by every landed proprietor and merchant in that island. Every attempt had been made, however, both there and in the other states, to excite revolt, and to produce false impressions with regard to the objects of the British government. At Santa Maura these attempts had been actively and pertinaciously made, and he had received some information respecting them from the very best sources of intelligence. One of these—the eldest son of a principal inhabitant, who had re-
488
presented Santa Maura in the assembly of the Ionian islands—described the insurrection to have been caused by a person who had long been employed in endeavours to interrupt the tranquillity established by the British government; that it did not last above one day, and was raised chiefly by a false alarm that many of the inhabitants were to be conveyed to the West Indies. It was in fact brought about by much the same means as those used in fomenting disturbances nearer home. sir T. Maitland had throughout shown a respect for the constitution and for the privileges of the inhabitants, which had not been shown by the Russian government. The civil government of the Ionian islands, including even Malta, formed no longer any charge on this country, and we were also on the point of obtaining a reduction in our military expenditure. Their lordships were aware that he was too nearly related to the officer whose conduct he was vindicating to deal in panegyric. Had he been more distantly connected, he might have been more able to do justice to his merits. He felt, on this occasion, that he had certainly said nothing more than was strictly due, and that there was not the slightest foundation for any of those calumnies which had been so unceasingly and so extensively circulated; His lordship concluded by moving for copies of certain correspondence that had passed between the British government and commissioners of the Ionian states.
Earl Bathurstremarked, that the whole administration of sir T. Maitland was deserving of the highest credit: a most important and delicate trust had been committed to him—a trust of a peculiar nature, and in the discharge of which he could derive no benefit from past experience. This, however, he had executed with the utmost temper, ability, and moderation. There was no governor in the, various colonies and dependencies of Great Britain who had acted in a more upright, honourable, assiduous, and prudent manner. He now wished to offer a few words as to the conduct of his majesty's government, which had likewise been much misrepresented. Whenever the subject should be fairly examined, it would appear that the British government had never exercised its protection more liberally or more scrupulously. The whole error of those who censured our proceedings in that quarter, arose from an idea that we had any option to exercise.

489
But the truth was, that we had originally no right to retain possession of Parga, that we were under no obligation to retain it, and that we never engaged, on occupying it, to keep it under our protection. In the treaty of 1815, the Ionian dependencies were described, and Parga was expressly excluded from the stipulations made respecting them. He knew that it had been confidently reported some time ago, that one of sir J. Campbell's officers had entered into some engagement with the Parguinotes with regard to their becoming a dependency on this country; but as he knew that no such instructions had ever been sent to sir J. Campbell, he had requested an interview with that officer, who was too ill to meet him, but who had sent what might be looked upon as a death-bed declaration, in which he stated that he had never authorized any officer to give the Parguinotes reason to believe that they would be taken under our protection. It was a mere occupation on our part, and stood on the same ground as our occupation of Egypt in a former war. Egypt also belonged to the Porte, and when we drove the French out of it, it was because their possession was contrary to our belligerent interests, and showed that the Porte was itself either unwilling or unable to exclude them. But when peace arrived, Egypt was restored, and the case of Parga was quite analogous. As to what might be supposed due to the people of Parga, on its cession, he must say that it would have been quite unusual to grant them three or four years for the sale of their property; but of what use would the delay, if granted, have been to Parga; for who would have purchased property of that description? By the arrangement actually made, Ali Pacha had been induced to purchase it, and at a better rate than could have been secured by any other stipulation. The only additional ground on which the cession had been blamed was, that Parga had surrendered to us, and that we ought therefore to have retained possession of it. Those, however, who knew the situation of the place, well knew what must be the difficulty of defending it.
The motion was agreed to.

MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
Lord Ellenborough Lord Ellenborough moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, and stated that he had several
490
amendments to propose in the committee, the printing of which he intended to move for, with a view to their discussion on the re-commitment of the bill. He thought the clauses might be so worded as to remove the objections made against them as they now stood, and he hoped that every noble lord who took an interest in the measure would attend the committee.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that from the respect which he entertained for his noble friend, he could easily conceive that the bill might, after it had gone through a committee, prove much less injurious to the morals and religion of the country than it now appeared to him calculated to be in all its clauses. He must at the same time say not-content to the motion for going into a committee.
Lord Redesdaleobserved, that if the bill was to have a retrospective operation, nothing should induce him to vote for it. It would go to overturn numberless settlements, to revive suits which had been decided, to set aside wills and revoke administrations. As the bill now stood, its retrospective effect would extend over a period of seventy years, and marriages solemnized during that period might by possibility be made null and void.
The Earl of Liverpoolagreed with what had fallen from the noble lord, but at the same time thought that the Marriage act required alteration. To him it appeared that the simplest law was the best, and he should rather be for granting more facility than for interposing any obstruction in contracting marriage. Every new regulation, however, should be prospective only; and although there might be past cases in which hardships must be sustained, it could not be said that there was any injustice in leaving parties to the provisions of the old law.
Lord Hollandalso thought that the law required alteration, and that the proper course was to go into the committee. Those who held that the bill should be retrospective would likewise have the opportunity of submitting a proposition with that view. His own conviction was, that as the law now stood, it was as bad as it could be.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that one of the most objectionable clauses he had ever seen in any bill was that which provided, that because the bans had been irregular, it should be left to the judge to decide whether it was a bona fide marriage

491
Such a provision would inevitably lead to a degree of profligacy of which it was difficult to form an estimate. He doubted much whether any judge could be safely invested with this discretion; and if all cases of marriage by licence were to fall within the same clause, it would be much better to abolish marriage by licence altogether.
The Earl of Westmorlandthought, that if the act had not a retrospective operation, no good would follow from it.
The House then went into the committee, and several new clauses were proposed by lord Ellenborough.

CRIMINAL LAW.
The Marquis of Lansdown,on moving the order of the day for the third reading of the Privately Stealing bill, said, that there were three bills before the House in the same stage, for the amendment of the criminal laws of the country He had selected the one just read by the clerk as the first for their lordships' consideration, as he was apprehensive that it would meet the most serious opposition. With that apprehension on his mind, he should state the grounds by which he felt that the bill was recommended to their support. It was but justice to their lordships to say, that he was persuaded there was not a member of the House who would wish to continue in their full severity any part of the penal laws which were not attended with beneficial effects. They were now to consider the propriety of repealing a bill which had remained for a considerable time a dead letter on the Statute Book, and which, instead of assisting, prejudiced the course of justice, by deterring prosecutors from taking that part which they ought in order to bring criminals to account. He knew of no test by which they could judge of the efficacy of penal laws, except the experiment, whether, on the whole, they had contributed to repress crime, and whether they had met with the concurrent feeling of the community? Looking, therefore, at the present measure in this view, he was confident when he asserted that the law ought to be repealed—that, owing to its severity, it had been hardly executed during the last 60 or 70 years, nay, even as far back as it was possible to collect facts with any certainty—that its severity had so far armed judges, prosecutors, and juries against it, as to render it almost impossible to obtain a conviction under it. In the great-
492
er number of cases, the prosecutors preferred acquiescing in the loss of their property, rather than expose their consciences to the feeling of having visited on their fellow-creatures a disproportionate, cruel, and unjust punishment. He found by the returns, that from 1805 to 1818, 352 convictions had taken place, and only one execution. In London and Middlesex there had been but one execution during a whole century. In the Northern circuit, there were 46 convictions and no execution. In the Western circuit, for the last 50 years, there were 55 convictions and no executions; and in Lancashire, from 1779 to 1818, there were but 9 convictions and no execution. In addition to this, there was the evidence taken before a committee of the other House, in which the merchants, and principal shopkeepers of London agreed, speaking, without hesitation, not merely for themselves, but for all those with whom they had communication in clubs or otherwise, that the shop keepers, whose property the act was intended to protect, disclaimed such protection, and were anxious to be released from its burthen. Shop-keepers of the highest respectability, had stated cases in which they had submitted to considerable loss, being deterred from prosecution by the belief that the punishment was infinitely beyond what humanity and expediency required. Would the House reject such evidence? Would they pay no attention to the recommendation of a committee which had acted for a considerable time, and which had reported unanimously that the act ought to be repealed? Would they pay no attention to the other House, which had passed the present bill unanimously, and take upon themselves the responsibility of saying, in opposition to the sense of the whole country, who were most interested in the question, that a bill which was founded in humanity and justice, was not entitled to their lordships' favour and support?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the noble marquis had misunderstood him, if he supposed that it was his intention to oppose that bill in particular. At the sametime he considered it a matter of regret, that those bills were not brought forward when the House might have the advantage of the presence of the twelve judges, especially as they were said to have interposed mercy in so many cases against the verdicts of juries. In the former instances in which these bills were discussed, they

493
had the benefit of the experience and knowledge which distinguished that great man who had lately held the office of chief judge in the court of King's-Bench. Induced by his authority they had again and again rejected these bills. The present bill might possibly admit of amendment in the point to which he should now object; but while it appeared a harsh thing to condemn a man to death for stealing privately in a shop to the amount of five shillings, the present bill did not provide sufficiently against the loss of property to an amount which, though it could not distress some, might effectually ruin many shop-keepers. The act was not intended merely for the protection of men of large property, but also of men of small property, who could not so well protect themselves. It might, therefore, become an argument for their lordships' consideration, whether they would expose the whole fruits of an industrious life to the operation of such a measure as the present. It had been his painful duty to receive the recorder's report during the period of 18 years, and he could not say from that experience that there appeared to be much reluctance on the part of prosecutors to institute proceedings. He could say, indeed, that he was rather surprised, that so little regret was manifested by prosecutors in general, at proceeding on those capital charges. But if there was an apprehension in prosecutors, there would be as probably an apprehension in offenders, in subjecting themselves to the possibility of a capital punishment. He now spoke the sentiments of that great judge to whom he had before referred, that the apprehension of the capital punishment had deterred many from the commission of this offence. If, however, their lordships were disposed to make a merciful experiment, he should make no very strenuous objection. But if hereafter it should be found, that shop-lifting became universal, and that many persons were reduced to misery by this crime, he hoped it would be remembered that he had suggested the consideration, whether this law which had so long existed was not wise and politic. Having said "not-content" to the bill, he should feel no great anxiety as to the result. On the third reading he should propose an amendment, to provide that persons stealing to the value of more than 10 l. should still be subject to the capital punishment.
The bill was read a third time, and af-
494
ter the amendment was agreed to, passed. On the motion for the third reading of the Capital Felonies Repeal bill,
Lord Redesdaleobjected to the repeal of the punishment of death in the case of persons committing certain offences, being disguised by night. He stated that in the part of the country where he resided, he was obliged, conjointly with some of his neighbours, to keep up a police of six men at the expense of 200 l. a-year, to suppress deer-stealers on the borders of the forest. If the capital punishment, which now applied to persons going with their faces blackened and disguised, were repealed, the practice among these depredators would be universally resorted to.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, it would be remembered that deer-stealing would remain punishable for the first offence by fine, for the second offence by tranportation. Now the question was, whether the fact of persons blackening their faces was a circumstance of sufficient importance to warrant the punishment of death?
Lord Redesdalesaid, his supposition was, that in all cases these offenders would go with their faces blackened.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that if it was known that courts would be in the habit of applying a higher punishment to deer-stealing when committed by persons thus disguised, as, for instance, that they would fine simple deer-stealers 10 l., and deer-stealers in disguise 500 l; or, for the second offence, sentence to transportation for seven years in the one case, and for fourteen years in the other, the effect of a superior punishment on that aggravation of the offence would remain.
Lord Redesdalesaid, the noble marquis pre-supposed that the offenders were detected. Now he was of opinion, that the class of persons he had mentioned did not care much for transportation.
Lord Hollandsaid, the noble baron seemed to have an extraordinary apprehension of these black-faced gentry, but it was to be hoped that his apprehensions as to their increase would be found groundless. When on a former occasion. a bill was introduced into another House to take away the capital punishment which attached to persons calling themselves Egyptians, the member for Kent rose to protest against it in behalf of his county, which he foretold would be inundated with gipsies. The noble lords near him could now tell the House whether Kent

495
was so inundated with gipsies of late years as to become uninhabitable.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should wish the noble marquis to consent to the postponement of the third reading of this bill till to-morrow, as there were, in his mind, so many objections to it, that it could not be discussed without occupying much of their lordships' time.
This proposition having been assented to,
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he would, in the mean time, to save trouble, point out the objections which he had to some of the enactments. Among the offences from which the bill took away the punishment of death, were those to which capital punishment was affixed by the 9th Geo. 1, chap. 22, viz. the killing, maiming, or wounding of cattle, or the cutting down of trees in orchards or plantations. It did undoubtedly seem a hardship that so heavy a punishment as that of death should be affixed to the cutting down a single tree, or the killing or wounding a cow. But it was a necessary consequence of general descriptions, that all cases were included. It was impossible, by the means of language, to frame laws which should apply to all cases, without the exercise of the discretion of the judge. In the case of burglary, for instance—if a person passing Ludgate-hill broke a pane of glass and drew out a ribband, that was burglary. This would be thought too hard a case for the application of capital punishment, yet this offence was made punishable by death under the words of the same law, which was necessary to prevent the breaking into a house in the dead of night, finding the family, standing over them with pistols, and rifling the dwelling. It was impossible, of course, to administer such a law, without the interposition of mercy and discretion. Now, in the case before the House, if the bill passed in its present state, a person might root up or cut down whole acres of plantations, or destroy the whole of the stock of cattle of a farmer, without being subject to capital punishment. Persons would thus be let loose to do mischief far beyond the limits of many capital crimes. He could not, therefore, without hearing his objections removed, consent to this part of the bill. As to the clause which took away the punishment of death from bankruptcy offences, he had no objection to it. In the experience of forty years in the court of Chancery, he had only
496
known two or three parsons prosecuted for this capital offence, and he had no doubt there were cases in which, on account of the capital punishment, prosecutions had been prevented. As to the repeal of the 6th Geo 2nd, which affixed the punishment of death to persons breaking down the banks of rivers or sea-banks, when he looked to the state of property in Lincolnshire, where, by offences of this kind, mischief might be done, to which the robbery of a few pounds was not to be compared—when persons might be deprived of all their means of subsistence, he could not give his consent to it. As to the clause respecting the pulling down turnpike-houses, it did not appear to him material, as the pulling down turnpike-houses was a capital offence under another act. He came next to the clause respecting threatening letters, which took away the capital punishment unless the letter demanded money or a valuable consideration. On this he confessed he had great doubts. Nothing was more destructive to the peace of families, than the apprehensions which were kept alive by the malicious and secret threats of mischief. The clause which took away the punishment of death from persons destroying the floodgates or sluices on the great level of the fens, it would, in his opinion, be impossible for the House to take away, on account of the great extent of property thus protected. The last paragraph of the preamble referred to the act for punishing persons destroying certain manufactured goods with death. He could only say, that when he was in the habit of going the northern circuit, it was the general opinion that there was no possible security for the manufacturers in the North of England, but by the terror of that law.
The third reading of the bill was fixed for to-morrow.