Sitting of 15 July 1822

MARITIME RIGHTS—DETENTION OF THE LORD COLLINGWOOD
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he would take that opportunity of replying to the questions which a learned gentleman had proposed to him on a former evening, on the subject of the detention of the British vessel the Lord Collingwood by the Spanish authorities at Porto Rico. He had since

1649
learned, that government had obtained intelligence of the detention of the vessel at Porto Rico; immediately upon the receipt of which they addressed a representation upon the subject to the Court of Spain, through the British Ambassador at Madrid. The reply to this representation was, that they knew nothing of the detention of the vessel, nor of the blockade, for the alleged infringement of which she had been captured. Since this period, the condemnation of the vessel had been made known to government, who had now sent instructions to the British ambassador at the court of Spain, to make the strongest representations against the condemnation of the vessel. When an answer should be received, no time would be lost in adopting such measures as might be considered necessary to support the honour and dignity of the country. He had no hesitation in saying, that he did not think Spain was entitled to detain British vessels, trading with those parts of South America which had declared themselves independent, and had obtained a recognition of their independence from other nations.
Sir J. Mackintoshobserved, that the answer of the noble marquis must prove extremely satisfactory to the country. It was particularly desirable that the commercial interest should be informed that they would be protected in the exercise of their lawful rights.

CAUSE OF THE GREEKS.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, he held in his hand a petition which he considered to possess peculiar claims upon the attention of the House. The petition proceeded from certain inhabitants of Lees, in the parish of Ashton-under-Lyne, and referred to the sufferings of the Christian Greeks, and the oppressions of the Turkish government. The sentiments contained in the petition were those of all the inhabitants of Great Britain, who at all thought upon the subject. He was sure that the feelings of the people of this country would have been manifested at a more early period, and in a more general manner, if it had not been for the difficulties which opposed themselves to any measure calculated to give a practical effect to those feelings. A simultaneous effort of all the powers of Europe, and an immediate one, could alone be effectual to the cause of these unhappy sufferers. The only security that England or any other
1650
power could take from Turkey, as to any thing like forbearance from these excesses for the future, must be territorial security; for with an angry and barbarous government, with the sword in its hand, parchment, words, and promises, it would he idle to rely upon. In the mean time, any effort on the part of England, even if it should fail, would be honourable to her.
Mr. Humewished to ask whether it was true, that the Greeks, in their endeavours to escape from the persecution of their oppressors, by taking refuge in the Ionian islands, had been forcibly expelled from thence by the British government in that station? He would also call the attention of the noble marquis to the fact, that a Turkish frigate was now fitting out at Deptford, with all the stores, ammunition, and arms of a warlike description that could bring her crew and company within the operation of the Foreign Enlistment bill. He had seen a sailor that morning, who told him that he had entered himself on board this Turkish frigate. Now surely it was the duty of ministers, to exert the same activity in prohibiting the subjects of this kingdom from entering themselves aboard a Turkish frigate, which they had manifested in regard to those who had been desirous of enlisting in the service of Naples or of Spain.
Mr. Wilmotwas not aware of any measures which had been taken by the government of the Ionian islands that, could have had the effect of preventing the reception of Greeks in the situation alluded to. No official information of any such measures had been received by ministers. He was unable to satisfy the inquiry of the hon. gentleman in regard to the Turkish frigate, in consequence of the absence of an hon. baronet, by whom it would be more satisfactorily answered.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, that for their exertions to prevent a war between Russia and Turkey, he had felt disposed to give to ministers every credit. But if those exertions had been put forth only for the purpose of allowing the Turks to commit what havoc their barbarous ferocity might prompt them to, during the recess of the British parliament—if this had been done, in order to enable them with the more security and confidence to pursue The work of destroying the Greeks—if had been the object of his majesty's ministers in England and in. Constantinople, he proclaimed their conduct to be of the most abject, the most degraded, and the

1651
most unmanly character. He called upon the House to answer to themselves and to the country, whether they felt assured, that during the recess, the Greeks would be free from Turkish oppression. If no genuine measure had been taken by government on behalf of this gallant and unfortunate people; or if; on the contrary, what had been done, had been done only to give Turkey the better opportunity of sweeping off her Grecian subjects, this government had adopted a course of proceeding which would ensure to them the scorn and execrations of all posterity. Earnestly and loudly, therefore, he would call—not upon his majesty's ministers—for from their policy, linked as it, was with that of the continental powers, he could hope nothing; but he would call on such men as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce) opposite, and from whom the cause of suffering humanity would always expect a consistent and vigorous support. He would call upon that hon. member, and on those other gentlemen who were accustomed to concur with him in their opinions, to declare whether a pledge ought not to be exacted from the ministers of the Crown, that such a course of proceeding had not been adopted. If it had, and parliament could permit it to pass unnoticed, he would appeal to that hon. gentleman whether they could expect the blessings of Providence on their future counsels and undertakings. Notwithstanding all the reverses which the cause of freedom and of happiness had hitherto sustained in Turkey, the success which had attended her exertions in Spain forbade him to despair of Greece.
Mr. Wilberforce,having been appealed to by the hon. gentleman, begged to assure him, that for the cause of the unhappy reeks, it was impossible that any one could feel more warmly than himself Indeed he should hope that there could be but one feeling among generous and enlightened and Christian minds on their behalf. It was, in truth, a disgrace to all the powers of Europe, that long ere now they had not made a simultaneous effort, and driven back a nation of barbarians, the ancient and inveterate enemies of Christianity and freedom, into Asia He was at all times far indeed from advocating war, unless peace could only be acquired at the price of disgrace and infamy. At the same time, he must declare, that he knew of no case in which the power of a mighty country
1652
like England could be more nobly, more generously, or more justifiably exerted, than in rescuing the Greeks from bondage and destruction.
The Marquis of Londonderrythought that the present was not a very fit occasion for the discussion of so wide a question as that into which gentlemen had been pleased to enter. It was really marvellous to see how the friends of peace could sometimes advocate the cause, and most unnecessarily, of war. His lima friend, at all times conscientiously supporting the doctrines of benevolence and peace, was now disclosing to the House a problem, which was to relegate and to throw back upon Asia a Turkish population of some 5,000,000 of souls. Now, whatever might be said about Turkish inhumanity, it did appear to him, that neither the crusade, which his hon. friend had proclaimed against the Turks, nor the sentence of transportation pronounced against them, were very likely to have the effect of expelling them from Europe. Gentlemen on the other side did his majesty's ministers great injustice, when they supposed that their exertions had been confined to mediating terms of peace between Russia and the Porte. The danger of Greece had not been lost sight of, and every thing which it was in the power of our government to effect, had been done. He could assure those gentlemen who appeared to possess a peculiar system for the better management of foreign affairs, that neither the government nor the country were so wild as to be prepared to, take up arms with a view to the more, effective and impartial administration of justice in the dominions of Turkey. But no effort had been neglected which it might have been hoped would either have prevented, or at least have softened, the horrors of a war, marked by atrocities that were equally disgraceful to. Greece and to the Porte. He could not suffer the hon. gentlemen to deceive either themselves or the House, however, by proceeding on a supposition that all the horrors and atrocities were on one; side of this contest, and that there was nothing in it for humanity to deplore, but the cruelty and barbarism of the Turks, and the sufferings and ill-fated amiability of the Greeks. The truth was, that, in this attempt to recover their liberties, as it had been called, the Greeks had done much which was to be regretted. The traits of ferocity and violence which had

1653
distinguished the whole of this struggle were equally remarkable in the Greek and in the Turkish combatants.
Sir R. Wilsonwas of opinion, that if ministers would repeal their Foreign Enlistment bill, and give the spirit of honourable enterprize fair play, men would not be wanting to embark in such a cause. He would pledge himself that foreign aid would enable the Greeks to wrest their ancient territories from the Turks, and to take once more their station among the free nations of the world. He trusted that the noble lord would give directions to our government in the Ionian islands, at least to be impartial; for the fact was, that the hostile way in which our authority had been used against the Greeks, had rendered the name of England so odious among them, that not one Greek had yet ventured to solicit upon these shores assistance for his suffering countrymen.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that we were at least bound to preserve a strict neutrality between the Greeks and the Turks, but the conduct which our government had pursued had been altogether partial and oppressive.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that the instructions of ministers to the government of the Ionian islands had been, that the strictest neutrality should be preserved in all transactions between the Greeks and the Turks.
Ordered to lie on the table.

IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.
On the order of the day, for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, he understood ministers to declare, that they could do nothing for Ireland, but the passing of the Constables bill, the Tithe-leasing hill, and the measure now under consideration. If so, he had no hesitation in saying, that they had not done enough. The object of ministers ought to be, to make the people of Ireland wealthy and contented, and such was the purpose of Mr. Pitt at the time of the Union. What had been the fact? Martial law had since been declared, the Habeas Corpus act had been suspended, and the Insurrection act revived. In short, not one of the many promises made at the Union had been fulfilled. The country was now as dissatisfied as ever. Ministers had instituted no inquiry into the state of Ireland since the Union. Where was the equality of law that was spoken of? In what part of
1654
Great Britain would ministers have dared to propose a law like the Insurrection act? He had, the greatest confidence in the marquis Wellesley; who, if he were not thwarted, would devise measures to strengthen and pacify. He (Mr. H.) was glad to find, that this law would be put into the hands of an enlightened magistracy; but there was nevertheless not enough in the late measures, to show that a radical change would be adopted in the system of Ireland. Things could not continue as they were. All that the opponents of this bill required was investigation. The hon. gentleman censured the nightly visitations authorized by the bill, and dwelt upon the scenes of distressing decency to which it gave rise. The system in Ireland had been so bad, that the inhabitants had been compelled to be disloyal; and nothing but a full and fair investigation of abuses could lead to their remedy.
Mr. Monckobjected to the bill, because he saw nothing in it of a remedial nature. In his opinion redundant population in Ireland was the great source of the existing evils, while the state of society was half civilized, half savage. The, Irish gentlemen ought to do their utmost to introduce among the peasantry, a different mode of living, and to abandon the consumption of potatoes for grain. Ireland was competent to her own maintenance, and ought not to call upon England for any assistance.
Colonel Trenchagreed, that the gentry ought to exert themselves to raise the peasantry of Ireland from their degraded condition. If a measure like the present was not resorted to, the troops would be frequently called out, and much bloodshed would be the inevitable consequence. The absentee system he looked upon as a very great evil. The people were, in fact, deserted by those who ought to be their protectors. He denied that the gentlemen were unfit to hold the situation of magistrates. If improper persons got into the commission of the peace, they ought to be dismissed; but the conduct of such persons ought not to be attributed to the gentry at large. The Irish people, if judicious means were taken, were not incapable of civilization and improvement. A debt of gratitude was due to this country for the munificent subscriptions which had been entered into for the relief of Ireland, and he felt truly grateful to the Hibernian society, by whose efforts

1655
schools had been introduced in the west of Ireland. Much, however, remained to be done. There was one crying evil, to which the chancellor of the exchequer might apply a remedy; The evil was, the oppressive nature of the Excise laws; and the remedy, the toleration of small stills. If small stills were allowed, the revenue would not suffer, for those who were licensed to work such stills would take care that others should not destroy their trade by employing unlicensed stills of the same kind. He should support the present measure, because he believed it would be well administered.
Mr. Wilberforcegave his support to the bill, because he thought the situation of Ireland demanded it. The want of social order which prevailed in that country was truly lamentable, and he should be most happy if some comprehensive measure could be introduced to remove the evil.
Mr. R. Martinsaid, that the bill would not inflict tiny injury on the people of Ireland. It has asserted that by its operation trial by jury would be abrogated; but, in his opinion, that would be for the benefit of the accused. It an individual charged with the offences cognizable under this act were to be tried in a disturbed county, it must be either by a jury of those who had suffered from violence, or of men who were the prisoners' partisans. In either case, there would not be a fair trial. In the first instance, the prisoner was not likely to receive justice at the hands of an irritated jury; and in the second, the Crown, stood no chance of a verdict. Under these circumstances, a man would rather be tried by a learned serjeant, than by a jury of the vicinage in which the offence had been committed.
Mr. W. Smithsupported the measure, because it struck him, as being, in a great degree, a measure of mercy. He would always be ready to grant great powers to the Irish government, if he did not recollect, with feelings of sorrow and indignation, the abominable manner in which the extraordinary powers formerly granted to that government had been abused. He never could forget the dreadful practices for which the Indemnity bill was passed after the commotions of 1798. It was an indelible disgrace for the government to ask for such a measure, and for the parliament to grant it. He believed that the noble marquis at the head of that government was opposed to every thing that had the slightest tendency to an abuse of
1656
power. But the Indemnity bill had made such an impression on his mind, that he never could grant those extensive powers as a matter of course. The misgovernment on the one hand, and the misconduct growing out of that misgovernment on the other, by which Ireland was reduced to such misery, could not be hastily removed. Half a century would be far too short a period for the removal of that series of misgovernment which had continued for four or five centuries, and to do away the evils which it had created and inflicted. The best cure for those evils was a general system of instruction. The burthen of relieving the poor had been taken off the shoulders of the church; but no rates were imposed as in this country for their support. The whole system was calculated to brutalize the people of Ire. land. While they had no clothing but rags, and no food but potatoes, they never would be contented or tractable in Ireland. Until he saw corn used, not as food for the still, but as food for man, his hopes for the tranquillity of that country, would remain very low.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that the present bill was one of those measures that were calculated to keep the extraordinary powers of government within some degree of rule and regulation. Why, then, on the discussion of such a measure, did the hon. member refer to a time when no such bill as the present was in existence? It was not liberal or fair to make such observations. In the absence of strong and efficient measures, the loyalists of Ireland, at the time of the rebellion, had no other way of defending themselves, but by taking the law into their own hands. At that melancholy period, many individuals thought they were doing good when they outstripped the bounds of law. He looked with pain and horror at some of their acts, but he denied that they arose from the abuse of any extraordinary powers which had been granted to the government. At a subsequent period, assisted by the attorney-general, he had brought in the Indemnity bill. And, when he brought down a pardon from the Crown for all those who had committed violence and spoliation on the persons and property of his majesty's loyal subjects, it would have been monstrous injustice if he had not also brought down a bill be protect the men who had adhered to the government of the country. Let not the hon. gentleman think that the bill was

1657
framed to meet any particular case. No: it was intended to indemnify magistrates and others, who had exerted themselves to put down the rebellion. It did not prevent any man, who thought himself aggrieved by a magistrate, from bringing his case before a jury. What would the hon. gentleman have said, if, having pardoned all the rebels, the Crown had left the loyal subjects of Ireland without any protection?
Mr. S. Ricesaid, it was desirable that the unfortunate circumstances attending the former rebellion in Ireland should be kept out of the consideration of the House; as the introduction of them could have no effect but to produce angry charges, and as angry recriminations. A rebellion in any country must necessarily lead to acts which were not justifiable; but when that rebellion was over, it appeared to him to be advisable to close the book.
General Hartcontended that the distillery laws formed the greatest evil which Ireland endured.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that to shut the eyes to the past was not the best way to insure a wise legislation for the future. In his opinion, it was, above all things, desirable that parliament should keep steadily in mind the operation of laws of equal severity to the present in former times. Those laws ought to be contemplated, not as examples to be imitated, but as beacons to be avoided. The conduct which that House had pursued with respect to Ireland, during the present session, was, in his opinion, highly reprehensible. With the exception of a grant of money, not a single grievance had been redressed. He urged the hon. general to bring the subject of the Distillery laws under the consideration of the House next session.
Goulburnsaid, that this measure had been called a severe one, and so it undoubtedly was; but still it was mild in comparison with those which, case of actual rebellion, must necessarily be resorted to. He would ask any hon. member whether, if, at the commencement of the session, the Insurrection act had not passed, it could for a moment be doubted, that open insurrection and rebellion would have broken out? At that time, the parties against whom this act was directed, had actually encountered the king's troops; and it required no spirit of prophecy to foresee, that, if this strong preventive measure had tot been adopted, all the
1658
horrors of civil war must speedily have ensued. The Irish government did not ask for the enactment of this law from any desire unnecessarily to increase their power. It was asked for, because the state of the country required it, and because it was a measure of prevention and therefore of mercy. The Irish government solicited the re-enactment of this law with real reluctance; and he hoped that their efforts to tranquillize the country would be so successful, as to save him from the painful duty of again proposing its continuance.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that when he saw that not a tithe of the members of the House were present, and certainly not a tithe of the members for Ireland; he could hardly believe believe that the proposed measure was so indispensable as it was asserted to be. The chief secretary had referred the House to experience. Experirence! of what? The only experience on the subject which he (lord A. H.) recollected, was the experience of one measure of violence succeeded by another of violence succeeded by another of still greater violence. The turbulence of Ireland had been often and often ascribed to the misgovernment of that country. Nay, a right hon. gentleman (Mr. C. Grant), in a speech which would not easily be forgotten, had detailed disturbance after disturbance, and insurrection after insurrection growing out of that misgovernment. Now, he would ask, whether that ought not to be a subject of serious consideration, before they proceeded to the enactment of a measure so severe as that at present proposed?
Mr. Butterworththought the act, however severe, was a measure of mercy towards the peasantry of Ireland.
The bill was read a third time, and passed.

CONSULS IN THE BRAZILS.
On the order of the day, for going into a committee of supply,
Mr. Humesaid, that in the course of the last session, he had brought forward certain statements connected with the British consulate in the Brazils, and on the 22nd of April, in the present year, he had produced a petition signed by 74 merchants in that colony out of 79, complaining of the exaction of extravagant and illegal fees. The noble lord opposite had expressed doubts as to the correctness of the statements contained in that petition; but he (Mr. H.) had dis-

1659
tinct proof of their correctness. British merchants were paying in Brazil, an ad valorem duty of one per cent, upon every cargo which they carried into the ports of that country. Such a charge, perhaps, was unknown in any, other, part of the world; and if government persisted in allowing it to be levied, it would be impossible for us to compete with the traders of America. Complaints had been made in 1818, and the noble marquis had issued orders forbidding the levying of such excessive charge; but unfortunately, about a month afterwards, he had thought fit to countermand his restricting order. The consul-general, Mr. Chamberlain, had, between the years 1814 and 1820, received no less than 57,567 l. The total of sums received by the consulate of Brazil amounted in the same six years to 90,274 l., and even that enormous mass of money was not more than two-thirds of the charge borne by the trade; for the vice-consul, who farmed his place, and did all the duty of the consul-general, took just whatever fees he thought proper to demand. It must be evident, that the Americans, who could import and export without duty, must beat. I the English out of Brazil, if this charge was continued; and it was the duty of Parliament to refuse voting a single shilling as long as so heavy a grievance remained unredressed. He should conclude by moving, That it appears by the returns on the table of this House, that the sum of 77,624 l. 13 s. 4d. has been levied on the British Commerce in the Brazils, and received by his majesty's consuls there in six years ending 1820; and that they have also received, in the same period 12,650 l. sterling, in salaries from England, making the total sum of 90,274 l. 13 s. 4d. in salaries and emoluments,; of which sum the consul-general alone has received 57,567 l. 19 s. 9d.; that, therefore, it is the opinion of this House, that such large salaries and emoluments are extravagant and unnecessary, and ought to be reduced."
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that on a former occasion he had stated, that these fees were about to be revised, and that they were then under consideration. He was willing to go into an inquiry on the subject; but he could not consent to postpone the public business until this complicated question was disposed of He had a right to complain a little of the exaggeration of the hon. member, though
1660
he admitted that the allowances were proper to be inquired into. He had no objection whatever to produce all the correspondence which had taken place respecting the fees. The allowances and emoluments had become large in consequence of the increase of trade in that quarter; and no less than three attempts had been made by government to counteract this increase of expense.
Mr. Baringsaid, that if merchants in Brazil were to be saddled with such impositions, it was impossible for them to compete with the trade of foreign nations.
After some farther conversation, the motion, that the Speaker do now the chair, was put and agreed to.

NATIONAL MONUMENT IN SCOTLAND
Lord Binning moved, "That the petition of the contributors to the National Monument in Scotland, for aid towards building a Church to be connected there with, be referred to the Committee of Supply,"
Mr. Humewould put it to the House if this was the time to encourage by gift of 10,000 l. of the public money, the building of a Parthenon upon the Caltonhill at Edinburgh? The 100,000 l. out of which this money was proposed to be taken, had been voted, not to build Parthenons but churches.
Sir R. Wilsonthought it most indecent to talk in the present state of Ireland, of giving 10,000 l. to build an ornamental temple.
Mr. Hudson Gurneysaid, it was with great regret he opposed the motion. So far from thinking under ordinary circumstances, that the erection of monuments of national magnificence was a waste of the opulence of a state, he considered them objects of the highest political importance. But, at the present moment, when we had had discussion, night after night, on the situation of the starving population of Ireland—when we had had complaint upon complaint of the general embarrassment of all classes in England and Scotiandit—it did seem impossible to come to a vote of giving 10,000 l. to the decoration of a church Edinburgh as a national monument. The erection of the English monuments voted in a moment of national effervescence at the conclusion of the war had been put off, sine die, wisely: and no man, he believed, would now think of commmencing them. He had likewise another objection to the grant proposed—100,000 l. had been voted

1661
for the erection of churches in Scotland, in such districts as either by their great extent, or increased population, were, at present, unprovided with places of public worship, and also for endowing ministers to officiate in them when built. Now, the taking 10,000 l. from a fund voted for these purposes, for the sake of applying it towards the building of a church of mere ornament in Edinburgh, did appear to him a misapplication of the money totally unjustifiable [Hear, bear!].
Mr. Moncksaid, that this magnificent, temple placed as it was on the top of a hill, might be good as an object to the inhabitants of Edinburgh, but was by no means so as a place of worship. He did not dispute the propriety of gentlemen erecting such a monument of their gratitude out of their own pockets; but he must object to wringing the money out of the purses of a people already overburthened by taxation.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that when he gave his consent to the grant of 100,000 l. for building churches in Scotland, it was not for the purpose of gratifying the taste of the people of Edinburgh in splendid buildings. If they had a fancy to exhibit their taste to the world, he thought it but fair that they should indulge it at their own expense, and not out of the pockets of the people of England.
Mr. C. Grantwas of opinion, that to grant 10,000 l. for the erection of a splendid object in the town of Edinburgh, would be a gross misapplication of the public money. He could not help recollecting that there were several parishes in the highlands, full forty miles in extent, without a single church in them. The propriety of this grant ought to be submitted to the general assembly of the church of Scotland.
Lord Binningsaid, he should be the last man in the world to make the motion, if it would have the effect of depriving Ireland of any part of the assistance to which she had so strong a claim. But it was only intended to give a particular direction to money already voted by the House. The population of Edinburgh had considerably increased of late, and the increase of churches had not been in proportion. He would, however, withdraw his motion.