Sitting of 6 February 1824

CONSULS.
Mr. Humeasked the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs, when he intended to effect his long promised reform, respecting British Consuls abroad?
Mr. Canningreplied, that he would submit a motion on the subject to which the hon. member alluded, during the present session, and at no distant period. In the mean time, he might perhaps remove the hon. gentleman's uneasiness on one particular point, by telling him that he had already reduced the consular salaries.
Mr. Humesaid, that it was not so much the amount of the salaries, as the manner in which they were paid, that he objected to. He disliked the system of consular charges upon goods imported.

AUSTRIAN LOAN.
Mr. Jamesbegged to direct the attention of the right hon. secretary, for a few moments, to the subject of the Austrian Loan. When the right hon. gentlemen laid on the table a copy of a convention entered into between the Emperor of Austria and his Britannic Majesty, respecting the settlement of the Austrian Loan, he fully expected that it was the intention of the right hon. gentleman merely to submit that document to the House for its sanction. But he had since ascertained, to his great surprise, that the agreement had actually been ratified by both the contracting parties. He wished the right hon. gentleman to answer this question—whether he did not think that he had acted illegally and unconstitutionally, in advising his majesty to agree to that convention without consulting the House? [A laugh]. That might, perhaps, appear to be a very radical view of the case; but he felt it his duty to state, that he conceived the right hon. secretary to have assumed a power which even Mr. Pitt, in the plenitude of his authority, had never dared to assume.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he would give the hon. member the answer which he required. The hon. member had asked whether he (Mr. C.) did not think that he had acted illegally and unconstitutionally in regard to the convention, a copy of which had been laid upon the table. The answer was "decidedly not." If the hon. member thought otherwise he was of course at liberty to bring the subject before the House; but then he hoped that the hon. member would give notice of his
102
intention, and not proceed to discuss a matter connected with the privileges of the Crown, at a moment when the House was quite unprepared to entertain such a delicate question.
Mr. Jamessaid, that he was not compelled to give a notice, and as it was not likely that any business would come before the House that evening, he thought the matter might as well be discussed at that time. He repeated that he considered the conduct of the right hon. secretary illegal. If ministers had the right to give up the claim of the people of England to a large sum of money justly due to them, without consulting the House of Commons, then, pari ratione, they were entitled to levy taxes in like manner. It was stated, in one of the articles of the convention that his majesty was entitled to sue the emperor of Austria in his own court for the recovery of the debt. Had that been done? He supposed it was very unlikely that any thing further would be obtained from Austria, and he therefore hoped, that in justice to other bankrupts, the name of the emperor would appear in the Gazette.

SPAIN—FOREIGN POLICY.
Lord Nugentobserved, that since the House had, I by agreeing to the address to his majesty, I sanctioned the policy which government had adopted with regard to Spain, he thought they ought to be put in possession of the means of judging how far that policy had been fairly carried into effect. For that purpose, he considered that the production of some papers was necessary; namely, copies of all the correspondence which had taken place between this government and sir William A'Court during the period intervening between the entrance of the French troops into Spain, and the surrender of Cadiz; and also copies of all communications made by the Spanish Government to sir William A'Court, during the same period, with his answers. He wished to know whether the right hon. secretary intended to lay those papers before the House, or whether he would consent to their production.
Mr. Canningreplied, that he did not intend to lay the papers alluded to upon the table, and that his vote, if they were moved for, must depend upon the case which the noble lord might make out for their production.
Lord Nugentthen gave notice, that on Thursday next he would submit a motion on the conduct of ministers with respect

103
to the late war in Spain, and with reference to their professed neutrality.

ROMAN CATHOLIC BURIALS.
Sir John Newport Sir John Newport moved for copies of the communications which had been received by the lord lieutenant, respecting the right of burial in Ireland, as regards Roman Catholics and Dissenters from the Established Church. The right hon. baronet anticipated no resistance to his motion, as he was convinced the tranquillity of Ireland depended materially upon the question to which it related.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he was always loth to appear to withhold information; but the house would be aware that there might be circumstances under which disclosure could only tend to do mischief. He relied upon the candour of the right hon. baronet in giving credit to him (Mr. G.) for sincerity, when he stated his belief, that the papers in question were likely to revive disputes, without forwarding the object which the right hon. baronet had in view. The right hon. baronet wished to repeal the statute of the 9th William III., which applied to burials in the church yards attached to decayed monasteries. He said nothing upon the main question, whether the statute ought to be repealed, or whether it ought not; but it was an object which could no way be aided by the production of the papers in the possession of the lord lieutenant; while their publication would certainly revive differences which were now in a way to be forgotten.
Sir John Newport, since the matter was referred to his candour, thought it due to public justice, and to the people of Ireland, that the papers should be produced. If there had been imprudences committed, let them he upon those who Ought to bear them, namely, that part of the episcopal and ecclesiastical body in Ireland, which had attempted to strip the people of the right of burial according to the forms of their religion. His object was not that which the right hon. secretary had stated. He wished certainly to repeal the statute, the 9th William III.; but he wished also to secure the right of burial, generally, according to the forms of their religion, to the Catholics and Dissenters from the Established Church of Ireland. When it was considered, that this question was of all others the most calculated to excite public feeling, and that six-tenths of the Irish population
104
were interested in it, the house, he trusted, would go with him, if he pressed the production of the papers to a division.
Mr. Grattanthought it would be better to postpone the question, and give a regular notice. The gentlemen on his side the house were taken by surprise, not having conceived that the papers would be refused. The question was one, as he viewed it, of the highest importance to Ireland. If it was not soon put at rest, there would be no burial without an affray.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that of all the frightful questions which had been mooted in Ireland, this was decidedly the most terrific. He so far went along with the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that if he thought the question likely to be settled satisfactorily, he would not call for the production of papers which contained an inflamed view, perhaps, of past disputes; but then, so far from seeing any disposition on the part of government to take measures of itself for putting the difference at rest, he understood the right hon. Secretary to suggest, that what had passed had set it at rest already.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he was misunderstood by the hon. and learned gentleman. He had spoken only of particular differences as in a way to be set at rest; not of the general question.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that the right hon. gentleman still stated no intention on the part of government to take measures. Under such circumstances, the house was bound to proceed itself, and consequently to call for the fullest information. The vital importance of the question was admitted. There were doubts upon it in every way: doubts as to the law; doubts as to the practice. A specific course by parliament was necessary; and he therefore should support the motion for the production of documents.
Mr. Peelthought it would be well to separate the general question, of burial, from the immediate question before the house, namely, the production of papers. Upon the general question he should reserve his opinion; but he thought that the papers ought not to be produced.
Mr. Calcraftsupported the motion. The documents in question were not private; and the only difference was, whether members should obtain them personally, or whether they should come regularly before the House.
The House then divided: For producing the papers, 39.—Against it, 56.

List of the Minority.

Abercromby, hon. J.

James, W.

Althorp, vis.

Lamb, hon. G.

Baring, H.

Lushington, S.

Benyon, B.

Maberly, J.

Bernal, R.

Mackintosh, sir J.

Birch, J.

Nugent, lord

Buxton, T. F.

Ord, W.

Coffin, sir I.

Prendergast, G.

Crompton, S.

Robinson, sir G.

Curwen, J. C.

Russell, lord J.

Davies, T.

Robertson, Alex.

Duncannon, vis.

Staunton, sir G.

Ellice, E.

Tennyson, C.

Fleming, J.

Tierney, G.

Grattan J.

Wilkins, Walter

Grenfell, P.

Williams, John

Gordon, R.

Wood, Matthew

Haldimand, W.

Wrottesley, sir J.

Hamilton, lord A.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Calcraft, J.

Hutchinson, hon. C. H.

Newport, sir J.