Sitting of 5 September 1831

MINUTES.
Bills committed. Commissioners of Accounts, Ireland; Clare County Presentments. Read a third time and passed; Hackney Coaches.
On the Motion of Lord ALTHORP, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the effects of the Drawback allowed on Malt.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUDSON, the number and tonnage of British and Foreign Vessels cleared out and inwards, from the Ports of the United Kingdom and Colonies during the year 1830; the Official and declared Values of the Imports and Exports to all parts of the world from the United Kingdom and the Colonies, and of all Foreign Wines on which a Drawback had been allowed on Exportation, during the same time.
Petitions presented. By Colonel EVANS, from Persons in Manchester, complaining of the Modifications which had been made in the Reform Bill; by Mr. BRISCOE, from Benjamin Wills, Secretary of the Labourer's Friend Society, praying that the power of the Parochial Authorities to hire land to the amount of fifty acres for the Employment of the Poor of the Parish might be extended; from Inhabit-
1132
ants of the Metropolis and its vicinity, complaining of the sentence passed upon the Rev. Robert Taylor, and praying the House to address his Majesty to liberate him from confinement. By Mr. FOLEY, from the Maltsters of Dudley, against the use of Molasses in distillation. By Mr. O'FERRALL, from the united Parishes of Allen and Miltown, Castle Carbery, Dunfierth and Arble, and five other Parishes; and by Mr. HUME, from the Catholic Clergy and Laity of the districts of Myross and Castlehaven, against the Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By Mr. O'FERRALL, from the Directors of the Patriotic Insurance Company (Ireland), for the Repeal of the duty on Insurances. By Mr. CHAMPTON, from several Individuals in Dublin, against the Dublin Election. By Mr. STEWART, from West-India Planters residing in Liverpool, against the Sugar Refining Bill. By Colonel CLEMENTS, from Kilmore, Leitrim, in favour of the Grant to the Kildare Street Society. By Mr. HUME, from the Householders of Marylebone, against the Self-elected Vestry, over which the Inhabitants at large have no control. By Mr. BRISCOE, from 250 Inhabitants of the Metropolis in favour of the Rev. Robert Taylor; by Mr. HUNT, from Persons assembled at the Rotunda, Blackfriars-road, for the Liberation of those Imprisoned for selling cheap Publications in the Streets. By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from Wharfingers in the City of London, and from Merchants and Shipowners interested in the Navigation of the River Thames, in favour of the Bill for the regulation of Steam-boats. By Mr. HUME, from the Members of the Parochial Reform Union, Clerkenwell, to expedite the progress of the Reform Bill.

RELIGIOUS PROSECUTIONS.
Mr. Humepresented three Petitions, the first from the inhabitants of London and its vicinity, the second from the inhabitants of the Metropolis and its vicinity, and the third (signed by 5,000 persons) from Manchester and Salford, stating, that the petitioners viewed with horror and alarm the prosecution of Mr. Taylor by the Society for the Suppression of Vice, and praying, that no legal restraint may be laid on the expression of religious opinions, and that the Rev. Robert Taylor may be liberated from confinement.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that as allusion had been made by the petitioners to the Society for the Suppression of Vice, he felt called upon to declare, that it did not deserve the name of a persecuting society. It was formed, first for the suppression of the trade in licentious publications; it had, in consequence, instituted about seventy prosecutions, most of which had succeeded, and some of which were for very gross offences; 2nd, it was an object of the Society to repress blasphemous publications, and it had succeeded in shutting upwards of thirty places where such vile publications were sold. The 3rd object of the Society was, to enforce the laws for the observance of the Sabbath, and it had instituted upwards of 2,000 summary prosecutions, many of them at the instance of Magistrates and Clergymen. Probably, after this detail of the proceedings of the Society, there was

1133
no occasion to make any further defence for it, than to say it had numbered among its members and supporters many of the most eminent persons, and that there could be no possible imputations on the subscribers when called on to act as Jurors or Magistrates.
Mr. Hume, on moving that the petition be printed, said, he had yet to learn what right that Society had to set itself up as a conservator of the public morals. It was the duty of the Law Officers of the Crown to prosecute when there was a necessity for it, and such a power ought not to be exercised by any Society. The Government ought to put an end to it. It would be better for the people to maintain an officer for the purpose, for no man would tolerate or encourage a person in selling obscene prints and publications; but the great evil of the society was, those summary prosecutions for non-observance of the Sabbath; many of the members, probably, deserved as much to be prosecuted for breaking the Sabbath as those they prosecuted. He should like very much to see the names of all the subscribers.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, he would gratify the hon. Member, by presenting him at once with a list of the members of the Society. The hon. Gentleman had said, no man would encourage the sale of obscene publications, but then he desired the prosecutions should be conducted by a public officer. Experience, however, had shewn, that those persons were not diligent in searching out and punishing offences of that kind. The Society had the same right to prosecute as many other existing societies, which combined to protect property. It was only of late that efforts had been made in that House to protect blasphemy and obscenity.
Mr. Huntwas no advocate for blasphemy, but he was an enemy to prosecutions for religious opinions. He believed the House would have many more petitions to liberate Mr. Taylor, who, at least, ought to be removed to a prison where the regulations were not so severe.
Mr. Pringlesaid, the Society had not prosecuted for religious opinions, but for outrages on public morals. He could not agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, that a public prosecutor would be able to prosecute such offences. Such an officer could not uphold the laws of public decency so well as a society constituted for the purpose.
Sir John Sebrightrose, in consequence of the remark made by the hon. member for Dundalk, to assert, that he had never heard any one advocate blasphemy, or encourage it, in that House. Some of the petitions presented by the hon. Member he could by no means approve of, but none of them went so far as to justify the remark of the hon. Gentleman.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Humepresented a Petition from certain Inhabitants of Marylebone, complaining of the enforcement of the penalties of the Act, the 16th George 2nd, c. 23, against the hawkers of cheap publications in the streets of the metropolis, and praying, that the individuals at present in prison in default of the payment of such penalties, should be enlarged by an Act of Indemnity.
Colonel Sibthorpcautioned the House against the dangerous tendency of the publications in question, and observed, that the ingenuity of some individuals to defraud the revenue had been exerted to such a degree, that political information had been printed upon cotton handkerchiefs, in order to evade the stamp-duties on newspapers.
Sir Francis Vincentobserved, that the more legislative enactments were made on the subject, the greater would be the ingenuity which would be exercised to defeat them. It was in vain for the Legislature to run a race of that kind with the people, for it was sure to be defeated.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that if the hon. member for Middlesex would bring in a bill to amend the Hawkers' and Pedlars' Act, it should have his cordial support.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that one of the individuals to whom this petition referred, and who had been imprisoned in the Compter, had been amply indemnified by the unusual good feeding which he got there.
Mr. Humesaid, that the only proper way to deal with the subject was, to repeal those laws which prevented persons who were able and willing to undertake the task, from answering in equally cheap publications, the dangerous doctrines which the publications now under discussion frequently advocated.
Petition to be printed.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
Mr. Humepresented Petitions from Stockport, in Cheshire, and from several individuals, re-

1135
tailers of beer, praying to be put under the same regulations with the licensed victuallers. He thought, that the establishment of these houses had been a great boon to the poor, by enabling them to procure good beer without the bad society of a gin-shop.
Sir John Newportagreed with the petitioners, and thought all retailers of beer and licensed victuallers should be subject to the same regulations. Whatever tended to induce the lower orders to drink beer instead of spirits, ought to be encouraged. He did hope, therefore, there was no intention to discourage these beer-shops by severe regulations.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that the complaint of the Magistrates was, that the beer-shops were not under the same regulations as the public-houses. He was anxious that additional power, with regard to the regulation of those beer-shops, should be given to the Magistrates.
Mr. Wilksobserved, that no person could open a beer-shop without entering into a bond for the preservation of the peace, and such houses were at all times accessible to the police, in the same manner as the houses of licensed victuallers. He could not see what further was required. Of the 25,000 persons who had taken out licenses under the Act, 13,000 brewed their own beer, and were also licensed brewers. This was a sufficient proof, that the majority of the beer retailers were persons, of capital and respectability. He hoped, therefore, there was no intention of crushing such parties.
Mr. John Weylandsaid, that the beer-shops in remote and country districts, should be put under very different regulations from those to-which beer-houses in towns were subjected. In towns they were a great benefit, in the country a great evil. Respectable persons, who had elevated themselves from the lower ranks of life, had told him, that they feared great injury would accrue from the establishment of these houses.
Mr. Humethought, that the evil was, that those beer-shops had been subjected to any regulations. For his part, he could not see why the sale of beer should be put under stricter regulations than those which applied to the sale of tea and sugar. He hoped his Majesty's Government would, before the end of the present session, bring in a bill to permit beer-shops to keep open as long as gin-shops.
Mr. DanielWhittle Harvey said, the best course would be, to enable the poor man to brew his beer at home. He recommended the abolition of the malt-tax, and the substitution of a property-tax in its stead. There appeared at present a desire to assist the peasant, but as long as the excise penalties were so severe as to prevent even brewing utensils being lent, no amelioration could be effected.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, the hon. member for Middlesex had remarked, that beer ought to be sold like tea and sugar, but there was this obvious difference between them, one was an intoxicating beverage, the other not. His hon. friend had also been wrong when he said, gin-shops did the most mischief. They had none of these in the country.
Mr. Huntsaid, there were public-houses in the country in which people drank gin, although in them malt-liquor was also sold.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

NEW WRIT FOR LIVERPOOL.
Mr. Granville Vernonsaid, that in rising to move, that the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the election of a Burgess to serve in this Parliament for the borough of Liverpool, he could not but express his astonishment that his Motion should be opposed by those who, like himself, were the friends and supporters of the great measure of Reform that was now passing through the House. Had that opposition proceeded from those on the other side of the House, who were anxious to stave off the great measure, by the discussion and concession of some partial Reform, he should have felt no surprise; for it was part of their policy thus to divert attention from the great question. He contended, that the present case was very different from that of Grampound, where the issuing of the writ had been for a long time suspended. Grampound was but an insignificant borough; but the importance of Liverpool was such, that the burthen of the Representation of its important and varied interests, could be but inadequately borne by one individual. In fact, the merchants of Liverpool, who had lately presented a petition to the House on the subject, were the great sufferers from wanting a Member. It would probably save time, if he at once admitted, that a degree of corruption, much to be deprecated, both in and out of that House, had

1137
existed at different elections for Liverpool, and that that corruption was not exhibited for the first time in November last; but that the returns of Mr. Roscoe, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Huskisson, had also been tainted with it. He thought, that while so important a discussion as that of the Reform Bill was going on in that House, the town of Liverpool ought not to be left with only one Representative. The great object, he would contend, was, to purify the borough, and to set an example, that would have a beneficial effect upon the great body of electors throughout the kingdom. Now, both objects would be fully attained by the Bill then before the House for a general Reform in Parliament, which would give Liverpool a constituency of more than 14,000 electors. He thought, that most of the hon. Members whom he then addressed, would agree with him, that nothing could be more totally needless, than to enter into an investigation with respect to Liverpool, such as that which had been instituted with respect to East Retford, or even that with respect to Penryn. He would entreat the House to pause before it entered into a labyrinth of investigation, out of which it might not get for many years. Investigations of that nature generally compromised the respectability of the House, and were therefore, as well as on other accounts, productive of great evil. The House of Commons was a body particularly ill calculated to bring such inquiries to a satisfactory termination: there was no body worse calculated for judicial purposes. There could not be a worse system of proceeding for the House to adopt, in cases of that nature, than one which laid their decisions open to reversal in the Lords—a Court which could act as a Court of Appeal with vast advantages and facilities, as compared with those enjoyed by the House of Commons. He hoped further, that the House would agree to the motion with which he intended to conclude, for the issue of the new writ; for he could not conceive anything more inexpedient or unjust, than to deprive so large a constituency of the elective franchise, especially at the present crisis, when the rights of the community were at stake, being involved in, and bound up with, the great measure then under the consideration of Parliament. He concluded, by moving, "that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the
1138
Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Liverpool, in the room of John Evelyn Denison, Esq., who has made his election to serve for the county of Nottingham."
Mr. Benettsaid, that, as there had been an understanding in the House, that the writ for Liverpool should be suspended until he brought forward his motion on the subject, he felt he could not, with any regard for his own character or consistency, refrain from bringing forward that motion, by way of amendment to the Motion just made. He did not wish to delay the Reform Bill, but, as Chairman of the Committee on the Liverpool election petition, he felt it to be his imperative duty to propose a series of resolutions, pledging the House to take the subject into serious consideration. Me could not at all agree with those who argued that the last election in Liverpool, in which no bribery was proved to have prevailed, was a sufficient proof of the restored purity of that constituency, or wiped away the stain which the corrupt practices, proved to I have prevailed at the former election, necessarily threw on that constituency. He need only refer to the evidence taken before the Select Committee, and he put it to any man who had read that evidence to say, whether the House could overlook such practices, when brought before it upon the report of its own Committee? He could not suppose that there would be any unwillingness either on the part of Reformers, or those opposed to Reform, to punish such a case of gross delinquency. [The hon. Member then proceeded to read several extracts from the evidence taken before the Liverpool election Committee, which had been printed several months since, by order of the House, to prove the extent of the bribery which prevailed at Liverpool.] This evidence, he contended, could leave no doubt on the mind of any man that gross bribery and corruption prevailed most extensively in Liverpool at the election before the last. Five pounds were given by the friends of both candidates in the early part of the election, but as it proceeded, 40 l. was the price given for a vote. It might naturally excite surprise that so large a sum should be spent by any men for the sake of obtaining seats in that House. It was to be considered, however, that there was enormous patronage in Liverpool, which had hitherto been placed at the disposal of the

1139
Member for that town, if he happened to be a supporter of the Government of the day. Such practices, he hoped and believed, were now to be done away with for ever. It was notorious, however, that the situation of Town-clerk of Liverpool was worth 4,000 l. per annum, and that there were several other situations averaging between 2,000 l. and 3,000 l. a year in that town, in the disposal of which the Members for the town had usually exercised a great influence. He did not believe that either of the Gentlemen who were candidates at the election impugned, had any sinister motives, or any other object in view but the laudable ambition of obtaining so high an honour as a seat in that House for the great commercial town of Liverpool. He, acquitted the candidates themselves of any improper motives, but there might be other persons behind the curtain who had an eye to the disposal of the patronage, and with that view were willing to spend large sums of money in bribing the electors. However this might be, he conceived that the constituency of Liverpool, by gross and extensive corruption, had forfeited their rights. The elective franchise was given to them, as to all other constituent bodies, as a trust; that trust they had abused, and they had no right to complain if the Legislature deprived them of it altogether, or disposed of it in any way that might be deemed expedient. The hon. Member concluded by moving as an amendment to leave out all the words after "That" in the resolution and to add these words "this House doth agree in the report made by the Select Committee on the 26th March last, that gross bribery and treating prevailed at the late election for Members to serve in Parliament for Liverpool," instead thereof.
The question put on the Amendment.
Mr. Humewould support the original Motion, for when he considered the situation in which the House was placed by the Bill then going through a Committee, he could not but feel unwilling to go back to the election before the last for the purpose of punishing the electors of Liverpool. He should decidedly support the issue of the writ, for nothing appeared to him more unwise and unfair than to keep a large community like that of Liverpool for any further length of time without the benefit of a Representative. In the new constituency there would not be included
1140
above one-fifth or one-sixth of that portion of the old which was open to any suspicion of bribery; then why proceed to make a special law for the prevention of an evil which, under the altered circumstances of the elective franchise, no rational man could anticipate? Had it not been for the Reform Bill, he should certainly have supported the motion of the hon. member for Wiltshire, but there was obviously no utility in passing a new Act of Parliament, when the electors of Liverpool, in consequence of the Reform Bill, would have no opportunity of again committing the same offence.
Lord Morpethwould rather see means taken for the prevention than the punishment of crime. The innocent ought not to be punished for the guilty, and the great mercantile interests of Liverpool ought to be represented. The Reform Bill put an end to all necessity for suspending the writ, and he thought that the continued suspension of the writ, amounting to actual disfranchisement, would be exceedingly arbitrary, considering that it was done without the sanction of the other branches of the Legislature. The House of Commons even had not come to any decision on the subject—the Committee alone had decided.
Mr. Wasonsupported the Amendment, and contended, that it was an insult to the Reform Bill, and to the electors of England, to say, that that measure was intended to meet so gross a case of corruption as that of Liverpool. The noble member for Yorkshire seemed to think, that the Motion was one of expediency; but he must deny that it was any such thing. It was a question of justice; and, being so, expediency had nothing to do with it. The electors of Liverpool had forfeited their right to return Members to that House, and, having done so, no blame; could rest upon the House for withholding the writ. But they were mincing the matter. The fact was, that General Gas-coyne was no longer returned for Liverpool. Had that gallant General been returned to the present Parliament, the old unanimity of the last Parliament would have been found still to prevail. When the resolution affecting Liverpool was formerly presented to the House, it was agreed to almost unanimously. The Reform Bill, unamended certainly, was at the same time before the House, and yet none of the arguments now advanced in favour

1141
of issuing the writ were then brought forward.
Mr. Laboucherethought, that the conduct of the freemen of Liverpool justified their disfranchisement; but, on the other hand, it was a great hardship to leave the great commercial interests of that town with only one Representative; and it was on that ground alone that he should vote for the issuing of the writ. At the same time, he hoped that these freemen would soon be overtaken by a just measure of disfranchisement.
Mr. Crokersaid, it was really curious that the hon. member for Bassetlaw should be the person to submit the Motion then before the House. It was a fact worthy of being recorded, especially in these reforming times, that one of the Representatives of the district last created for the purpose of preventing corruption, should be the person now to move, that convicted corruption should be set at liberty, and allowed to run its course in triumph. He was not present when this question was before under the consideration of the House. Had he been, he should have entertained very grave constitutional doubts as to the propriety of suspending the issuing of the writ. The issuing of the King's writ, in his opinion, acted as a sort of condonation of the offence the electors of Liverpool had committed, and he thought it was dangerous and unadvisable for that House, in election cases, to revive questions entertained by former Parliaments, and which had not been purposely reserved for its consideration. At the same time, however, he was aware, that this case presented itself under peculiar circumstances. The issuing of the King's writ, in consequence of the late dissolution, was a matter of surprise; it was unexpected, and it suspended an inquiry of great importance to the privileges of that House, and the rights of the people; and therefore, hon. Members who agreed with him as to the general constitutional objection, still might say, that those very peculiar circumstances justified their voting for the continued suspension of the writ in the new Parliament. But then came a question upon the back of that, of vast importance. The Reform Bill was before the House. The clause of that Bill which continued to existing freemen the franchise for their lives, would operate not only condonation and forgiveness to the corrupt, convicted electors of Liver-
1142
pool, but it would place them on a superior eminence, and give them advantages which it denied to thousands of honest, intelligent, and unsuspected voters. While the Reform Bill deprived the free and honest elector of the franchise, it secured that privilege to the corrupt freeman of Liverpool. He rested his support of the proposition of the hon. member for Wiltshire, upon the simple fact, that thousands of the electors of Liverpool had been convicted of corruption, and he could not consent to grant to such electors the right of exercising, for their lives, the elective franchise. It was said, the Reform Bill was to purify the constituency, but how would it operate in Liverpool? Looking at that town, and the election battles that had been fought there, no one could doubt, that the respectable electors were pretty equally divided into opposite parties, and who then was to turn the scale, and to form the majority? Why these three or four thousand corrupt and convicted freemen, whose rights were to be preserved to them. He regretted to have been obliged to speak before the noble Lords (Althorp and John Russell), who might be considered as the godfathers of the Reform Bill, for he should certainly have liked to have known, before he addressed the House, what view of the question they now supported, and to have heard upon what grounds they defended the clause which was to preserve the elective franchise to the corrupt and convicted freemen of Liverpool. Such a proceeding would hold out a bounty to corruption, and do the most serious injury to real Reform. There was also another, not unimportant consideration—they must recollect, that they had once already decided this question. Were they to stultify the votes they had already given for suspending the writ? After that solemn step, they could not direct the writ now to issue, without most serious injury to the character of the House. Those who, like him, thought the present state of the Representation fully adequate to every useful purpose, and that, when individual cases of corruption occurred, they ought to be adequately punished, must oppose the Motion for the issue of the writ. The only reason assigned was, that one Member alone, though he were Atlas himself, could not support the great weight of the interests of Liverpool, and therefore, he required the aid of a Hercules to alleviate the

1143
burthen. But supposing for a moment, that the present Atlas of Liverpool were unequal to the discharge of his duties to his intelligent, wealthy, and independent constituency. How was it proposed to remedy this defect? why, by giving him a colleague, who would represent, not the wealth, intelligence, and independence of Liverpool, but the venality, corruption, and profligacy, which it was now proposed to dig out of the grave in which we ourselves had buried them, and to reinvest them with the powers of election. The fact was, that the suspension of the writ killed them, and this was a galvanic experiment to give them an appearance of life. If he could feel a pleasure in seeing the Reform question itself dragged through the mire, he could not desire a more grateful sight than to find such a Motion as this, for rewarding and perpetuating convicted corruption, made by the hon. member for Bassetlaw, supported by the member for Middlesex, and cheered by so many Reformers.
Lord Althorpfelt himself placed in a situation of some difficulty. He had, on the occasion alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, voted for the issuing of the writ, because he felt that it was highly inexpedient that a town of the vast commercial importance of Liverpool should be but half represented in that House, on account of the mal-practices of a portion of the electors. He was of the same opinion still—the rather, as the issuing of the writ would not preclude or interfere with the question of the expediency of punishing those corrupt electors; and therefore he would, were his view of the case confined to that single point, vote for the hon. member for Bassetlaw's motion. Still, however, he felt the force of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, founded on the inconsistency of their then voting in the teeth of their former decision, and therefore felt himself compelled, contrary to his own individual opinion, to vote for the hon. member for Wiltshire's amendment.
Mr. Granville Vernonreplied. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker) had expressed his surprise that he, as member for Bassetlaw, had brought forward this motion in favour of the corrupt freemen of Liverpool. He understood what the twitting meant; but he begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he himself, when the East Retford case was before the
1144
House, had not voted for the continuance of the franchise to the freemen of that place, though their corruption was proved at the expense of 19,000 l. to the country?
Mr. Huntwas glad that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had expressed himself in the way he had done; for, if the House were to vote for the issuing of the writ without inquiry, he should consider it one of the greatest disgraces that could happen. Had he not been aware that such a motion as that intended by the hon. member for Wiltshire was to come on, he certainly should have moved as an amendment, on the clause for continuing the franchise to freemen for life, that the electors of Liverpool be excepted.
Mr. Wilkswas sure the House would not have sanction d the motion for suspending the issue of the writ, could it have contemplated the long delay, with all its consequences, that had ensued.
Mr. Ewartsaid, it was a feeling of delicacy that prevented him from expressing his sentiments at length. He would therefore simply assure the House, that he should not vote at all, did he not feel that, if he represented any other place, he should think it his duty to vote for the issuing of the writ for Liverpool.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamwould vote for the Amendment. It was no argument against the motion for punishing the guilty electors of Liverpool, that two or three months had now intervened since that town had its full amount of Representation, because, in a question of justice, time was a secondary consideration. It was admitted on all hands that a very large number of the electors of Liverpool had been guilty of gross corruption; therefore the only question was, how justice could best be administered. The sooner and the more efficaciously, in his mind, the better; fiat justitia—ruat cœlum."
The House divided on the original question; Ayes 35; Noes 76;—Majority 41.
Words proposed were added; main question, as amended, put and agreed to.

List of the AYES.

Biddulph, R. M.

Dixon, J.

Biddulph, J. M.

Ellice, E.

Blamire, W.

Fergusson, Gen.

Byng, G.

Gurney, H.

Callaghan, D.

Heywood, B.

Campbell, J.

Hudson, T.

Denison, J. E.

Hume, J.

Denman, Sir T.

James, W.

1145

Johnstone, A.

Pryse, P.

Kennedy, T. F.

Strickland, G.

Labouchere, H.

Strutt, E.

Lennox, Lord J. G.

Thicknesse, R.

Macauley, T. B.

Warburton, H.

Macnamara, W.

Wilks, J.

Moreton, Hon. H.

Wood, Alderman

Morpeth, Viscount

Wrightson, W. B.

Morrison, J.

TELLERS.

Newark, Lord

Ewart, W.

Power, R.

Vernon, G.

List of the NOES.

Althorp, Viscount

Malcolm, Sir J.

Astley, Sir J.

Meynell, Captain

Bankes, W.

Newport, Sir J.

Baring, H.

North, F.

Bernal, R.

Nowell, A.

Best, Hon. W.

Nugent, Lord

Blackney, W.

Nugent, Sir G.

Blount, E.

Pemberton, T.

Cavendish, W.

Pepys, C. C.

Calcraft, G.

Perceval, Colonel

Chandos, Marquis

Pelham, C.

Clements, Colonel

Phipps, G.

Cole, Lord

Pigott, G.

Croker, Rt. Hon. J.W.

Pollock, F.

Dick, Q.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Dundas, R. A.

Praed, W. M.

Douglas, W. K.

Pringle, A.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Rice, Hon. T. S.

Ellis, W.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Encombe, Lord

Robinson, G. R.

Fane, H.

Ross, C.

Fergusson, C.

Russell, Lord J.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Shaw, F.

Gordon, Hon. Captain

Smith, V.

Gordon, Captain J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Gordon, R.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. E. G.

Hayes, Sir E.

Sugden, Sir E.

Herries, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. C.

Houldsworth, T.

Torrens, Col.

Hodges, T.

Venables, Alderman

Holmes, W.

Walker, W.

Hunt, H.

Wetherell, Sir C.

Johnstone, J. H.

Wilde, T.

Jones, T.

Williams, W. A.

Kenyon, Hon. L.

Wrangham, D. C.

Lefroy, Dr.

Young, J.

Lowther, J.

TELLERS.

Loughborough, Lord

Benett, J.

M 'Kinnon, W. A.

Wason, W. R.

It was then resolved, on the motion of Mr. Benett, "That such bribery and treating requires the serious consideration of the House." The hon. Member then moved that leave be given to bring in a bill to prevent bribery and corruption at Liverpool.
Mr. Humehad not agreed to the last Resolution, and had not voted for the issuing the writ to promote delay. The issuing of the writ would prevent all delay, and this bill, which was to attain a trifling
1146
object, would promote delay. He regretted that his Majesty's Ministers had not thought it their duty to support the issuing of the writ. He should not object to bringing in the bill; but he certainly should oppose it at every subsequent stage, if it were likely to delay the Reform Bill.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamexpressed his extreme surprise at hearing that the hon. member for Middlesex, who had on so many occasions occupied the House with discussions on matters of justice, would oppose this measure. The hon. Member had travelled all over the kingdom for grievances, particularly with respect to the inferior officers of the army, and therefore his present observations were particularly ill-timed, as it was evidently the intention of the House to proceed without delay with the Reform Bill.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonconcurred with what the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last had said. He felt totally unable to reconcile the speeches and conduct of the hon. member for Middlesex with his notions of consistency, the evidence before the election Committee, proving the existence of bribery and corruption at the Liverpool election to be so manifest, that he considered it incumbent upon the House to take some steps to show its sense of displeasure. He believed that no case had ever been presented to a Committee of that House, so fraught with corrupt practices, and where bribery had been carried on in a more flagrant manner. They saw their way pretty clearly with the Reform Bill, and he knew no reason why they might not proceed with this bill afterwards.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, if the bill now sought to be introduced were likely to delay the Reform Bill, he should oppose it. He understood that the hon. Gentleman (the member for Wiltshire) would only introduce it, and not press the further stages at present. If the bill delayed for a single day the English, Scotch, and Irish Reform Bills in their progress through the House, he certainly would not give it his support; but, if it were intended to proceed with it after those measures should have received the sanction of the House, why then he would not oppose its introduction.
Lord John Russellwould agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, if the bill were calculated to stop the progress of the Reform Bills for Ireland and Scotland.

1147
But he should differ from him if he said that the bill was not to be entertained at all. He thought that the measure was a most proper one. It was, in his opinion, more necessary than ever, when the Bill of Reform was about to be completed, that it should not be allowed to go forth that the House was disposed to encourage corruption. It was more necessary than ever that the House should take measures to prevent such a supposition from being formed.
Mr. George Robinsonthought the hon. member for Wiltshire did not mean to delay the Reform Bill. If leave were given to bring in a bill for preventing bribery and corruption at Liverpool, he supposed that his hon. friend would postpone the further consideration of it till after the Reform bills were passed. It would be disreputable in the House to suffer this corruption to go unnoticed, and the last days of the present Parliament could not be better employed than in stigmatizing and punishing such a gross case of corruption.
Mr. Crokerlooked upon the motion as calculated to accelerate Reform. It was impossible to allow that clause of the Reform Bill, relative to freemen, to pass as it at present stood, unless there was a prospect of a bill like that now proposed being introduced. It was not possible to pass that clause and allow the freemen of Liverpool to be exonerated; and therefore it would prevent discussion upon the Reform Bill, to bring in the present bill.
Mr. Benettthought the hon. member for Middlesex might have inferred from his conduct that he would do nothing to retard the success of the Reform Bill.
Mr. Humewould not object to the bill if it were not to be proceeded with till after the Reform Bills were out of the House.
Leave given—the Bill to be brought in.

REFORM BILL—PAYMENT OF BARRISTERS.
Lord Althorphad to signify to the House his Majesty's recommendation to provide for the payment of the Barristers employed in making out the list of voters in counties under the Reform Bill. But, before that could be brought up to the Committee, it would be necessary, as it was a money clause, that they should have agreed to it in a Committee of the whole House. As it was a mere formal matter, he trusted that there would be no
1148
objection made to the House's resolving itself forthwith into a Committee for the purpose. His Lordship accordingly moved that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the means of providing payment for Barristers employed in revising the lists of votes at elections.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Baring Wallsaid, that he could not allow this motion to be put without asking the noble Lord opposite a question which he deemed of great constitutional importance. The House would perhaps recollect, that on the evening of the 2nd of September a debate had taken place in the Committee on the clause for the appointment of Commissioners to carry into effect certain objects mentioned in the Reform Bill. Since the occurrence of that debate he had received some documents from the country, which he had read with the most unfeigned astonishment. The debate to which he had referred took place on Friday, the 2nd of September. He, however, held in his hand a letter dated August 24th, which ran in the following terms: "Gentlemen; I am directed by Lord Viscount Melbourne, one of his Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, to desire that you will give Messrs. Dawson, Drinkwater, and Sanders, every information in your power as to the boundaries of the parish of St. Mary, Guildford, and as to the number of rated houses contained therein. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, S. M. Phillips." The letter was directed "To the Churchwardens and Overseers of the parish of St. Mary, Guildford." From this document it appeared that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was employed on the 24th of August, in signing circulars to obtain information for the Commissioners under the Reform Bill, the appointment of none of whom was at that time sanctioned even by the Committee on that Bill. The document which he had just read to the House, was sent off by the Home Secretary, along with another, to which he now begged to call the attention of the House. Messrs. Dawson, Drinkwater, and Sanders, received a communication from Lord Viscount Melbourne, and in consequence of it, set off immediately for Guildford. On arriving at that place, they sent a circular to the Churchwarden and Overseers of the parish of St. Mary, dated "The White

1149
Hart Inn, Guildford, August 26th," calling upon them to produce the rate-books of that parish before them as soon as convenient. Let the House observe the dates, for they were material, which he had mentioned in this transaction. The first document which proceeded from Lord Melbourne, was dated the 24th of August; the Commissioners set off for Guildford, and wrote their first circular on the 26th of August, and yet it was not till the 2nd of September that the clause for the appointment of Commissioners was discussed in the Committee. He thought that this was treating the House of Commons a little too cavalierly. He could not help thinking that there was something very singular in this proceeding. It would have been more consistent with the usual fairness of the noble Lord opposite, to have waited till the sanction of the Committee had been given to the appointment of these Commissioners. He was aware that great inconvenience might perhaps arise from postponing the appointment of the Commissioners till the Bill had got through that House of Parliament—through the other House of Parliament, he believed, in his conscience, that it never would get. He contended that hon. Members ought to have had an opportunity of stating their opinions as to the extent of the inquiries to be made by the Commissioners, for many gentlemen, as was notorious, had already objected to the character of the Commissioners. He had thought it right to make a statement of these circumstances to the House. He did not know whether he should found a specific motion upon them. He could not, however, refrain from calling the attention of the House to them, because he held it to be an act of presumption for Ministers to anticipate the judgment of the House en any point, and still more so on an appointment of this importance. He should conclude by asking the noble Lord, whether all the circulars were sent on the 24th of August to the Commissioners, who were not then appointed, but only proposed to be appointed by the House of Commons?
Lord Althorp, in reply to the hon. Gentleman, begged leave to acquaint him, that the letter which had been addressed to the Overseers of St. Mary's, Guildford, by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, contained nothing else but an order for them to give that information to Messrs, Dawson, Drinkwater, and Sanders,
1150
which the Secretary of State had a right at any time to demand from them. The hon. Member had said, that he (Lord Althorp) would have acted with greater candour, if he had waited till this Bill had passed through the Committee before he had appointed these Commissioners. But at the very time that he had proposed this clause to the Committee, he had stated, that inquiries were even then making to facilitate the future labours of the Commissioners. He thought that the more information they could collect before the Commissioners commenced their labours, the more likelihood would there be of those labours being brought to a satisfactory and speedy conclusion; for the Commissioners, having some preliminary information on which to act, would be the better able to examine each case maturely from knowing the points to which their attention ought to be directed.
Sir Charles Wetherellcontended, that so direct an infringement of the privileges of Parliament as that which the hon. and gallant member for Weymouth had just brought under the notice of the House, never had been committed at any previous time. It was so enormous, that he would not discuss it incidentally; and therefore he now gave notice, that he would bring forward a specific motion respecting it on Wednesday next. He said, that it was a monstrous infringement of the privileges of Parliament for any Secretary of State to name a set of individuals to carry on the functions of an Act of Parliament, before it had gained the sanction even of a Committee of that House, or had even been mentioned in the other House of Parliament.
Mr. Humewas certain that, in spite of all the denunciations of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, the country would think that the Government had only performed its duty in seeking to obtain this information. That such a question as that which the hon. and gallant member for Weymouth had submitted to his noble friend should have been gravely submitted to him, did not at all strike him with wonder; for it was only part of the game which hon. Gentlemen had been long playing, with a view of stopping the progress of the Reform Bill. He was surprised—no—he was not surprised, when he heard Gentlemen, who had long taunted Ministers with not making sufficient inquiries, now taunting them

1151
with having made too many inquiries. To blow hot and cold in this manner was so common a practice with the Anti-reformers, that no Reformer could be surprised at it. He urged Government to proceed in collecting, without delay, all the information which they could for the Commissioners.
Mr. Baring Wallnow understood from the noble Lord, that the Commissioners had no authority to compel the information to which the letter of the Under-Secretary had reference. He had that morning received a letter from his friend, the Church warden of Guilford; he would repeat that it was from a friend, and he hoped the country would know in what way the middle orders were treated when spoken of in that House. The Commissioners told that gentleman that they had come by the authority of his Majesty's Government, and he hoped that it would go forth to the world that the Commissioners had no such authority.
Sir Edward Sugdenexpressed his surprise at the extraordinary attack which the hon. member for Middlesex had made upon the Members on the Opposition side of the House. He did not find fault with the Government for getting all the information which they could respecting the working of the Reform Bill; but then they ought to get it on their own individual responsibility. The real question to be considered in this case was simply this—were these gentlemen travelling in their official character as Commissioners, or were they acting without any other authority than that derived from the Secretary of State?
Mr. Warburtonsaid, what he understood the noble Lord to assert was, that the Commissioners had no authority under the Bill. They had, he presumed, authority from the Secretary of State's office, which he considered amply sufficient, and he was extremely glad to find that inquiries were set on foot to enable the Commissioners to perform their duties.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that it was most unfair to state that the noble Lord had not acted with his usual candour upon this occasion. He had heard the noble Lord, when he proposed this clause on Friday night, assert that the Government had already exerted itself to obtain considerable information for the Commissioners, and therefore the hon. and gallant member for Weymouth had only discover-
1152
ed that which in another place had been designated a mare's nest.
Mr. Crokerwas not versed in the language of slang, and therefore was not sure that he understood what a mare's nest was; but he suspected that by attending a little more than he had been in the habit of doing to the disquisitions of the hon. Member who spoke last, he might perhaps discover what was meant by "finding a mare's nest." At all events he thought he could venture to say that it was the contrary of that which his hon. and gallant friend had discovered in this case. If this mode of proceeding without parliamentary authority was undertaken for no other purpose than to obtain information, why had not the gentlemen who adopted it been sent to Guildford before the 26th of August? Why had they had such a long debate on the partial disfranchisement of Guildford without one particle of that information which these gentlemen had been despatched to collect? Why was that town placed in schedule B upon information which Ministers owned to be defective by appointing gentlemen to collect more?
Mr. Huntsaw amongst the names of the Commissioners the name of Tallents. Was this the same Mr. Tallents who was agent of the Duke of Newcastle at Newark, and who had been employed as the chief legal agent of Government in one of the Special Commissions? He had received many letters from that part of the country praying, that if he were the same Mr. Tallents, he might have nothing to do with providing for their rights.
Lord Althorpreplied, that the Mr. Tallents, regarding whom the hon. member for Preston had asked a question, was the agent of the Duke of Newcastle. With respect to Guildford, he contended that the Government had not acted upon defective information: on the contrary, it had acquired as accurate information as possible. The delay in proceeding with this Bill was so great—he blamed nobody for the delay; but did hon. Gentlemen mean to say, that the Bill had passed rapidly through its present stages? As the term delay seemed to be offensive, he would not use it; he would only say, that the Bill passed so slowly, that Government thought it desirable to collect as much preliminary information as could be obtained, in order that there might be as little delay as possible when the Commissioners commenced their labours.
Mr. Crokerentertained from this enquiry and discussion, some hopes, that they should eventually be able to rescue Guildford from the fangs of schedule B.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, that as there was now a vast accumulation of orders on the paper, there being not less than thirty for that day, he would take the liberty of asking the noble Lord, when he intended to bring on his motion on the Sugar-refining Act. Me gave notice, that whenever the noble Lord brought on that motion, he would move as an amendment to it, that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration a statement, submitted by the West-India interest to the Board of Trade, as to the situation of the West-India colonies.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of the whole House.
Lord Althorpproposed a Resolution—"That the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, be authorized to direct the payment of the expense incurred by the Barristers employed in revising lists of voters at county, city, and borough elections."
Sir Charles Wetherellasked how many Barristers would be appointed?
Lord Althorpreplied, that the Bill did not settle the number.
Mr. Humehad considerable doubts whether the public should pay these appointments. One of the best checks to prevent the expense of these appointments from being considerable, would be to make the counties and boroughs pay it. The examination of voters might be protracted from five to fifty days, and therefore the local authorities ought to have some control over the conduct of the Barristers.
Lord Althorpwas sure that his hon. friend must be aware, that if this expense were charged on the county rates, there could be no greater check upon its amount than there was at present. The appointment would be made by the Judges of assize, and the county would have no check upon it. The country ought to pay the charge of these appointments, as they were made for the benefit of the country at large. Besides, it would be unfair to put the expense of the borough Barristers on the county rates.
Mr. Wilkshad been going to press on the noble Lord the necessity of having the expenses incident on this Bill thrown on
1154
the public rather than on the county. The expenses incident on the metropolitan districts would be enormous. In the Tower Hamlets alone the expenses would be more than 1,000 l. every year. The people generally would feel considerable dissatisfaction should the salaries of the Barristers be defrayed out of the Poor-rates.
Mr. Huntwas of opinion, that those who gained votes by the Bill should pay the expenses of securing them, and that those who gained nothing by the Bill should not be called on to pay anything. If a definite sum had been asked for, he might not have objected; but as it might amount to a large sum, he protested against it.
Mr. Humesuggested, that any individual who registered his vote should pay a shilling or half-a-crown at the time of doing that. By adopting that course, they would raise a fund sufficient to pay every expense. He understood that, in the county of Middlesex, there would be near 60,000 voters, so that it would be very easy to raise money enough in the way he mentioned. If they thought half-a-crown, or a shilling, too much, then he would propose sixpence, or any sum which would in that way raise a fund large enough for the purpose.
Mr. Crokersaid, they had heard a good deal of the anomalies of the Bill, but of all the anomalies they had yet heard, the most extraordinary would be that which the member for Middlesex wished to introduce—that those persons should in future pay money for giving their vote, after having, throughout all the former part of their lives, been receiving-money for the same purpose, [a laugh]. Most certainly that was one of the anomalies to which he would offer no objection, but which he did not think was likely to be very popular with those for whose use the Bill seemed especially framed.
On the question that the Committee do agree to the Resolution—
Mr. Huntwished that some definite sum should be named, instead of voting money in that manner, to be at the discretion of the Government.
Lord Althorpsaid, it would be impossible to tell what time would be occupied by the Barristers in the performance of the duties, and they could not, therefore, name any sum.
Sir Charles Wetherell, adverting to the report that the Commissioners, named last week, had already commenced their

1155
labours, begged to ask the noble Lord a question on that subject. Had the Government, or any member of the Government, promised these Commissioners a guinea a-day, and their travelling expenses.
Lord Althorpsaid, that some of the Commissioners had, he believed, been called on to act; but no sum beyond their travelling expenses had been promised, by any member of the Government, as a remuneration for their services.
Mr. Crokerobserved on the extraordinary fact of these Commissioners being employed, in this manner, before they were really appointed by the House, and before it was known that their services could be required; and the Government, at the same time, stipulating to pay the expense of that service.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the right hon. Gentleman must know, that the same course had frequently been followed, on other occasions, by the Government with which that right hon. Gentleman was connected, and the money afterwards voted among the contingencies.
Mr. Crokerbegged leave to deny altogether the correctness of the remark made by the right, hon. Gentleman.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the Government, in thus employing the Commissioners, and promising to pay them out of the public money, before they were really appointed, had been guilty of conduct most unwarrantable and illegal, and he should certainly bring the question, by a formal motion, under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Humesaid, he could not allow the expression, "unwarrantable," to pass without reprehension. The Government had done what was quite right. It was just the same kind of justifiable expense as that which had been incurred in obtaining information before the introduction of the Bill.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought it rather odd to be called to account for the use of strong expressions, by the member for the county of Middlesex. Every body knew, that the language of the member for Middlesex was not the smoothest to be heard in that House, and that the hon. Member very frequently fell into very strong expressions himself. Every body knew that the sentences of the member for Middlesex required a good deal of the limœ labor to render them fit to appear as delivered
1156
in that House; and it was rather too much, therefore, that the hon. Member should take objections to his words. The member for Middlesex had rendered himself remarkable for his objections to expenses of all kinds; but his course in this case would be a little uncommon. The hon. member for Middlesex seemed inclined to allow the expense then, that he might have the pleasure of objecting to it afterwards.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the learned Gentleman was perfectly wrong, and he was perfectly right. That was jusst the state of the case. If he had used the word "unwarrantable" improperly, he was sorry for it.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that notwithstanding the hon. Member thought himself quite right, yet he should persist in giving notice when the Speaker resumed the Chair.
Mr. Huntregretted, that the Commissioners were not to be paid for their labour; as there were lawyers among them, the people would naturally think they would do no work unless they were paid for it.
Resolution agreed to, and the House resumed.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—THIRTYEIGHTH DAY.
On the motion of Lord Althorp, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
Clause 33rd, which requires the Overseers of the poor, in every parish, to make out an alphabetical list of the persons entitled to be registered, was then read. On coming to the words "shall, at the expense of the parish or township, on or before the day of it was proposed to fill up the blanks with the words "First" and "November."
Mr. Wilkssaid, he thought that was the proper occasion for the consideration of a suggestion he had to offer to the noble Lord and the Committee, with respect to the payment of the expenses of the lists, notices, and the other forms connected with the registration. The House and the Government did not, he thought, estimate, to its full extent, the cost of these proceedings. In the division of the Tower Hamlets, there would be 40,000 houses, for each of which there must be a separate return; all these would have

1157
to be arranged and analyzed; alphabetical lists to be made out, printed, and revised; and he believed the expense of carrying the provisions of the Bill into effect, in that district, would not be less than 2,000 l. or 3.000 l. a-year. He thought, that a sum so large as this should not come out of the rates. The measure, too, in populous places, would be attended with so much labour that the Overseers must be compelled to employ other persons to transact it. The expenses attending all this, ought not to be paid out of the poor-rates.
Mr. Alderman Woodthought, that 200 l. a-year for the services of a clerk, would be all that could be deemed necessary for the purpose; and even if it amounted to more, or nearly to the sum his hon. friend supposed, which was a most extravagant estimate, still it would be very little among so many persons.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that when the metropolitan districts petitioned to be relieved from the expense of sending Members, it would be time enough to consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Colonel Sibthorpconsidered that the expense which might be required, would, in all likelihood, be very uncertain in its amount.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Government thought it much better to have these duties performed by the Overseers at the cost of the parishes, than by persons appointed and paid by the Slate; because it was satisfied there would then be a strict; attention to the expenditure, and that the parishes would keep an effectual control over their own officers.
Sir Edward Sugdenbegged to know, whether, in cases where landlords were now bound to pay the rates, they were also to be called upon to pay this additional expense?
Mr. Huntcomplained of the power with which the Bill would invest parochial Overseers, and, in consequence, they should be restricted from interfering in elections, or they might contrive to exercise a very great influence over them.
Mr. Wilkssuggested, that the Churchwardens ought to be added to the Over-seers, in all cases where they did not happen to be so by virtue of their office.
Mr. Huntsaid, if Churchwardens were included, there must be an alteration of the present law, as they had no power but to make Poor and Church rates.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, whoever was to make the lists, ought not to interfere with the elections, and, as it must be presumed, the parochial authorities might have a particular bias, the power of preparing the lists should be vested in other persons. He had not attempted to amend many of the clauses in the Bill, but he should wish to see this altered, for the persons to whom the authority was to be given, might play all sorts of political tricks.
That part of the clause was then agreed to, and the Chairman went on reading until he came to the words "and shall cause a sufficient number of copies of such lists to be printed, at the expense of their respective parishes or townships."
Mr. Estcourtbegged to ask the noble Lord, whether this expense was to be paid by all the parish, for those rated under 10 1. were to lose their votes by this Bill? As the Barristers who were to decide upon county rates, were to be paid by the public, and it was understood that borough functionaries were also to be paid in a similar manner, he thought that these lists should not be a burthen on the parishes. He should, therefore, recommend that the Sheriff for each county should pay all the expenses under the direction of the Treasury.
Lord Althorpsaid, the expenses for the counties could be controlled by the Treasury; in parishes that would be impossible; and, therefore, the best way was, to let the respective parishes manage their own business themselves.
Question agreed to.
The Chairmanthen said, after the words "churches and chapels," it was proposed to insert the words "and if there be no Church or Chapel, then in some public or conspicuous place."
Mr. Huntsaid, such lists ought to be put up on Sundays, as game certificates, and other Acts of Parliament were, or people would not see them.
Lord Althorpsaid, the reason why this provision was not made was, that some persons apprehended disturbances in the church-yards in consequence.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, he did not apprehend the noble Lord was going to mix up saintship with Parliamentary Reform. In many rural parishes and boroughs, people had five or six miles to go to church; it was not likely they would go that distance on any other day than

1159
the Sabbath. He himself was in that situation.
The addition proposed was adopted, and the clause, as amended, was then put and agreed to.
The Chairman then put the question, "That clause 34th should stand part of the Bill." The clause related to town clerks being obliged to furnish the lists of the freemen to the Overseers.
The clause, with verbal amendments, agreed to.
The Chairman then said, it was proposed that all the words in the 35th clause, after the words "be it enacted that," should be omitted, for the purpose of enacting "a provision for extra-parochial places," &c. Amendment agreed to, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, they had now come to clauses 36th, and 37th, to which, he hoped, there would be no objection. In the 36th clause it was proposed, that all the words after the words "be it enacted that," should be omitted, for the purpose of inserting the words, "That persons omitted in the borough lists, should give notice of their claims to Overseers. That lists of claimants should be kept for inspection."
Mr. Wilksproposed to add these words as an Amendment—"And shall deliver copies of each of the said notices to any person requiring the same, on payment of a fee of 1s. each copy."—Agreed to; and the clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
In the 37th clause it was proposed, that all the words after "be it enacted that," should be omitted, to substitute the following:—"That the Judges should name the Barrister to revise the lists of borough voters, and, upon due proof, insert and expunge names, and rectify mistakes."
The clause agreed to.
The blanks in the 38th clause were filled up with the words "first" October and "first" November, and the whole clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman read clause 39th, which takes from parties the right of being attended by Counsel at the Barrister's Court.
Sir Charles Wetherellopposed that part of the clause, as interfering with the right of the voter.
Mr. Wilksobserved, that oaths were fairly administered to the parties, and justice might be done without the assistance of an Advocate.—Clause agreed to.
The Chairman commenced reading the 40th clause, on coming to the words ''And shall deliver the said Book to the Sheriff of the county, or his deputy, on or before the 1st day of October, in the jresent year,"
Colonel Woodreferred to an Act of Parliament (the 28th of George 3rd), passed in 1788, which had only that evening suggested itself to his notice. Its details were somewhat similar to the present plan, the object being the establishment of a system of registration of free-holders by the clergymen in different parishes. That Act was repealed the next Session, in consequence of the great expense and difficulty which occurred in making out registers. If the registration clauses of this Bill were passed, he was convinced they would be found so inconvenient, that they would, in like manner, be repealed. It would be absolutely impossible for the Clerk of the Peace, within any given time, to discriminate and arrange the different lists. They must be compared, to see that the same name or person did not appear in more parishes than one. It was thought, that, if residence was affixed, that would obviate the difficulty, but he had the benefit of experience in knowing this was also fallacious, from circumstances which had occurred relating to contested elections in the county he had the honour to represent.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the Act referred to, of which he was fully aware, had been introduced by the late Lord Stanhope. Its object was, that voters should register themselves; but it was found that it was useless to intrust this to the freeholders as a voluntary act, and the law was, therefore, repealed. That circumstance had decided the Ministers to resort to a compulsory registration.
On the question being put, that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Wilkscould not see why the noble Lord had left out of the clause words allowing lists to be given applicants on payment of a reasonable sum. He thought the machinery of the Bill could not work well without those words, and

1161
he should, probably, consider it necessary to introduce an amendment, in some future clause, to that effect.
Lord Althorpthought, as there was a general understanding that claimants had a right to a copy of the list on payment of 1s., there was no necessity to introduce precise words to that effect, but if there was such a necessity, that provision would be the subject of a subsequent clause.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On clause 41st being put,
Sir Edward Sugdenconsidered the right given by this clause to put questions to voters not clearly defined; it was wholly impossible to understand the clause as it stood.
Lord Althorpsaid, the clause had been amended at the suggestion of hon. Members, and he thought its meaning and bearing were perfectly plain.
Sir Charles Wetherellcomplained of the series of privations to which the voter was subject under the clauses of the Bill. No scrutiny was allowed; consequently, the party had no opportunity of proving whether his vote had been improperly rejected. The Overseer was, in fact, to make such a list as he pleased, which the Barrister was to alter and amend at his discretion, and when the elector came up to poll, he had no remedy whatever if his vote was rejected. The whole system of registration was bad, and a check upon the exercise of the elective franchise.
Lord Althorpsaid, of all the objections to various parts of the Bill, he thought the arguments used against registration, were the weakest. If their machinery would answer the purpose for which it was intended, and of which he had little doubt, a scrutiny would be wholly unnecessary; the great object was, to prevent expense and delay. The objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman was against Parliamentary Reform rather than the provisions of the registry clauses.
Sir Charles Wetherellthought the noble Lord had put a wrong construction on his objections, which were unconnected with Parliamentary Reform, and applied wholly to the scheme of registration. By the proposed plan, the elector would have no opportunity of obtaining justice in any of the preliminary stages. The clause actually destroyed all the advantages the elector at present enjoyed.
The clause was then agreed to.
The Chairman read the 42nd clause, allowing the accuracy of registrars to be questioned before a Committee of the House of Commons.
Sir Charles Wetherellhad one strong objection to the clause. He apprehended it was intended, that persons should have the same privilege to which they were now entitled, to appeal to that House on a question of an undue return. Now, the words of "whose names shall be improperly inserted, exchanged, or omitted," were so vague, as to render their bearing somewhat doubtful. The clause ought to provide expressly, that every person should retain the same rights of complaint as he now enjoyed
Mr. Serjeant Wildedefended the clause, and contended, that the powers of a Committee were clearly pointed out for the purposes of the Bill. The House, in case of complaint, would have chiefly to ascertain whether or not the returning officer had done his duty.
Mr. Charles Rosssaid, unless an elector's name was upon the register, he could not even declare for which candidate he proposed to vote. It would be impossible for the House to put his name upon the poll, because no knowledge could be had for whom he would have voted, from his right having been denied. The clause was, necessarily, imperfect.
Sir Edward Sugdenconcurred with the hon. Gentleman, that the returning officers would necessarily be guided by the lists, and, unless a man's name appeared, his vote would be at once rejected, without any question of its legality. This was a point which required amendment.
Mr. Serjeant Wildesaid, the clause would simplify the whole duty of the returning officer, instead of the numerous questions and oaths now required. They would have to ask the party claiming to vote, first, as to his identity with the name in the register; second, whether his qualification was in existence at the time of voting; and third, whether he had previously polled: all the returning officer would have to do was, to see this regularly attended to.
The clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43rd, providing that the Sheriffs of divided counties should preside at elections by themselves or deputies, and should fix the time, agreed to.
On clause 44th, providing for the commencement and continuance of polls at county elections, being read,
Mr. Houldsworthsaid, that he did not think that two days would be sufficient time for polling all the voters that would exist under this Bill in large counties, and divisions of counties.
Lord Althorpreplied, that the number of booths which would be provided at all county elections, would afford an ample opportunity of polling all the voters in that period.
Mr. Stricklandconcurred with the hon. Gentleman. He conceived, that in the West Riding of Yorkshire two days would not afford sufficient time for polling one-half of the votes that would exist under this Bill.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, he was also of opinion, that the poll could not be completed in two days when the voters were numerous: 3,000 or 4,000 might be polled in that time, but in many places they would far exceed that number, and if it was wished that the sense of the country should be obtained through the voice of the great majority of voters, a longer time than two days must be allowed.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that allowing it to be possible that the whole number o voters could be polled in two days, still it might be in the power of a candidate, who had a small majority, to obstruct his opponent's electors until after the time was elapsed, and thereby secure his own election.
Sir Charles Wetherellbegged to ask the noble Lord, if a contest should suddenly arise soon after the passing of this Bill would he not think it would be some what difficult to get the electors to the poll in two days in a large county. It might be done, perhaps, in Norfolk or in Stafford, but how it could be accomplished in the West Riding of York, was to him a mystery; and as one of the hon. Members for that county seemed to anticipate there would be such a difficulty, he should recommend him to move an Amendment for a longer time, and he would support him. Two days would, no doubt, be ample time to take the poll for the borough he had the honour to represent, but the same period, it was evident, could not be applicable to all places.
Lord Althorpsaid, that there would be fifteen places in the West Riding of Yorkshire for taking the poll. At each of
1164
those fifteen places as many booths for receiving the votes of those who came to poll as might be thought necessary would be opened. Thus the polling would go on fifteen times quicker there than at present, and the unlimited number of booths which might be opened, combined with the facility afforded by the register, would enable all the voters, even in that large district, to record their votes in the space of two days. Allowing there were 30,000 voters, this would only be 2,000 for each polling place, and that number could easily be polled. They knew, from the case of Norwich, that it was possible, even with a large constituency, to close the poll in two days; and if arrangements for the same purpose could be as easily made elsewhere, the House should pass the clause in its present shape, in order to compel the parties interested to make them.
Mr. Ewartbegged to confirm the statement of the noble Lord by another example. At the last Liverpool election the poll was concluded in ten hours, by the adoption of a system acted upon by consent between the candidates. Another advantage in quick polling was, that the candidates were sooner able to perceive what was likely to be the result, and the unsuccessful party was thereby the more speedily induced to resign.
Mr. George Robinsonthought, that the poll might be taken in two days, but he was of opinion that the single intervening day which this clause allowed, between the first day of the election and that on which the polling was to commence, would not afford sufficient time, where a contest suddenly arose, to give notice throughout a county, and to prepare the machinery rendered necessary by this Bill in a county election.
Colonel Sibthorpwas of opinion, that Ministers ought to stand still and re-consider a clause, the effect of which would be to prevent very many persons from voting. They would as soon get all the electors of a large county to poll in two days, as they would pass the Bill they were at present talking about through a Committee in that time.
Mr. Wilkssaid, there were many non-resident freeholders who, if the time were not extended, would be prevented from voting. This would be peculiarly the case in Yorkshire, and other extensive counties. He should, therefore, recommend that the

1165
time between the day of nomination and the commencement of polling should be extended.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, it appeared to him that two days was too short a time for a large county to be polled, but he thought it would be inconvenient to postpone the election after the appointed day. Allowing all the noble Lord had said about the number of places for the poll, and the number of booths, the candidates must have some person to represent them at each place; there must be attorneys and check-clerks; and do what they would, some examination of voters would be necessary. What was to prevent the agents questioning the party wishing to poll, whether he was still in possession, and it might turn out that he had parted with the property since the day of registration. He held it to be impossible that this clause could work well, or answer the purpose for which it was intended.
Lord Althorpmust repeat, that in ordinary cases there would be no difficulty in completing the poll within the time limited. The distances of the polling places from each other would be much diminished by the division of counties. He allowed there was some foundation for the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that a question might arise as to whether the voter was still in possession.
Mr. Houldsworthsaid, of course the noble Lord, who had much experience in contested county elections, knew the time it took to poll an individual where there were no questions to be asked. If they allowed five minutes for each, which was a short time, no more than 100 could be polled at one place during the day. He feared the limited period would lead to such frauds in conducting elections as would more than counterbalance the good to be expected from it.
Mr. Huntsaid, he knew many voters could be polled in a short time where they lived close together: 2,000 had been polled at Preston in one day for himself and his hon. opponent, but he was of opinion that at least three days should be allowed for the elections in counties, considering the distance voters would have to come. If this alteration were not made, he could only look on this as a "neck-and-neck, or neck-or-nothing" clause.
Mr. Wranghamwas of opinion, that if this clause were carried in its present shape, gentlemen would be unable, in case
1166
of a contested election, to avail themselves of the out-voters and he requested to know the noble Lord's opinion respecting the proposal that had been made for lengthening the time between the day of nomination and the day of polling.
Lord Althorpsaid, there would be an inconvenience in any case as to the proposition of extending the time between the day of nomination and the day of election; it would lead to a greater increase of expense than allowing a third day for the voting.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, the limitation of time was one of the most valuable parts of the Bill generally, but that, at some future time, an alteration must be made to meet some of the objections to this clause, in large districts where there were so many voters. As to the expense he would say one word. It would be necessary in Yorkshire, where there were 30,000 electors, to have thirty booths; the expense of erecting which, and of employing clerks, would be about 70 1. for each, making a total of 2,100 l. This was certainly too much.
Mr. Keith Douglaswas convinced that in Manchester, the Tower Hamlets, and other populous places, it would be impossible to poll the voters in two days. In the latter place there would be 40,000 electors to poll there in two days; they must have, by the estimate already made, sixty-six booths; this must lead to great confusion and enormous expense.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, it was one of the absurdities of the measure, that it pretended to extend the franchise with one hand, and limited the time of taking the poll with the other, so that half those to whom the franchise was given could not vote. But suppose some candidate should start up at the day of election, where no opposition was calculated upon in a large district, could there be time or opportunities for taking the poll? He should most certainly bring the matter again before the House at a future occasion.
The clause agreed to, and the House resumed.

SUGAR REFINING ACT.
Mr. Poulett Thomson Mr. Poulett Thomson moved, that the Sugar Refining Bill be committed on Wednesday next.
Mr. Robert Gordonobserved, that there was no chance of obtaining a fair discussion on the Bill on Wednesday, and it was a measure which very much affected great and extensive interests, and which the

1167
commercial world was watching with attention. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would consent to postpone the Committee on the Bill, for a more wicked measure he could hardly conceive. He knew that the language of Ministers was, that the doom of the West-Indians was fixed; but of all bills that ever were brought forward, this had the least of reason to support it.
Mr. George Robinsoncontended, that the House was so exhausted by its attention to the Reform Bill, that it was utterly incapable of properly discussing the important questions brought before it; and he deprecated the practice of Ministers, in putting such measures down on the Order-book, day after day, when they knew that they could not be settled. Many Members supported Ministers upon such bills as the present, though they disapproved of them; but their motive was an apprehension that they should otherwise injure the cause of Reform.
Lord Althorpsaid, the Bill was merely the renewal of an Act which had passed through the House a number of years successively without opposition.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, it had been admitted by the late Government that the Act ought not to be renewed as a matter of course. He was aware that this and many other important questions had been postponed on account of the Reform Bill, but the subject of complaint was, that such measures ought not to have been introduced under such circumstances. It would be better that the Bill should be wholly withdrawn until the Reform Bill was disposed of.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the present Government was most desirous that the colonies should have every indulgence possible shewn them, consistent with justice and impartiality, and he had no doubt that an opportunity would, in a few days, be offered when the whole subject could be fully discussed.
Mr. Robert Gordonwished the hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, would consent to postpone the Committee on the Bill until this day three weeks.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, he could not agree to his hon. friend's proposal.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, he and the great body of the West-India proprietors were most anxious to improve the condition of the slaves, but they were thwarted
1168
by the measures of Ministers. He had no wish to trouble them more than necessary, but he should propose as an Amendment, that the 16ih of September should be substituted for the time named in the original motion.
Mr. George Robinsonhoped the noble Lord would keep them in suspense as short a time as possible.
Lord Althorpproposed it should come on on Tuesday next.
Ordered accordingly.

MINUTES.
Bills committed. Canadian Revenues. Read a third time. The Barrren Land (Ireland), and the Subletting Act Amendment.
Petitions presented. By Lord KING, from Raheen, Ireland, against the Vestry Act, and for the abolition of Tithes; from the Isle of Wight, in favour of Reform; by the Earl of HADDINGTON, from the county of Haddington, against the use of Molasses in Breweries or Distilleries; by the Marquis of DOWNSHIRE, from Cairncastle, in favour of the Kildare Street Society.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH PORTUGAL.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that he rose, pursuant to notice, to present a Petition from the Merchants, Ship-owners, and Manufacturers, concerned in the trade to Portugal. The petitioners complained, that a trade which had been so long protected and supported by this country, and which had proved, for a series of years, so beneficial to the nation at large, and all those who were connected with it, should now be exposed to so many interruptions, and to such a variety of embarrassments. The petitioners expressed their fears, that the measures which had been proposed by his Majesty's Ministers had had the effect of suspending the amicable relations which formerly existed with Portugal, and they apprehended that those measures, which they were afraid his Majesty's Ministers intended to continue, would expose our commerce with that country to still greater danger. The difficulties arising from this state of things, and from the different interests they involved, were not, it should be observed, to be examined in a mere commercial point of view. The fact was, that a state of feeling had been excited by those proceedings, which, however new or unprecedented, exposed the personal safety of our countrymen in Portugal to great danger and considerable hazard. Their Lordships would have, on a future occasion, a proper opportunity of discussing the commercial policy of his Majesty's Ministers, as they were disposed to regulate it with respect to that country. When these matters came before the House, he should

1097
be quite prepared to state his opinion on that subject; but it was to him perfectly clear that this trade—this important trade—could not go on with prosperity, and receive that development of which it was capable, unless an alteration took place in the political relations of this country with Portugal. Looking to the present conduct of the Government towards Portugal, he must say, that it would be difficult to maintain such a system and preserve even the simple relation of peace with any other State. Why, then, the Ministers should adopt it towards a country with which they were more intimately connected than with any other on the whole face of the earth, he was utterly at a loss to conceive. The nature of our treaties with Portugal—the great privileges enjoyed by British subjects in that country—the almost unbounded licence possessed by Englishmen residing there—all these privileges and immunities were incompatible with any other than a state of the most perfect friendship and cordiality. Any encroachment upon the principles which formed the foundation of such a state of things, must lead to estrangement, and that soreness of feeling, which never could exist, and peace be preserved, between any other nations than those that were, as intimately connected as England and Portugal. In truth, the relations of this country with Portugal had always resembled more those of a mother country and its colony, than the relations of two independent States; and the French, always jealous of that close connexion, had called Portugal the colony or the factory of England. He was persuaded that the state of things of which these petitioners complained could not exist much longer. The petitioners thought, that to attempt to continue the present suspension of those friendly relations which had subsisted for ages between the two countries, would be most injurious to the interests of their fellow-subjects in this country as well as those who resided in Portugal; that it would be most unjust to the Portuguese nation; that it would place in jeopardy the tranquillity of the whole Peninsula, and that it could not be continued without danger to the peace of Europe. In bringing the subject of Portugal thus under consideration, he was induced to do so specially with a view to the improvement and consolidation of the relations of Great Britain with that country. He
1098
should therefore strictly confine himself to that point—he should consider the fair construction of the principles on which those relations were founded. It was very possible that some of the noble Lords opposite might, as they had formerly done, impute to him, in taking the course which duty alone induced him to take, feelings of partiality towards the government and the ruler of Portugal, and a tendency to favour both the one and the other. Now, he really knew not at what time or by what means he had shown that he was favourable to such principles as those which noble Lords had reprobated. Without, perhaps, speaking so loudly and so frequently as some of the noble Lords opposite had done on the subject of free and liberal institutions, he believed that he respected the rights and feelings of nations and individuals as much and as highly as any of those noble Lords did. In considering this question there were many points to be included, and he confessed that he looked not so much to the Government under which the Portuguese lived, as to what was due to the honour of this country in dealing with an old ally. That the government of Portugal was absolute and despotic he well knew; and, as such, it might be considered as founded on errors which abstractedly deserved reprobation. But he knew, also, that it had existed for ages—he knew, also, that under it the relations of Portugal with England had originated, had increased, and were confirmed and strengthened. It was an indisputable fact that those relations were cemented by a Government thus formed, and it was no less a fact that our obligations to a Government so constituted, were honourably fulfilled. As to the influence of England in upholding Portugal, he should say little, for the subject was painful to him. His error, if it were one, might easily be corrected, when he said, that, within a short period, the French flag had, for the first time in the history of those countries, been known to domineer, without control, in Portugal. The question to which he called the attention of the House had nothing to do with the constitution of Portugal. He believed that the king had little disposition to grant, and the people but little wish to receive, such a constitution as some individuals wished to introduce. But, as he reasoned the case, the feeling on their part with respect to a constitution

1099
formed no justification on our part for any change in those friendly relations which had existed from a very remote period between those countries—Portugal and England. There never was any thing more true than a declaration made by the late Mr. Canning, two months before his death, in which he plainly stated "that the vast majority of the people of Spain were hostile to any constitution like that which was proposed to be given to them." The same observation would equally apply to Portugal. They might rail as much as they pleased at priests and nobles—they might censure as much as they pleased illiberals and anti-constitutionalists—but the fact was indisputable, that the people were not favourable to any change. And really, after the recent examples which they had had of the changes produced by revolution, he was not sure that they could be quite certain that a great benefit would be derived from the promulgation of new constitutions, as many individuals seemed to suppose. Let their Lordships look to the example of France and Belgium, and to other precedents: what lesson did they derive from them? When they saw the misery, the bankruptcy, the discontent, the universal distress, to which these revolutions gave rise, they might surely allow other countries the right to hesitate a little before they rushed forward to make a great and extensive alteration in their system of government. He knew not whether their own experience in the interference with the constitution of other States had been so eminently successful as to render them zealous, and, he might say, over-anxious to proceed further, and to attempt to extend to Portugal a constitution to which the people, however unwilling, should be obliged to bow. This system reminded him much of the father who was determined to make his daughter happy even against her will. He alluded to the well known Squire Western, in the novel of Tom Jones, who wished to marry his daughter contrary to her inclination. "Rot her," said the Squire, "she shall be happy though I break her heart for it." This he thought, was precisely the case here, and surely the nation had as much right to please itself as the lady. We wished to make the Portuguese nation happy, but they did not desire to be made happy in our way. What, then, was to be the termination of this system? Was it intended that the
1100
suspension of these relations, which had already continued too long, was to be indefinite? What obstacles were there, he wished to know, to prevent the renewal of our political relations? And if there were such obstacles, how were they to be overcome? These questions he put forth broadly, and he trusted, that they would be satisfactorily answered. The noble Earl had made his Majesty, in the Speech from the Throne "regret his not having been yet able to renew his friendly relations with Portugal." He wanted to know what it was, that prevented his Majesty from renewing those relations? It certainly could not be the supposed usurpation of Don Miguel—for certainly no usurpation ever received such approval as his was known to have received. Don Miguel had acted as he pleased, without opposition. He had convened the States of the realm, according to the old-established custom and form. These States had unanimously accepted him: they had done more, they had declared him the legitimate monarch of Portugal; and the vast majority of the people had assented to the justice of that claim. They had thus continued to give him their allegiance for three years, under circumstances unparalleled in that or any other country; and, so far from having been done by foreign influence, it was accomplished in direct opposition to the wishes of almost all the Powers of Europe, and, he might almost say, in defiance of them, by the people alone. As far as usurpation was concerned, then, there was no ground for not renewing our political relations with Portugal, neither was the personal character of the monarch himself any objection. With respect to some of the measures of the Portuguese government, there was no man who more lamented their severity than he did; they must, on account of that severity, be revolting to their Lordships, and to every man who lived under a free and secure government. But, in considering this subject, their Lordships should take into account what the situation of that country is, and had been. Whenever counsel had been offered to that government, with a view to mild and conciliatory measures, it always met us with this answer—"We desire to be kind; we desire to be merciful; but we must first have the support which your Government and all Europe can give us, before we can afford to adopt that course." Therefore,

1101
he said, that this country had been (as he had always contended) accountable, in a great degree, for the conduct which the government of Portugal pursued, and which it believed to be best calculated for its own protection. With respect to the cruelties which that government was said to have perpetrated, he would not pay so ill a compliment to the understanding of their Lordships, as to suppose that they could credit such monstrous things. He had not the slightest doubt, that they had been greatly exaggerated. He had been assured by Englishmen—gentlemen—officers—men of high character and honour, who had been ocular witnesses of much that had occurred in Portugal, that much absurd and gross exaggeration had been sent forth on this subject. He would state one fact, which, upon this point, might be taken as an example. From an account which had been shown to him, it appeared, that in the course of the last three years, there were only twenty-two persons executed in Lisbon. That fact could not be mistaken. This was a matter that occurred before the whole world. It was indeed said, and that was very easy to say, that thousands of people were in prison. Of course, no man but those immediately concerned could speak to this point; but here, also, it was likely, that there was much gross exaggeration. He thought that their Lordships would admit, that if, in three years, considering the situation in which the Portuguese government was placed, only twenty-two persons were executed, that could not be looked upon as a very extraordinary number. He, therefore, had a right to infer, with respect to the alleged acts of severity committed in Lisbon, that the greatest and most unfounded exaggerations had been sent abroad. But the noble Earl had, on a former occasion, asked, "If the title of king, as applicable to Don Miguel, were so good—if it were so universally received and allowed—why was he not acknowledged as the lawful monarch of Portugal long ago?" When that Prince returned to Portugal, shortly after he visited this country, he, undoubtedly, violated all those pledges which he had entered into at Vienna, and which he had repeated to his late Majesty. This total violation of his promises compelled his late Majesty to withdraw his Minister from Lisbon, in order to mark, with the strongest possible effect, his reprobation of Don
1102
Miguel's conduct. It was also true, that it was deemed incumbent on the Ministry, to lose no time to communicate with the Emperor, the father of the young Princess, and to apprise him of what had occurred. Ministers felt, that it was necessary to put him in possession of the real state of Portugal, and to lay before him the views which were entertained, in consequence of the events that had taken place there. At one time, the emperor of Brazil wished to terminate all feuds and disputes by negotiation. At one time, the negotiation was to be held in Brazil, and then it was proposed that it should take place in London. But it appeared, that such a course would consume a portion of time, far beyond what was reasonable. At last, however, Don Pedro came to the determination, that nothing should induce him to resort to hostilities—that he would settle all things by conciliation, and that this effect should be produced by the marriage of his daughter to Don Miguel. After all, however, his Majesty's Government did not think proper to favour that proposition, and it, therefore, became nugatory. But from that hour to the present, he had no reason to know, or to believe, that the proceedings which then took place, had in any way, altered the view which Don Pedro took, as to the political effect which the marriage of his daughter with Don Miguel was calculated to produce. Though his Majesty's Government determined not to communicate Don Pedro's proposition to Don Miguel, the whole of the negotiation was carried on honestly and fairly; and Ministers cherished the hope, that the time might come when their exertions would be effectual. During the continuance of that negotiation, no doubt his Majesty's Government was occupied in devising measures which would be beneficial to Portugal, and conducive to placing her relations with this country on that footing on which they had always previously existed and flourished. The measure which was most looked to, in reference to the furtherance of that object, was connected with the question of an amnesty. And here, he must so far do justice to the Portuguese government as to state, that he never saw, nor found, in that government, any reluctance to grant some measure of that nature. The great difficulty was, as to the form, and more particularly with reference to the time when such a

1103
measure should take effect. Much discussion, of course, arose on this subject; but at last all difficulties were overcome, and finally a modified proposition, in the nature of an amnesty, was proposed, and was sent to Lisbon on the very day, he believed, when he retired from office. Subsequent events had put an end to that proceeding, but he believed, that at the moment to which he had alluded, all difficulties were removed. An event of an important nature had since occurred—he meant the expulsion of the emperor Don Pedro from Brazil, and, therefore, the total absence of any State interested in the question. Don Pedro might make war against Portugal as a private individual—he might launch his forces into Portugal, and try the chances of civil war, but he could only do so as a simple individual. This event, therefore, removed what had been the first obstruction—indeed, he might say, what had always been the main obstruction—to the recognition of the present government of Portugal, and the renewal of friendly relations with that country. If the renewal of those relations were at all times desirable, the necessity for it had become doubly urgent and imperative since the French aggression against Portugal. He did not now intend to enter into any explanation with respect to the claims of France upon Portugal, or the injury which the former country pretended to have sustained. He would observe, however, that the noble Earl himself had never ventured to say, that he had examined those claims, and had found them to be just. Their Lordships were all able to form an opinion upon those claims, and he might safely appeal to the judgment of any impartial man with respect to them. Papers were to be laid upon the Table of the House, explanatory of the subject, and he was anxiously waiting to peruse them. He would, likewise, abstain from entering into discussion on the subject of our own claims. As far as he was able to form an opinion, he considered our claims on Portugal to be perfectly well founded. They grew out of the infraction of articles of treaties. The acts of which we complained, would not have been grievances, as between Portugal and France, or any two countries not bound by such peculiar treaties as connected us with Portugal. However improper he might consider the manner in which our claims had been
1104
prosecuted, he believed them to be in themselves substantially just. He now begged to direct their Lordships' attention to the manner in which the French claims had been prosecuted. He did not hesitate to declare, that it was the duty of the noble Lords opposite to have mediated between Portugal and France. Portugal appealed to us for this purpose over and over again, but a deaf ear was turned to her prayers: no advice, no counsel was given to Portugal, until the French expedition sailed from Toulon. The most important question on this subject was, not who could give the best explanation, but whose statement was the most true. He defied any one to contradict the statement which he should make. Whether the French claims were just or unjust, we were bound by treaties to mediate between her and Portugal, and if we found her claims unjust, we were bound to support the cause of Portugal. At all events, we were certainly bound to use our kind offices in the way of mediation. No explanation could remove the blame which attached to Government for not having done this. Without, however, inquiring into the nature or justice of the French claims, it was desirable to look at the mode in which they were prosecuted. On the 8th of July, the French ultimatum was delivered to Portugal. The Portuguese government, having then been advised by our Government, stated, that it was determined to follow the advice which had been given by the Government of his Britannic Majesty, and to release the two French subjects who were imprisoned. The French Admiral was not content with this answer, but forced the passage of the Tagus, and entered the port of Lisbon. On the 11th of July, the French Admiral stated, that the French, with their usual generosity, would not take advantage of their victory, but reserved to themselves the right of claiming indemnity for the expenses of the war. On the 12th of July, the French Admiral put forth another proclamation, in which, after passing a second eulogium on French generosity, he informed the Portuguese government, that the Portuguese fleet must, in future, be considered as French property. How was that to be reconciled with his declaration of the 11th, that he would treat with Portugal on the same conditions as before the victory? He could only account for the inconsistency

1105
by supposing, that between the declarations of the 11th and 12th, the French Admiral had received fresh instructions from his government. There was no other way of accounting for the remarkable change in his tone. He was sorry to understand, that certain high legal authorities had declared, that they considered the Portuguese fleet as good prizes of war to the French. If the noble Earl at the head of the Government would state that such an opinion had been given, or that he meant to act upon it, he trusted that he would be prepared to lay the opinion before the House; and not only the opinion, but the case upon which it was founded. He thought very highly of the King's Advocate; but the King's Advocate, like any other advocate, must give an opinion according to the case which was laid before him. It was undoubtedly true, that if the war were legitimate, there could not be a more legitimate prize than ships of war. But his doubt, nay, his assertion, was, that no legitimate war existed between France and Portugal. There was no declaration of war, there was no blockade established, there was no notice to foreign Powers; the Portuguese government clearly never performed any hostile act; it never issued letters of marque, nor confiscated the property of Frenchmen by way of retaliation. In short, no sign of war existed between the two countries. But it was said, that there was a declaration of war de facto. Then where was the treaty of peace? A war de facto could be understood, but who ever heard of a treaty of peace de facto? If war ever existed between France and Portugal, it existed at the present moment, for there had been no treaty of peace. It was clear, that the French government never considered, that a state of war existed. They made certain demands, which they enforced; but if war had existed, it could only be terminated by a treaty of peace. Either war existed at present, or it had never existed at all. He had not done with the French Admiral yet. On the 22nd of July, the French Admiral, in consequence of some accounts which had appeared, not in the Lisbon Gazette, but in some provincial Portuguese newspapers, which were not under the immediate supervision of the government, and not official, of the events which had occurred at Lisbon, refused to fulfil the conditions to which he had assented on
1106
the 10th, and proposed a convention, to the terms of which he requested the attention of their Lordships. He must express his unqualified astonishment that Ministers had declared, that the French Admiral had made no attempt to obtain commercial advantages for France, at the expense of England. He would take care, however, that no such declaration should be made in that House, because he had the convention in his hand. The French Admiral stated in this convention, that French commerce was very unfavourably treated as compared to that of England, and desired, that in all future treaties which might be made with France, French commerce should be placed on the same footing as that of the most favoured nation. If the Portuguese government had acceded to this proposition, what a clamour would have been raised against the faithless tyrant, who had made treaties to the prejudice of his best friends! But could we, with any justice, have complained if the Portuguese government had acted in this manner? Portugal, which we were bound to protect by treaties, had on this occasion known nothing of those treaties, except the obligations which we had exacted from her. The history of this convention, which consisted of eight articles, passed his comprehension. What was the state of Portugal and France at the time it was signed? Was it a state of war or of peace? By the fourteenth article of the convention of July 22nd, it was settled that, in consequence of the representation made by France of the disfavour shewn to the trade, viscount de Santarem engaged that, in case of any future treaty, the Portuguese government would be disposed to place the commercial relations between the two countries upon a footing reciprocally advantageous to France and Portugal. This article was not so binding as the one originally proposed, but we were not indebted to French generosity for that circumstance. Another article of the convention provides, that all French subjects in Portugal shall, in future, be placed under the jurisdiction of a Judge Conservator, a privilege certainly already possessed by British subjects, but demanded by the French Admiral to such an extent, that it was hardly possible to conceive how such a privilege could be conceded by one independent nation to another. Another article of the convention prohibited the Portuguese government from making any reparation of

1107
the fortresses of the Tagus during the stay of the French fleet. If peace followed the signature of the convention, what right had the French Admiral to prohibit the reparation of the fortresses? Some French ships were still in the Tagus. Was this condition to apply to their presence as well as to that of the ship of the French Admiral? He was aware that some persons considered our treaties with Portugal to be onerous. He was himself sometimes inclined to the opinion that we purchased the great advantages which we enjoyed from our connexion with Portugal at too dear a rate. But though these treaties were onerous, they were binding. The noble Lords opposite had shown what construction they put upon those treaties. He felt it difficult to repress the sentiments of shame and indignation which filled his bosom, when he reflected upon the treatment which the Portuguese government had received from this country. He had heard, that the French government proposed to assist Don Pedro in his hostile attempts against the Portuguese government. He had reason to believe, from those who were most likely to be best informed on the subject, that such intentions were avowed. Was the fleet in which Don Pedro would sail to be considered a Portuguese fleet or a French fleet? If it were a Portuguese fleet, what right had the king of France to interfere with it. If it were a French fleet, what a commentary would it furnish on the doctrine of non-intervention. Could the noble Earl opposite be so infatuated as not to perceive that any change produced in Portugal, be it what it might, by French means, must operate to the injury of this country? Did the noble Earl suppose, that the French cared a single straw for Don Pedro and his daughter? No, their object was to annihilate the predominant influence which we had so long possessed in Portugal. This had always been the aim of France, under the Bourbons, and Buonaparte, and now under Louis Philip. Without wishing to excite the jealousy of France, he must declare, that it had ever been the established policy of this country to look with a degree of vigilance and watchfulness at all her external proceedings, with the view of preventing the extension of her dominions, or of her influence over other States. If the noble Earl professed to act on any other principle, he would betray the interests of his coun-
1108
try. He would not talk of France being the natural enemy of this country, but he would say, that she was our natural rival, and the noble Earl might depend upon it that she never would lose an opportunity of obtaining an advantage at our expense. The question was one which nearly touched the safety of the whole Peninsula. It struck at the very existence of the Spanish monarchy; and he would ask the noble Earl whether the conduct of the Spanish government had been such as to deserve the peril in which it would be placed by the continuance of our present policy? He would ask him further whether he had not had much to unlearn on the subject of Spain, or whether he thought, that any government could have acted with more good faith, wisdom, prudence, and moderation, throughout the whole of the difficult transactions arising out of the state of Portugal than that of Spain had done? The question became doubly serious when it was connected with the safety of Spain. It ought to be our policy to unite the nations of the Peninsula into one friendly body. It would be most unfortunate should the tranquillity of Spain be interrupted at the present moment, because that country was making rapid progress in internal amelioration. The noble Earl would, he was sure, bear him out in that assertion. By our permitting plots to be formed in England contrary to treaties and the law of nations, Don Pedro might succeed in creating a convulsion in Portugal, he might carry the horrors of civil war into his native country—he might deluge the Peninsula with blood, but he would not ultimately succeed in overturning a throne or destroying institutions to which the vast majority of the people of Portugal were faithfully attached, and which they would defend. Having expressed these opinions, it might be expected that he should conclude with some motion on the subject; but that course he was not prepared to take on the present occasion. He thought it sufficient to call the earnest attention of the noble Earl to the very critical state in which the continuance of his policy would place this country, not only with respect to our ancient ally but the whole of the Peninsula, and to impress upon him the responsibility to which he would render himself liable. He only wished the noble Earl to consider the question, divested of all passion and prejudice; free from the sinister influence of

1109
those who surrounded him, and reflect upon what would be the consequences of his present policy upon the interests of England.—consequences which the noble Earl would be the first man to lament. With these observations, he begged leave to present to their Lordships the petition of the ship-owners and others engaged in the trade with Portugal.
Earl Greythought it very strange, that the noble Earl, in all the observations which he had made, did not confine himself to the petition which he had presented; nor had the noble Earl adverted to it as a topic of discussion in the whole of the speech which he had delivered. Neither had he given notice of the course which he intended to pursue. He was left to conjecture what course the noble Earl intended to pursue upon that occasion. How then could he have anticipated such a speech as the noble Earl had just made, and which was remarkable not only for the variety of its topics, but for the peculiar circumstance that the noble Earl had never given any notice of his intention to make it.
The Earl of Aberdeenbegged to interrupt the noble Earl. In answer to a question from a noble Marquis opposite, he had said, that he would enter into a discussion relative to our political relations with Portugal.
Earl Grey:—That was a large and vague description, and it was not easy for him to conjecture to what particular topics the noble Earl would advert. When it was recollected that all discussion on the subjects to which the noble Earl had adverted had been by common consent abandoned, on account of the inconvenience which was likely to result from it, and when he had consented to produce papers which had been asked for, he certainly had a right to expect, that the noble Earl would not have entered into any debate of this nature until the documents were before the House. He, however, was not inclined to complain that the noble Earl had pursued a different course. He had listened with surprise to a great part of the noble Earl's speech. In the first place, the noble Earl had omitted to state the substance or the prayer of the petition, or how it was connected with the topics to which he had directed the attention of their Lordships. It appeared from what the Clerk had read of the petition, that it proceeded from certain merchants, who
1110
complained that their trade with Portugal was much deteriorated; and praying that Parliament would adopt measures to restore peace and harmony between the two countries. He was told, that the petition had been got up by a gentleman, who interested himself very warmly on behalf of the amiable monarch who occupied the Portuguese throne, whom the noble Earl himself some time ago spoke of as being almost an outcast from society, but whom he had now adopted as his protegé. The petition, he was further informed, lay at a coffee-house for signatures, but it was not a successful speculation, for only sixteen names were subscribed to it. The noble Earl must be aware that the measures which the Government had adopted for obtaining redress from Portugal, had been approved of by a large portion of the merchants engaged in the trade to that country. The noble Earl had indulged in violent invective against every thing which had been done by the French expedition. When the papers which had been promised should be laid upon the Table, it would not be difficult for him to prove, that Ministers were not deserving of the imputations which the noble Earl had attempted to fix upon them with reference to this subject. The noble Earl denied, that the French had sufficient cause to demand redress in the way they did. Into that question he would not enter. On a former debate the noble Duke opposite made a most valuable admission, by stating, that after the manner in which we had sought redress, it was hardly possible for us to interfere and prevent the French from seeking redress by the same means. The noble Earl stated, that we abstained from offering any advice to Portugal until the last moment, when it was too late. He did not know, that it was too late, even after the sailing of the French squadron, if redress had been frankly offered to the French government. He must, however, deny that this Government had not given advice to Portugal until that period. That fact would be set at rest when the documents should be produced. The noble Earl admitted, that ships of war would be legitimate prize if the war had been legitimate. He was not aware that we had any right to investigate the original cause of war. Whether the war were just or unjust, the question of prizes must be regulated by the usual law of nations. The noble Earl had expressed a wish that the opinion of the King's Ad-

1111
vocate should be produced. It was usual to consider opinions of this nature in the light of confidential communications. As far as he was concerned, he had no objection to their being produced. On the contrary, he was desirous that the noble Earl should see it, more especially as the noble Earl had insinuated that the case on which that opinion was founded was false and partial. Whether the case was of that description would be seen when the documents should be produced. He was astonished at the quarter from which the attack had come. He remembered, that when the opinion of a learned civilian was called for in that House upon another point, some time ago, the noble Earl, and those with whom he was connected, positively refused to produce it. When the noble Earl came down to that House, and talked of the shame and indignation which he felt at the conduct of Government, with an air of mixed solemnity and earnestness, he would beg him to recollect the case of Terceira. That case excited the interest of all Europe; but the noble Earl had never given any satisfactory explanation on the subject. Without touching upon the subject of our negotiations with the emperor of Brazil, he would proceed to the most important part of the noble Earl's statement—namely, the situation in which this country was with respect to Portugal, in consequence of the interruption of our diplomatic relations with that country. He was not inclined to undervalue the advantages of our connexion with Portugal. He lamented, as much as the noble Earl opposite, the unfortunate situation in which the two countries were placed with regard to each other, and which, he admitted, was productive, by its long continuance, of all the inconveniences which the noble Earl had described. But this state of things was not owing to the present Government. His Majesty's present Ministers had not yet been in office ten months; and this state of affairs had lasted three years. The noble Earl was, therefore, responsible for about two years of that time; and it certainly would be a heavy responsibility if, as the noble Earl had stated, the Government of this country were answerable for all the acts of Don Miguel. The noble Earl had ascribed as the cause of the delay in re-establishing friendly relations with Portugal, the negotiations which were in his time carried on with the emperor of the Brazils,
1112
the rights of whose daughter were acknowledged by this country, and the means taken by that prince to uphold those rights. The noble Earl considered that that difficulty was now entirely removed by the expulsion of Don Pedro from the Brazils. But he must be permitted to remind the noble Earl, that it was not on this ground only that the Government of this country abstained from renewing relations with Portugal, but likewise on account of the conduct of the Portuguese government itself; and there was one preliminary (he would not call it a condition, as the noble Earl denied that it was a condition, though he (Earl Grey) had not acuteness enough to distinguish between a preliminary and a condition), the compliance with which was thought essential to the recognition of the government of Don Miguel. The truth was, in some part of the year 1829 the government of Don Miguel was recognized by Spain, with the understanding between Spain and the governments of France and England, that when Don Miguel could be brought to adopt a better system of government, and one more fitted to be in a state of peace and amity with other nations, a general recognition by the Powers of Europe should follow. The noble Earl, subsequent to the year 1829, and down to the period of his leaving office, had never been able to obtain the establishment of such a system of government in Portugal as could induce him, notwithstanding all the inconveniences arising from the interruptions of our relations with that country, to send a Minister to the Court of Portugal, and recognize the prince whose title he now thought so well founded. A good deal of negotiation took place on the subject; and on the 17th of September, 1830, he found that the noble Earl, alluding in a despatch to the cessation of the relations between the two countries, used these words. "It is reasonable, therefore, to suppose that we should look with anxiety to the state of these relations, and I should only deceive them if I did not frankly declare, that there existed an obstacle in the way of any such change wholly insurmountable—[wholly insurmountable, my Lords]—by his Majesty's Government, which it depends on the Portuguese government alone to remove; and if that government continues to be of opinion that to grant a general and comprehensive amnesty such as I have adverted to, would

1113
not be in accordance with the interests, intercourse, and safety of Portugal, it will be utterly impossible for us to attempt to alter our present condition, and that of the other powers of Europe with respect to the Portuguese government. Important and desirable as this change may be, there are other still higher claims to be regarded, from which we can never recede—the honour of the King, and the consistent character of his Majesty's Government are at stake. An amnesty is due to those persons who have regulated their sentiments by the example of Great Britain, and what they conceive would be the probable conduct of their own Government. The issuing of an act of amnesty would be highly advantageous to Portugal herself, and is an indispensable preliminary to any change in the relations of the two countries." Thus it appeared, that on the 17th of September, 1830, the not granting of an amnesty was considered by the noble Earl to be an insurmountable objection to renewing the relations between the two countries. Since that period, had the situation of affairs materially altered up to the present moment? Had the noble Earl himself been able to obtain such an amnesty? On the first day of the last session of Parliament the noble Earl declared, that he had not obtained an amnesty. In the first instance the noble Earl had stated, that unless he received an authentic act of amnesty from Don Miguel, he would not recognize him. The noble Earl had since relapsed from that proposition, and said, that if he received an authentic copy of a decree, engaging to grant an amnesty, that would be sufficient, but no copy of any such decree had ever been obtained. True it was, that a despatch dated the 15th of November was sent off on the 16th, the day on which the noble Earl left office, in which the noble Earl stated his expectation that an amnesty would be issued. But the fact was, that no amnesty could ever be obtained, and both Mr. Mackenzie, and Mr. Hoppner, who succeeded him as Consul at Lisbon, received instructions to persevere in the demand for the issuing of an act of amnesty, and the establishment of such a state of things as might afford security to foreign merchants residing in Portugal. Those demands had all been made in the same spirit, and to the present moment no satisfactory answer had been obtained. When the noble Earl asked how long
1114
affairs were to continue in this indefinite state, he in reply would ask the noble Earl what was his conduct last year under similar circumstances? Since that period not only had no satisfactory answer been received from the Portuguese government on the subject of an amnesty, but during the interval the scenes of horror which had unhappily passed in that country, and for which it seemed the English Government were alone to blame, had been greatly multiplied. But, said the noble Earl, this arbitrary government was not at least a bloody government, for only twenty-two persons had suffered on the scaffold in the course of the last year. But the noble Earl passed lightly over the case of those persons who had been crammed into unwholesome dungeons, and the number of which their Lordships could scarcely credit. Clausi in tenebris cum mœrore et luctu, morte graviorem vitam exigunt. The noble Earl had passed over the exportation of victims to the pestilential shores of Africa, where, by a slow execution, they were consigned to death, for political offences, only suspected, and not proved. The noble Earl had also omitted to notice the miserable condition of that country, where the law afforded no protection, and where a wretch, at the head of a banditti, whom he called a police, was guilty of outrages against the subjects of every government. Before the noble Earl blamed the present Ministers for not establishing the relations of peace and amity with Portugal, he should be prepared to defend himself for not having established those relations under circumstances more favourable for the purpose than at present existed. He agreed with the noble Earl, that they had nothing to do with the form of other governments, or with the character of the Princes at their head. If there existed in any country a Sovereign de facto, supported by the people, and conducting himself in such a manner as to make it possible to maintain the usual relations of peace and amity with him, the business of British Ministers was to maintain those relations, without looking too nicely at his right to the Throne, or his moral character. He entirely subscribed to this proposition, on the principle of non-interference with other countries, to which the noble Earl had alluded. He must, however, observe, that he heard with considerable surprise, the attack made by the noble Earl on Ministers, for having endeavoured to force,

1115
as it were, a Constitution on the Portuguese. His Majesty's Ministers had interfered with Portugal in no other way but by remonstrances, which they had a right to make, to induce the Portuguese government to agree to those conditions, which must be complied with before the relations between the two countries could be restored. He knew that English interests were the peculiar care of Government, and he did not want the noble Earl's admonition to look carefully to those interests, though he might want some of the noble Earl's levity, in risking the peace of the world by declamations and invectives against other Powers. He trusted, that he should be found to look after these interests, and to provide the means of protecting them against the encroachments of other Powers, whether enemies or liberal rivals, as carefully and vigilantly as the noble Earl himself. The business of Ministers was undoubtedly to protect English interests; but he could not divest his mind of those feelings, or those principles, which he had imbibed from his earliest youth, and which taught him to believe that governments founded on principles of justice, and of which the conduct was regulated by those principles, were more to be trusted than those which depended on the arbitrary will of an individual. He had not hitherto, and trusted he never should, decline to enter into friendly relations with governments in a state of peace with this country, whatever might be their form, whether of a despotic nature, or founded on the principles of freedom. He did not think it was necessary for him to go further on the present occasion. Indeed, the noble. Earl's last observation appeared to make what he had already said almost superfluous; for the noble Earl stated, that having gone so much at length into the subject, he did not think the present the proper occasion to make any motion which might affect Government, and had confined himself solely to presenting the petition. The only question, therefore, before the House was, that the petition be laid on the table. The noble Earl had stated, that a day would come when he would more fully enter into the discussion. Whenever that day came, he should be ready to meet the noble Earl, or any other person, and he trusted that he should be able to show, that in what had been done or omitted by the Ministers, neither the honour nor the interest of the Govern-
1116
ment had suffered by any act of theirs, or from any circumstances but those which it was not in their power to counteract.
The Duke of Wellingtonhardly thought it necessary to justify his noble friend for the course which he had taken in presenting the petition, because the petition related specifically to British interests, as connected with Portugal, and to the interruptions which, as the petitioners stated, those interests were subject to in consequence of the existing state of our relations with that power. He was ready to admit, that the persons who had signed this petition, felt deeply on the subject, but the noble Earl opposite was mistaken in supposing that they were interested in behalf of the person of the Prince who sat on the Throne of Portugal. The noble Earl was likewise mistaken as to the number of the petitioners being only sixteen, and those of little importance in this great city. The fact was, that there were forty-two signatures attached to the petition, and if their Lordships read the names, they would find that some of the petitioners were principal merchants in London, and every one of them was interested in the trade with Portugal. He thought that the topics to which his noble friend had alluded, were precisely those upon which he ought to have addressed their Lordships, in calling their attention to the particular petition which had been presented. There was, however, one subject which his noble friend had deferred to another occasion—namely, that which regarded the wine trade of Portugal. His noble friend might have told their Lordships, that in this question of the wine trade, not only Portugal, but the whole of the Peninsula, and the Powers of Germany and Italy, were interested. The noble Lords opposite had thought proper, in order to favour France, whose trade with this country did not equal one-fifth of the trade with Portugal, to put the wines of the Peninsula and the rest of Europe on the same footing as those of France. That was to say, in order to favour France—a country which desired to have no intercourse with Great Britain, except for her own advantage—Ministers had resolved to put down the trade of Portugal, and discourage the trade of Spain, and all the rest of Europe. His noble friend did not touch on this point, because he did not wish to occupy the attention of their Lordships; but if he

1117
had done so, he might still further have shown the partiality of the noble Lords opposite for France, and their prejudice against Portugal. His noble friend, however, confined himself particularly to that part of the question which had reference to the political relations between this country and Portugal. The noble Earl, in replying to the observations of his noble friend, had availed himself of an admission formerly made by him, respecting the conduct of Ministers, in not interfering in favour of Portugal on the occasion of the French expedition. He confessed, that when he made that admission, he was not exactly aware of the circumstances which had occurred. He was not aware at the time that we followed the example of France, instead of setting the example. The truth of the matter was this:—The French brought forward their claims, consisting of ten Articles, on the 18th of March, and it was not until the 18th of April that our Ministers, in imitation of the French, urged their claims. When he made the admission to which the noble Earl had alluded, he imagined that the English Government had made its claim first; and that therefore it could not with justice call upon the French government to desist from following a similar course. But the fact was, that this country had followed the French example, and there really seemed a conspiracy between the two countries which should run down this unfortunate power of Portugal the fastest. The French Commodore came before Lisbon on the 18th of May, and after repeating his claims, went and seized on the merchant vessels and ships of war, in consequence of which seizure Portugal lost the island of St. Michael's. The noble Earl had stated, that although this country was bound by treaty to protect Portugal, yet, having interfered herself, she could not prevent France interfering in a similar manner. But might not mediation have been attempted? Even when the French Admiral was before Lisbon, it was not too late. War did not commence until the 8th of July, and there was plenty of time for this Government to have remonstrated with France—to have pointed out the inconvenience—he would almost say the indecency—of that country proceeding in such a manner with respect to the affair which was in dispute between the two countries. When he reflected on all that had passed, he really must say, not speak-
1118
ing as an officer of the British army, but as an Englishman, that he had never heard of anything which had filled his mind with more indignation than the conduct of the French Admiral. On the 8th of July, he repeated his claims as before, with the addition of four Articles; and he informed the Portuguese government, that if they did not adopt the Articles, war would exist de facto. On the 11th of July, the French Admiral wrote word, that France, always generous, added nothing to these terms, except compensation to those who had suffered by hostilities, when, in fact, the only persons who had suffered were two sailors, who had been hurt by the explosion of a ship. On the 12th the terms were agreed to, and on that day the demand was made for the surrender of the Portuguese fleet. Now he was not able exactly to say, whether, according to the law of nations, there existed war between the morning of the 10th of July, and the day on which Portugal accepted the conditions; but of this he was certain, that after the 11th, when the offer was made of the terms on which peace was finally arranged, no hostility existed. That was quite clear from the whole of the transactions. But, in the course of the correspondence, another very curious fact was brought out with respect to the shipping. The Portuguese shipping were not the first to fire on the French fleet; but the French fleet fired on the shipping. The Portuguese then fired on the French fleet, after having been fired on, and then struck their colours, and hoisted the French. The shipping, however, were not taken possession of at the moment; though they were afterwards surrendered on the demand of the French. Now, considering that the terms which had been accepted were offered on the 11th, and that no hostility had taken place after that day—that hostilities did not commence on the part of the Portuguese fleet, but of the French—he very much doubted whether the opinion of the King's Advocate was worth so much as that opinion which the noble Lord found fault with the late Government for not producing. There might, perhaps, have been some mistake, whether the French or Portuguese fleet was the first to fire, had it not been for a circumstance which afterwards occurred. The Portuguese Minister called upon the French Admiral to know what ships commenced firing; but to his

1119
inquiry no answer was ever given. Under these circumstances, he conceived that there was not the slightest doubt that, according to the law of nations, the Portuguese fleet was not a fair prize of war. It might have been made an article of capitulation; but he did not believe that, considering all the circumstances, it could be regarded as being a prize of war. One very important Article of the treaty of peace was, that the French fleet was to go away within a certain time; but it turned out, that since then another treaty had been made. In the first treaty, a demand was made for the cession of the fort St. Julian; and in the second treaty, it was required, that the fortresses of the Tagus should neither be reinforced nor repaired during the stay of the French fleet, and this, be it observed, was after peace had been settled between the two parties. Then a dispute arose out of an article which appeared in one of the Portuguese newspapers, published he believed, at Oporto and Coimbra. The French Admiral had demanded that the account of the transactions in the Tagus should be published in his own words, and his desire not being complied with, the government of Portugal, which was under the protection of this country, was on that account called upon to make further concessions. Another very curious demand, and which had some connection with the petition just presented, was, that the French subjects trading to Portugal should be put on a footing with the most favoured nation—that is to say, with England. When he saw that such demands were made, and when he saw that his Majesty's Government had done nothing on the subject, he could not but feel, that Portugal had been treated in a manner unbecoming an independent nation. His opinion was, that the unfortunate situation of Portugal was to be attributed to its having no defined relation in Europe. It did not at present belong to the families of Europe, and it was the duty of the Government of this country to remove it from that situation. But the noble Earl asked, why had not the late Government made arrangements for recognizing the Portuguese government? In the first place, the late Government was bound by engagements, not made by the then Ministers, but by the former Government, to recognize Queen Donna Maria as the sovereign of Portugal. The Prince who was seated on the throne of that
1120
country had broken his engagements, and no one lamented the circumstance more than he did. He had done every thing to prevail upon that Prince to conduct himself in a manner suited to his honour and interest, and every thing that was proper to avenge the insult offered his Majesty by the breach of the engagements into which Don Miguel had entered. But after so acting, he felt it to be his duty, as a servant of the King, to endeavour to restore friendly relations between Portugal and this country, by the re-union of the different branches of the Braganza family. It was not the business of the English Ministers to support a civil war in Portugal, or to endeavour by force of arms to re-establish the constitution; but it was their duty to do every thing by way of conciliation and advice to restore amity between the two branches of the Braganza family, and thereby bring Portugal back into the family of nations. He had made various efforts to accomplish that object. He found Don Pedro sometimes desirous of going to war, provided this country carried it on for him; at other times desirous of settling matters by amicable negotiation; and again returning to the idea of waging war against his brother, by means of which he (the Duke of Wellington) never could approve—namely, by revolutionary means, and by affording assistance to rebels against the government de facto of Portugal. He believed that Don Pedro himself was now aware of the impropriety of employing such means, for he found that he had lost the empire of Brazil in consequence of resorting to them. He afterwards learned that Don Pedro was desirous of settling matters by giving his daughter in marriage to Don Miguel: but he accompanied the proposition by the condition that England should be answerable for the conduct of his brother. After all that had passed, it was not to be expected, that the English Ministry would agree to such a proposition, and this negotiation was therefore broken off. The noble Earl had quoted a paper, dated the 17th of September, 1830, and signed by his noble friend, in which it was stated, that if certain conditions were complied with, the government of Don Miguel would be recognized. He had very often had doubts on the subject of that recognition. He always felt great objections to making this country an arbitrator between Don Miguel and his subjects; but still he

1121
did think, that before he could advise his Majesty to recognize that Prince, or call upon the other Powers to do the same, he ought to require from him, that he should offer a general amnesty to all his subjects, and particularly those who had been in the service of his brother. The noble Earl had said, that that condition had never been performed; but that which the noble Earl had not told the House was, whether he was willing, in case that condition was complied with, to recognize the government of Portugal, and send an Ambassador to that country? Had the noble Earl told Don Miguel that his recognition depended on his compliance with that condition? He thought, that when the noble Earl came forward and blamed the late Government for not making arrangements for the recognition of Don Miguel, he ought to have followed their example in that respect. It was even more incumbent on the noble Lords opposite than on the late Government to bring back Portugal into the family of Europe; because the revolution of France had latterly made great progress. It was the revolution which rendered it necessary for this country to prevent Portugal becoming what it otherwise would become—a province of France. We now owed it to the firmness of Don Miguel and the Portuguese people, and to nothing else, that Portugal was not at this moment in close alliance, commercial as well as political, with France. The French Admiral had done all but make a conquest of the country. He had required the surrender of the fortress St. Julian, and the enjoyment by French subjects of commercial privileges only granted to Englishmen; and would any man tell him, that if Don Miguel had not called upon his people to protect him against such demands, Portugal would not have been at this moment in close alliance with France? The noble Duke concluded by stating his opinion, that none of the topics introduced by his noble friend were irrelevant to the subject matter of the petition.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that as a panegyric had been, on a former occasion, pronounced upon an individual in authority in Lisbon, under his Majesty's Government, he thought he might communicate to their Lordships the substance of a letter which he had received from an officer of rank there, which would place the conduct of the individual in question in its true
1122
light. The gentleman from whom he derived his information was high in military rank, having served throughout the whole Peninsular war, and having been employed as Aide-de-camp to the nobleman who was now at the head of the Government in Ireland. The noble Marquis then read an extract from the letter which represented, that now, as the experiment had been tried, and had failed, of promoting an insurrection against Don Miguel and the Portuguese government, England might have some mercy upon the Portuguese, by withdrawing the Consul, and ceasing to persecute them. But it was evident, that the wishes of the Portuguese people were entirely in favour of the king—that the armaments sent to Portugal were an experiment made by England and France, and the writer had no hesitation in declaring his belief, that the Consul was the framer of the proceeding; that grievances would have been redressed without resorting to violence. as was proved by what had occurred at the house of a Mr. Roberts, who having been improperly taxed, and an Italian servant of his treated with severity, complained to the authorities, and obtained full satisfaction; that only sixty-five out of 800 British residents signed the representation of grievances forwarded by the Consul; that that gentleman was in the habit of calling Don Miguel a tyrant, a monster, an usurper, and of adopting other expressions frequently used by newspapers, but highly indecent in a diplomatic agent; that he had been heard to express hopes of the downfall of the king; and that on one occasion he entered a room rubbing his hands, and exclaiming with exultation, that he had sent a slap in the face to that rascal Santarem, and that he hoped soon to see the usurper flying over the frontier. The writer then asked, if such a person was fit to conduct amicable negotiations with the Portuguese government. The noble Marquis observed, that he should have no objection to place this letter, with the name of its author, in the hands of the noble Earl opposite, if the noble Earl would give him an assurance that, in case the statements should be proved, Mr. Hoppner should be withdrawn. The letter said, in continuation, that the Consul told the people in Portugal, that, if they wished to ingratiate themselves with the British Government, they would get rid of their king. Don Miguel had been kept

1123
upon his throne for three years by his people, during which interval three kings had lost their crowns, and it asserted that there was no foundation for the imputations of vicious and immoral habits cast upon Don Miguel. He must say, that he saw throughout the whole of these transactions respecting Portugal, an attempt on the part of France to interfere with and dictate to the Ministers of this country, which, if it succeeded, would be fatal to our interests. He hoped the noble Earl would be able to answer the able, eloquent—indeed, he would say the unanswerable—statements made by the noble Duke behind him. With respect to the aggression upon Portugal, there could be but one feeling throughout the country, notwithstanding the ingenuity of the noble Earl in getting the opinion of the King's Advocate upon that disgraceful transaction—an opinion which would cut two ways—as not only did it furnish a momentary defence for having suffered the French to commit that outrage, but France would take advantage of that opinion of the British King's Advocate, if any attempts were made to get back the shipping. He saw from the beginning of the Administration of the present Government, a desire to court France; supposing, no doubt, that while they had peace with France, they would be able to keep the peace of the Continent. They would never support the honour or the interests of this country by truckling to France, and shamefully yielding to her control, as had been done with respect to the Belgians. On the contrary, by such policy our interests would go down in a most disastrous manner. He admitted, that Mr. Hoppner, who was alluded to, was, as a private gentleman, a person of perfect respectability. He had spoken of him only as a public man, and he must say, that in the present state of Portugal, deserted as she was by this country, such an individual ought not to remain in charge of a diplomatic concern there.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, it was not his intention to enter into the question which had been brought forward, but he could not avoid saying a few words on the extraordinary course pursued by the noble Marquis. He would put it to the noble Marquis himself, whether it was fair to bring openly a charge of this kind against a public officer, on information which, as far as the noble Marquis had gone, was anonymous.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he rose to explain [cries of "Order" from the Ministerial side, in the midst of which the noble Marquis continued for some moments to press himself on the attention of the House]; at length the noble Marquis said he rose to order. [The cries of "Order" were continued.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor rose to order. He said, the noble Marquis had the right to rise to order if any thing disorderly, which he certainly had not heard, had fallen from his noble friend (the Marquis of Lansdown), but he had no right to interject a speech, by way of explanation, between an unfinished sentence of any noble Lord who was addressing the House. It certainly was often a convenience to allow of interruptions, where the interruption was to set the noble Lord speaking right as to a matter of fact; yet, even in that case, it was only by the courtesy of the noble Lord who was speaking that any other noble Lord could be heard; but it certainly was not in order for any noble Lord to rise to explain in the middle of the speech of another noble Lord.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, he should be sorry to deny an act of courtesy to any noble Lord in that House; but if the noble Marquis would have the kindness to hear him, he would be able to say whether he was correctly stating the proceeding which the noble Marquis had adopted. He was stating, when the noble Marquis interrupted him, that the noble Marquis brought a charge against a diplomatic agent upon the foundation of an anonymous letter; and he was proceeding to observe, that although the noble Marquis could not deny, that the information was anonymous, inasmuch as he had not stated the name of the author, yet he had certainly stated, that he was prepared to communicate it to the members of his Majesty's Government, but with this preliminary condition, that they should agree, on receiving that communication, to prejudge Mr. Hoppner. Well, at least, to examine into the case. He contended, then, that even in the view admitted by the noble Marquis, such a case would be most unjust. If the noble Marquis meant to refer the case to the judgment of his Majesty's Government, it was his duty to make a communication to the Government, and to enable the Ministers to adopt such proceedings as they should judge proper.

1125
As he knew that it was not the good fortune of his Majesty's Government to possess the confidence of the noble Marquis, if he did not think proper to intrust the paper to them, previously to making his statement, it was his duty to have brought forward, upon the letter, to which he, of course, attached credit, some parliamentary proceeding, by submitting a motion for inquiring into the conduct of Mr. Hoppner. He must beg to state, that although he had not the satisfaction of having any personal knowledge of that amiable and excellent man, as he believed him to be, from the reports of others, yet, from all his knowledge of his proceedings in Portugal, he was convinced, that there was not one of the charges made against him which was well founded. But whatever might be the feeling of the noble Marquis, as to the conduct of the individual, that House would never countenance a proceeding against him without hearing the individual in his own defence, without hearing the case fully stated, and giving him the opportunity to which he was entitled of rebutting statements which, if proved, would be inconsistent with every fact which had come to his knowledge, with respect to the conduct of Mr. Hoppner. Therefore, until the noble Marquis brought forward such a motion—which, after what had passed, he was bound to do, and which he had no doubt Mr. Hoppner would be ready to meet—he was sure the character of that amiable, excellent, and accomplished individual would not suffer in the estimation of the House or of the country. Having said so much, he was not anxious to go into the subject of debate, notwithstanding the taunts of the noble Marquis. The noble Marquis stated, that his Majesty's Government intended to shelter themselves under the opinion of the King's Advocate. It was a new charge to accuse any Government, in the steps which it took on points involving the law of nations, of neglecting to receive all the information they could obtain. It might, indeed, be more consonant with the policy which the noble Marquis would recommend to overlook all the facts, either as regarded Don Miguel, whom the noble Earl's correspondent panegyrised, or Mr. Hoppner, whom his correspondent, he would not say libelled, but attacked; but such a course would not become his Majesty's Government in conducting the affairs of
1126
State. The noble Marquis had declared, that if the opinion of the King's Advocate were produced, it would countenance his views on the subject; and the noble Duke had also called for the production of that opinion; and his Majesty's Government had been charged with sheltering themselves under an opinion which, if produced, would not bear them out in the course which they had pursued. From the general character of the discussion which had that night taken place, if discussion it could be called, it was clear, that in assenting to the production of this document his Majesty's Government had greatly disappointed the noble Earl and his friends. It was clear that they had asked for the paper, not only with the hope, but in the expectation, that it would be refused. It was granted. His noble friend had stated, that in a few days it would be produced, and then the other side, instead of waiting for its production, were anxious to raise a discussion on papers devoid of authenticity; to satiate the minds of the House with such a discussion not founded on facts; to bring forward what statements they pleased from foreign newspapers and other quarters; to take all the advantage which they could of this sort of premature and illegitimate discussion, and to anticipate and avoid that discussion which was desired by all who wished for a fair, a manly, and an open consideration of the question. Into the particular dates and circumstances of the case, as they would appear more distinctly hereafter, he would not then be tempted to enter. But as the noble Duke had referred to the conduct of his Majesty's Government with respect to the proceedings of the French fleet in the Tagus; and as the noble Duke had said, that his view of that conduct had been altered by the circumstance of its now appearing that we had only followed the French in demanding satisfaction from the Portuguese government; whereas he had formerly believed, that we had led the way in demanding that satisfaction: and as the noble Duke had observed, that that made all the difference in the case, he begged to trouble their Lordships for a few moments on that part of the subject. The noble Duke contended, that if we had preceded the French government in requiring satisfaction from the Portuguese government, and the French government had followed us in that demand, that the

1127
course of conduct which we had adopted would, in that case, have been perfectly justifiable. The noble Duke's argument went to this, that if we did not want justice from the Portuguese government, but France did—then if France preceded us in the demand for justice, which justice we did not want, because she preceded us, she was not entitled to justice. If the noble Duke had said, that there might be considerable difficulty in ascertaining the particular dates and points of the different grievances complained of to the government of Portugal by the representatives of the different countries—recollecting that both the French and English Governments had to complain—not of one grievance, but of a long accumulation and mass of grievances, the statement would have been a just one. But if the noble Duke meant to direct his observations to the energy and promptitude with which either the English or French Government set the example of the manner in which a great nation ought to redress its grievances and vindicate its honour, he would tell the noble Duke, that it was the English Government which first sent a fleet to the Tagus in the Spring, and that it was not until the month of June that the French fleet followed. Not meaning to enter further into the subject at present, he would, however, observe, that there was one point on which he entirely agreed with the noble Duke and the noble Earl. He entirely agreed with them, that in asserting the honour of the country, his Majesty's Ministers were bound not to indulge in any speculative opinions of their own with respect to the forms of government in the country with which they were engaged in discussion, but that they were bound to look solely at the relation and connection between the two countries. He hoped that when the subject came regularly before their Lordships, it would distinctly appear, that in no transaction which had taken place between his Majesty's Government and the government of Portugal, the former had been actuated by a disposition to do anything but to maintain the relations between this country and Portugal, as far as the calls of justice would permit. But he must say—especially after what their Lordships had heard that day, and after what had fallen from the noble Earl, lately his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—that if a government required our protection, not only in
1128
acts of justice, but in acts of injustice, the sooner that government was taught to know that acts of injustice, committed with reference to its own subjects, or to foreign States, would not receive the protection or encouragement of this country, the better. Whatever might be the circumstances of Portugal, its king, its government, and its people, ought to be taught, that they could rely on England for protection and support, only while they pursued an honest, open policy, and were faithful to their treaties with foreign Powers; but that if they pursued a different line of conduct, they would lose the benefit of that protection and support. That was a lesson which he trusted Portugal would ultimately learn; and in the mean while, no disposition existed on the part of his Majesty's Government to take any step which could be avoided, that might retard the restoration of the relations of Portugal with other States of Europe, which on many accounts he admitted it was most desirable should be restored.
The Marquis of Londonderry, in explanation, said, he was sure the noble Marquis (Lansdown) did not intend to show any want of courtesy to him in not giving way to the explanation which he was about to offer. The noble Marquis could not correctly call the information which he had mentioned anonymous. He had stated it on the authority of an officer of rank, and he had offered to lay the whole of the letter before any of his Majesty's Ministers; but as the noble Marquis had called it anonymous, he could have no objection to state the name of the distinguished officer from whom it came. The officer was Brigadier-General Sir John Campbell. He was unwilling to mention his name, except in the way he had at first proposed; but he must say, that the gallant officer from whom the letter came had no objection to the mention of his name. He must stand excused, therefore, if he relied upon such information; and he must add, that all the information which had reached him on the subject of the interference of our diplomatic agent at Lisbon, was the very reverse of that which he had heard from his Majesty's Ministers on the subject. The information he had mentioned was sufficient to rescue him from the charge of relying upon anonymous communications.
The Duke of Wellington, in explanation, said, he had not entered into the

1129
cause of the quarrel between France and Portugal: he spoke only of the acts of France, and of what he considered the inconsistency of those acts, according to her own showing.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, that his noble friend (the Marquis of Lansdown) was perfectly justified in applying the term "anonymous" to the communication made by the noble Marquis opposite. The noble Marquis had now mentioned the name of his correspondent, and he must say, that Brigadier-General Sir John Campbell was a very meritorious officer, and had distinguished himself during the Peninsular war, but he was married to a Portuguese lady, a Miguelite, and it was not improbable, that his opinions had received a bias on that account. But there were two parties involved in such a charge as the noble Marquis had brought, and before their Lordships could come to a correct conclusion on the subject, it would be but fair to hear the answer to the charge. The noble Marquis had read a part of the letter: now he should like to put a question to the noble Marquis, which he hoped he would have no objection to answer. He should wish to ask him, what number of his subjects that excellent king, Don Miguel, to whom the noble Marquis and his correspondent had given so good a character, had now in prison. He had heard that they amounted at least to 6,000; but he should like to hear, from so good an authority as that of a friend of Don Miguel, what number he would admit, because, in that way, their Lordships might judge whether Don Miguel was entitled to the praise which had been given to him.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he did not feel called upon to answer the question of the noble Duke, because the noble Duke seemed to assume, in the outset, that a British officer of rank would, in consequence of his assumed prejudice, state that which he did not believe to be true. He would say, that no British officer of rank would state what he did not believe to be true. He would not give any further explanation to the noble Duke than this—that he was ready to submit the letter to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the noble Duke might get from that noble Lord any information he could on the subject. He was, however, quite sure, that Sir John Campbell would be ready to substantiate any of the statements contained in the letter.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he was not disposed to quarrel with an old British officer on this subject, as the noble Lord seemed to put it in that way; but he would repeat what he had said, that the circumstances in which that officer was placed made it probable that he was biased in the communication which he made. Further than that he would not say on that point; but he must observe, that if the noble Marquis attached such importance to this information, he should have put it into the hands of Ministers. It was not a fair way of putting it, to give half a case to their Lordships, and to suppress the other half, which perhaps might make so much for his purpose. As the noble Marquis had the whole case before him, he would wish to ask him, whether there were not 6,000 of Don Miguel's subjects in prison from their supposed hostility to him? He should like to know the whole of the particulars, and not a partial statement of them. The noble Marquis had said, that a British officer, high in rank, could not be supposed to state that which he did not believe, but he (the Duke of Richmond) had just as good a right to suppose, that an officer, of the high rank and character of Mr. Hoppner, would not be guilty of the acts that had been attributed to him. It was alleged, that he had attempted to revolutionize Portugal against its present government. Now, if he had done so, and he was continued in the public service after that was known to the Government, he, and the Minister who continued him, would deserve to be impeached; but the charge, he must say, did not come with much force, considering that the party making it was likely to be much biassed in his judgment; and though he would not say that that bias would induce any man of honour to state what was not the fact, yet the bias might induce him to believe that which a less partial person would doubt. He repeated, however, that the noble Marquis should have stated the whole of the case to the House, and have left it to form its judgment on the whole, and not on a partial statement, of which even the important fact of the name of the noble Lord's authority was brought out in an explanation. He must say, that the gallant officer was not over discreet in his mode of communicating this important information, nor was the noble Marquis much more so in his mode of laying it before the House.
The Marquis of Londonderryrepeated, that he was willing to put the whole of the document into the hands of his Majesty's Ministers, and the noble Duke might get what information he could from them. He owned he did not expect to hear the noble Duke condemn, for want of discretion, an old officer who had seen much more service than the noble Duke himself, and who was as discreet as he was in his public duty.
The Duke of Richmondwould not advert to the opinion of the noble Marquis as to his conduct, for the censure of some parties was praise; but, without meaning to disparage an old officer, he must say, that he did not think this mode of communicating his information was the most discreet. He (the Duke of Richmond) might be a very indiscreet Postmaster-General, but that would not alter the case with respect to the parties to this communication. If the gallant officer attached so much importance to it, he ought to have communicated it to the Government in the first instance. As to his own military services, he knew they were very small, and he was not in the practice of saying any thing of them.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that if the gallant officer had communicated his information to Ministers in the first instance, the public might have heard nothing more about it.
Viscount Melbourneasked, to whom the gallant officer had addressed his letter?
The Marquis of Londonderryreplied, that, it was addressed to him.
The Petition to lie on the Table.