Sitting of 6 August 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, an Account relative to the Duties of the Registry Office in Scotland.—On the Motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, an Account of the Number of Inhabitants in the Metropolitan Parishes paying Rates and Assessed Taxes.—On the Motion of Mr. CHARLES ROSS, an Account of the Names of all the Speakers of the House of Commons since 1688.
Bill. Read a third time:—Excise Accounts (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. WARBURTON, from Bridport, against Renewing the East-India Company's Charter.—By Mr. WILKS, from Thames Ditton, and by Lord SANDON, from Liverpool,—for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Mr. WILKS, from Dromfield, against the Vagrants' (Scotland and Ireland) Removal Bill.—By Mr. BAILLIE, from Bristol, against the Beer Bill.—By Mr. VERNON SMITH, from Henley and Shelton, in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By Mr. HUME, from Planters of Demerara, Essequibo, and Berbice, against the Provisions of the Measure for giving Relief to those Colonies; from Rochdale, Lancashire; from Wenborough, Yorkshire; and Arklow,—against the Employment of the Military to enforce the Collection of Tithes in Ireland; and from certain Medical Practitioners, against the Exclusive Privileges of the College of Physicians.

JERSEY—CASE OF JOHN CAPE.
Mr. Humewould take that opportunity of asking, whether any measure was intended by the Government respecting the detention of Mr. Cape, one of the Overseers of the parish of St. Pancras by the authorities of the island of Jersey?
Mr. Lambsaid, that the Government could do nothing in the matter, as Mr.
1136
Cape was legally detained by the order of a competent tribunal. The only mode by which that order could be rescinded was through an appeal to the Privy Council; and it was understood that if the Overseers of St. Pancras would take upon themselves the hazard of an appeal, so as to bring the question before the Privy Council, the authorities of Jersey would allow the liberation of Mr. Cape. As to the writ of Habeas Corpus being moved for in the Court of King's Bench, that was of no use, for that Act had never been registered in the islands, and it was the general opinion of all lawyers that the English laws, unless specifically applied to these islands, and unless registered so as to conform to the customs of the islands, did not extend to them. It was certainly curious that the authority of such an Act as that of the Habeas Corpus should not have been extended, but so it was, and hard as was Mr. Cape's case, he saw no legal means of affording him relief but the appeal to the Privy Council,

DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that in rising to present the petitions of which he had given notice, nothing but the necessity of the case could have induced him to come forward at this late period of the Session, and nothing, also, could induce him to contend with the learned Gentleman he saw opposite, except the application and request of the parties interested. He rose to present two petitions—one from Sir Lionel Smith, late commander of the fourth division of the Deccan army in India, who contended that the booty taken at Poonah ought to go to the actual captors of that town. The other petition was that of Sir Thomas Hislop, the Commander-in-chief of the army of the Deccan, who contended that the scheme of distribution approved of by the trustees of the Deccan booty in 1826 and 1828, was not such as they were warranted in ordering. It was almost need-lees to say to the House, that this booty had been taken in the war of 1817, which had been entered upon in order to put down the Pindarrees, and the Mahrattas, who had encouraged them. There were two armies in the field, one commanded by the Marquess of Hastings, called the grand army, and the other the army of the Deccan, commanded by Sir Thomas Hislop. There had been a contention before the Lords of the Treasury upon an

1137
appeal from a decision of the Marquess of Hastings, whether there were actually two armies in India; the Marquess of Hastings terming both a combined army, of which he was Commander-in-chief, while Sir Thomas Hislop contended that the army of the Deccan was a separate army, and that he, as Commander-in-chief of that army, was entitled to the full-eighth of the booty captured by it. The Marquess of Hastings had taken the field in the month of September, and his, called the grand army, certainly having achieved great victories, was broken up in the month of February following; while Sir Thomas Hislop took the field in the month of August, a month before the Marquess of Hastings; and having, with the Deccan army, achieved victories still more decisive, remained in the field until the latter end of March, six weeks longer than the Marquess of Hastings. The booty captured was very great. That taken by the Deccan army was very large—according to the Returns about 850,000 l. or 900,000 l. At first, the Marquess of Hastings had taken a very liberal view with respect to the Dec-can army, and it appeared, both from private correspondence and from his general orders, that he had no intention of contending for any share of the prize money. In his published letter to the Adjutant-general of the Deccan army, written in 1819, he said, that neither he nor the Bengal army had any thing to do with what had been captured by the army under Sir Thomas Hislop, with this exception, that any division of the Bengal army which had actually co-operated with Sir Thomas Hislop should have a share. This liberal decision of the Marquess of Hastings did not, however, last long. The prize money was found to be very large, and as it was discovered to grow larger, the noble Marquess's liberality decreased. In his valedictory address to the army in the month of February, the Marquess first used the term, "combined army," and soon after, in the month of April, he described Sir Thomas Hislop's army as "a corps of the combined army." The effect of this change in the language of the noble Marquess would be, that he would take one-eighth of the booty captured by both the armies, making a difference of 100,000 l. in his favour. On the 22nd of June he sent a despatch to the East-India Company, desiring them to take the opinion of counsel upon the propriety of his decision;
1138
and he afterwards sent a despatch to the same effect to Sir Thomas Hislop, on the ground that all prize taken belonged to the King, and that its division amongst the army was a matter of grace and favour. The details of the whole matter were laid before the Lords of the Treasury in the years 1822 and 1823, five years after the actual capture. A Treasury minute under warrant by the sign manual of the 22nd March, 1823, embodied the principle upon which the distribution was to be made. The principle laid down in the first minute completely established that which Sir Thomas Hislop contended for, as it declared that the forces engaged were not a combined army, but that the grand army in the north, and the army of the Deccan in the south, were to be considered as two independent armies. It also laid down the principle of actual capture, as contrasted with that of constructive capture put forward by the Marquess of Hastings. The Treasury minute was guided in principle by one of the decisions of the learned Judge, Lord Stowell, who laid down the following principles on the law of capture, in a case which came before him:—'The Act of Parliament and the Proclamation give the benefit of prize to the takers. By this term, are not only to be understood those who actually took possession, or those affording an actual contribution of endeavour to that event—either of those persons are naturally included under the denomination of takers; but the courts of law have gone further, and have extended the term "takers" to another description of persons—namely, to those who not having contributed actual service, are still supposed to have rendered a constructive assistance, either by conveying encouragement to the captors, or intimidation to the enemy. Capture has, therefore, been divided into capture de facto, and capture by construction. I need not say that the construction must be such as the courts of law have recognized, and not a new and unauthorized construction. For, as the word has already travelled a considerable way beyond the meaning of an Act of Parliament, the disposition of the Court will lean not to extend it still further, but to narrow it, and to bring it nearer to the terras of the Act than has been done in some former cases.' The Treasury minute and the warrant, adhering to Sir

1139
William Scott's opinion, gave a practical enforcement of those principles. The warrant proceeded to state—'That their Lordships are of opinion that the most just and equitable principles of distribution will be to adhere, as nearly as the circumstances of the case will admit, to that of actual capture; and although they are aware that the principle of constructive capture must, under certain circumstances, in a degree be admitted, the disposition should be to limit, rather than to extend that principle. The result of the battle of Mahidpore, and the occupation of Poonah and Nagpore, should belong to the divisions of the Deccan army engaged in the respective operation in which the same was captured; but that, as the division of the Bengal army under General Hardiman appeared to be put in motion for the purpose of co-operating directly in the reduction of Nagpore, and to be actually engaged with a corps of the enemy antecedent to the surrender of that place, this division appears to my Lords to be justly entitled to share in the booty captured at Nagpore. All other booty arising from the operation against the Mahrattas in the years 1817 and 1818, as may now be subject to his Majesty's royal disposition, should be granted to such divisions of the grand army under the command of the Marquess of Hastings and of the Deccan army under the command of Sir Thomas Hislop, as may respectively have captured the same.' It therefore appeared, with regard to the contention between the Marquess of Hastings and Sir Thomas Hislop, that the Treasury minute stated, that Sir Thomas Hislop was commander of a separate army, called the Deccan army. It then proceeded:—' As the Commander-in-chief and general staff belong to each division, they are entitled to participate in the booty which may arise from any capture by any division of the army of the Deccan, until the said army was broken up on the 31st March, 1818.' Thus it further appeared, that all booty taken before that time was to be given to the army of Sir Thomas Hislop; thus so far making out almost every point that that officer urged. The warrant further went on to say,—' The bounty taken by Deccan divisions is not to be shared as common fund among the whole Deccan army, on account of co-operation; and they can-
1140
not sanction an agreement founded on such a view, because co-operation, instead of actual capture, has been assumed as a principle. Then the forces of all the presidencies engaged in the combined operations of the campaign must have been included.' The Treasury decided then, according to the Marquess of Hastings's original decision—' that Sir Thomas Hislop and his staff were entitled to one-eighth of all booty taken previously to the 31st March, 1818, when the army broke up.' So far as this went, it was consistent with justice; but there was still a casus omissus, for a large part of the booty at Poonah was not obtained until both armies had quitted the field. There was a large amount of booty, consisting of tribute, and rents, and deposits of treasure, which was not obtained until the July following, when both the armies had been dissolved. Thus there remained a large proportion not disposed of under the principle laid down. When the trustees saw this, they reported the facts to the Treasury. In 1826 they stated, that the whole proceeds had been converted into money; but adverting to the fact of this casus omissus, applied for instructions to the Treasury. The Lords of the Treasury, after hearing counsel on both sides, gave, in 1826, fresh directions, which were, "that the booty taken in the daily operation of the troops should be distributed according to the doctrine of actual capture," and then went on to say:—' With respect to those parts of the above property, as to which proof cannot be established that it was actually in Poonah when that place was captured, such monies and effects must be considered as having been acquired by the general results of the war, and as such ought to be distributed among the forces of all the presidencies engaged in the combined operation of the campaign.' This was perfectly just, as it would be difficult to say which of the armies had contributed most to this object. There was, however, amongst these monies, a large amount of treasure belonging to the Peishwah, which, upon leaving Poonah, he was obliged to deposit with certain bankers in that town. It was not until the July of that year that Captain Robertson, who was appointed Commissioner for the affairs of the Peishwah, discovered the existence of these sums in the hands of these bankers. The minute of 1826 directed,

1141
That any part of this property which can be proved to have been in Poonah at the time when the place was captured—namely, on the 17th November, 1817, ought to be distributed to the captors of Poonah, according to the terms of the minute of the 5th February, 1823, upon the principle of actual capture; but that in all cases in which such proof cannot be established, the monies or effects must be considered as having been acquired by the general result of the war, and as such, ought to be distributed amongst the forces of all the presidencies engaged in the combined operations of the campaign.' This admitted, that if any sums were in Poonah at the time of the capture, it belonged to the captors. Sir Lionel Smith was the commander of the fourth division of the Deccan army, which took Poonah. Sir Thomas Hislop was the Commander-in-chief, and if it were proved that the treasure was in Poonah, then the distribution ought to be amongst the fourth division, giving one-eighth to Sir Thomas Hislop. As soon as this determination was made known to Sir Lionel Smith, who was then in India, he took measures to obtain evidence to ascertain whether or not the treasure had been actually in Poonah at the time of the capture. But if the House considered the time between the year 1818, and this minute of the Treasury in 1826, he thought that the greatest possible latitude ought to be allowed to Sir Lionel Smith, and that the evidence he was enabled to obtain after the lapse of a period of eight years, ought not to be examined with too great strictness, and, indeed, the greatest indulgence was, he thought, due to Sir Lionel Smith, if there should be any defect found in his evidence. Captain Robertson, who discovered the treasure, was agent for the East-India Company, who claimed it for themselves: so that it was not the interest of Captain Robertson to collect any evidence for the captors, as he (Captain Robertson) was to receive five per cent for himself on all that he collected for the Company. This was another of the many difficulties with which the captors had to encounter in getting evidence of their claim. Difficult as this was, however, Sir Lionel Smith, in 1828, sent home evidence on oath from five native bankers, which showed that 8 lacs and 72,000 rupees were in their hands, as the property of
1142
the Peishwah at the time of the capture of Poonah. In 1830, he transmitted other evidence, not on oath—a part of this being that of the secretary of the Peishwah himself, in which it was stated that 500,000 rupees more of his treasure were in the hands of native bankers at Poonah, at the time of its actual capture. So that there were 1,300,000 rupees in all, which the captors claimed, as being in Poonah at the time of the capture. The kind of evidence on which this latter part of the case rested, was not such as was desirable, if better could be obtained; but it should be recollected, that it was such as would be received in any of the courts in India, and that great allowance should be made for the circumstances under which the claimants were placed. If, therefore, objections were made, as they had been, to such evidence being received here, time should be allowed to those who tendered it, the more particularly, as three years were allowed to elapse, from the time of its being sent in 1828, to the arrival of Sir Lionel Smith, in May, 1831, before the objection was made. On the arrival of Sir Lionel Smith, he applied to the trustees, and they referred him to the Treasury, by which he was referred to the law officers of the Crown. The petitioners complained, that when the evidence was sent to the law officers, it was accompanied with comments as to some parts made by the Solicitor to the Treasury. Now, if the evidence were referred to the law officers of the Crown as counsel, an opportunity should have been given for employing counsel on the other side. But if the evidence and comments were sent to them as a jury to decide, still the parties interested ought to have been allowed counsel to rebut the comments so made; but whether the evidence were sent as to counsel or jury, such comments were, he contended, unfair, unless the petitioners had an opportunity of answering them. He now came to the comments themselves. One of the objections made in them was, that declarations were not made by the native bankers themselves, but by their chief clerks or agents. He apprehended, however, that the objection could not be maintained. Would such an objection be for a moment relied upon, against evidence tendered of the transactions of a banker in London on the testimony of one of his chief clerks or agents? It was next objected that Captain Robertson ought not

1143
to have been the party before whom these declarations should have been sworn. This objection he also contended was riot a fair one. It appeared that when Captain Robertson found that the money did not belong to the Company, he exerted himself to procure evidence in support of the claim of Sir Lionel Smith; but surely that did not disqualify him from receiving the depositions, for he was a party perfectly disinterested. The next objection was, that the evidence was not sufficiently particular as to the time of the money being left with the native bankers, and the date of its discovery; but this he contended ought to have been received with great allowance in favour of the claimants—first, because it could not be a matter of surprise that the native bankers should be very unwilling to discover where the treasure was; and next, there were good reasons why the fullest particulars should not have been obtained as to the time of placing the money in the bankers' hands. But, in both cases, the claimants were entitled to the greatest indulgence in this respect, as they had not had any notice that better evidence was wanted for nearly eleven years. The last objection was curious in itself. It was, that the principal parts of the evidence relied upon was Indian evidence. Why, from the nature of the transaction, it could rest on no other for the most part. If this were made a ground of objection, it might as well be said at once, that all evidence should be rejected, and that the money should be divided amongst the whole Indian army. Under all these difficulties what did Sir Lionel Smith do? The Treasury had decided that the treasure found at Poonah should be divided amongst the Indian army engaged in the campaign of 1817, unless it could be shown that the treasure was in Poonah at the time of the actual capture, of which proof was to be adduced by the parties claiming. On the 10th November, 1831, Sir Lionel Smith received a note from the Treasury, written by their Lordships' command, stating that the evidence transmitted by him had been laid before the law officers of the Crown, who had advised that they had considered the evidence as to the booty being "in Poonah at the time of the surrender; and that although the evidence raised strong doubts whether such might not have been the fact, yet they were of opinion it was not so made out as to authorize the distribu-
1144
tion to the Deccan army on the ground of actual capture." Their Lordships, at the same time, intimated that they concurred in this opinion. In the same month Sir Lionel Smith presented a memorial to the Treasury, praying to have a revision of this decision, and to be heard by counsel, or to have time to adduce further evidence. This and a subsequent memorial were without any other effect, save that an intimation, that if Sir Lionel Smith could produce any fresh evidence before the time of distribution, it would be received. It was unnecessary for him (Mr. Warburton) to point out the difficulty of obtaining any additional evidence in so short a time. The petitioners then sent a memorial, praying to be heard by the King in Council; but this memorial was not heard, on the ground, as the petitioners were given to understand, that the Privy Council had no jurisdiction in the case. On the 23rd June last, Sir Lionel Smith received a letter from the Treasury, stating that a distribution was about to be made. He soon after sent a memorial, praying to be heard as to the question of the jurisdiction of the Privy Council in his case. Even this was refused; and then came the conclusion of the drama, which was, that an order, under the sign manual, was issued on the 31st July, directing the distribution of the money; and by an order in the Gazette on the 3rd instant, it was intimated that the distribution would begin on the 7th instant. Now he must contend that this was not fair dealing to the parties whose petitions he was about to present. He thought all the probabilities and presumption were in favour of the petitioners. If the treasure in dispute was not at Poonah at the time of the capture, where was it? There was no evidence to show that it was not, and certainly it was most improbable to suppose, that if it was not there at the time, the Peishwah would send it there after the capture of the town by our troops. The presumption, in addition to the direct evidence given by the petitioners, from the agents of the bankers themselves with whom the treasure had been deposited, was, he thought, conclusive that the money was in Poonah at the time of the capture. The first ground of complaint was, that the petitioners were not allowed to argue their case fully before a decision was given; and next, they complained of the warrant, which in this case prevented

1145
their appeal to the Privy Council. He knew it was said, that the Privy Council in this case had no jurisdiction, but this, he maintained, should have been allowed as a matter of argument, either before the law officers of the Crown, or before the Privy Council itself. The ground on which the want of jurisdiction of the Privy Council was maintained, was the warrant in 1823, which said, that if any dispute should thereafter arise as to the distribution of the money, it should be referred for decision to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury. He did not dispute the fact of the existence of this warrant, but he did dispute that it could take away the right of an individual to appeal to the King in Council, in a case which came generally within its cognizance. He would maintain that the Privy Council ought to have jurisdiction in this case, on the same ground as appeals were made in claims of prize-money, from the decisions of the Admiralty courts. But he would further contend, that if the warrant of 1823 could not be acted upon without manifest injustice to individuals, as in this case he maintained it could not, it ought to be revoked. The hon. Member cited a case connected with this very transaction, in which the present Lord Chancellor held, that if the effect of the warrant of 1823 were such as he (Mr. Warburton) had described it, it was in the power of the Crown to revoke it, up to the very last moment before the distribution; and considering all the circumstances of the case, he (Mr. Warburton) did hope that Government would see the necessity of adopting this course. He thought that much was due to the merits of Sir Lionel Smith. Independently of the great skill and bravery which he displayed throughout the whole of that campaign, great credit was due to him for the address which he showed in preventing the soldiers from plundering when they took Poonah. One of the great arguments addressed to the troops on that occasion was, that their claims would be amply considered when the distribution of the prize-money took place. If, after this, it were now to go forth to the world that the claims of officers who had so exerted themselves should be neglected, it might happen that on future occasions they might not be so well disposed to undertake the arduous task of restraining their soldiers in moments of victory. Having stated the case
1146
of Sir Lionel Smith, he would now call the attention of the House to that of Sir Thomas Hislop. That gallant officer complained that great injustice was done to him in the proposed plan for the distribution of the prize money. It was well known that the war, in the course of which Poonah was captured, was conducted by two separate armies—the grand army, as it was called, under the command of the Marquess of Hastings, and the other, called the army of the Deccan. These were two distinct and separate armies under their respective Commanders-in-chief. Now the capture of Poonah was effected by the fourth division of the army of the Deccan alone, but, upon the principle of constructive capture which had been adopted by the Lords of the Treasury, the whole of the grand army was to be admitted to a participation of the booty found in that place; and, in this decision, the Marquess of Hastings was admitted to be entitled to one-eighth of the whole sum as Commander-in-chief of the Bengal army. Now this, he contended, was unjust to the Commander-in-chief of the Deccan army, for even admitting the principle of constructive capture, still it should be asked who were the commanders of the Bengal and Deccan armies? The Marquess of Hastings, who at the nearest point had never been within 300 miles of the operations of the Deccan army, had left the field altogether long before Sir Thomas Hislop, and yet his executors were allowed about 77,000 l. out of the whole produce of the booty. Surely, if the doctrine of constructive capture were admitted, Sir Thomas Hislop, as the Commander-in-chief of that army, the fourth division of which had captured Poonah, was entitled to the benefit of it, and that principle was admitted in his case, as far as his being allowed his share, as Commander-in-chief, of the booty taken in the daily operation of the Deccan army. Not only was this proceeding prejudicial to Sir Thomas Hislop in a pecuniary point of view, but it was an act of injustice and unfairness towards him. Sir Thomas Hislop showed that there was no combined army; that the statement on that point was a mere fiction, and he proved that there were two distinct armies, of one of which he was the commander. The Gazette also affirmed that which the Lords of the Privy Council, by their acts, denied. He had now finished his

1147
case, and he regretted greatly that it had not fallen into the hands of some gentleman better able to do it justice than he was. There were two appeals before the Privy Council, the object of which was to stay proceedings under the warrant of distribution. Sir Lionel Smith demanded a substantive share of the prize-money captured at Poonah, and Sir Thomas Hislop asserted his right to receive the one-eighth of the prize-money captured by the force which he commanded. In his (Mr. Warburton's) opinion, no distribution ought to be made, until those gallant officers were heard before that high court of appeal to which their petitions were addressed. He should, in the first instance, merely move that the petition be laid upon the Table, but he should afterwards move an humble Address to his Majesty, praying him to suspend the execution of his Royal warrant of July 31st, 1832, relating to the Distribution of the Deccan Booty, so far as relates to Sir Lionel Smith and Sir Thomas Hislop.
Petition brought up.
The Solicitor Generalcould assure the hon. member for Bridport that he did not mean to enter into a legal discussion with reference to this question. Whatever obscurity some parts of the subject might be involved in, there was one point upon which, he believed, no difference of opinion could exist, namely, the anxiety of the Crown to do every thing that could be done to insure the proper distribution of this prize-money amongst the gallant claimants. There were, in this case, two petitions. The one, that of Sir Lionel Smith, who claimed a considerable portion of the booty captured in Poonah by the army under his command in 1817; the other, that of Sir Thomas Hislop, who complained that injustice had been done to him by the Treasury warrant, which gave to the late Marquess of Hastings, as Commander-in-chief in India, a very large share of that booty, although the noble Lord and his army were far removed from the scene of action. The delay in settling this question of prize-money had been much censured, but there were circumstances connected with it which rendered delay unavoidable. Antecedently to any warrant for the distribution of the prize-money being promulgated, a most important question was to be decided—which question, it must be observed, was not, and could not, be decided until last
1148
year. The assignees of Narroba, who had been the minister of the Peishwah of Poonah, claimed the property. They declared that it ought not to be seized by the army, because it was the private property of Narroba, to which his representatives were fairly entitled, under the, article of capitulation agreed to at the time of the capture of Poonah, those articles specifying that private property should be respected. It appeared that, on the 16th November, 1817, Narroba left Poonah, and took the command of the fort of Reighur, which he held until the month of May or June following. After the capture of that fort by Colonel Protheroe, Narroba returned to Poonah; and it was asserted that the treasure which had been discovered at Poonah, after his return, had in fact, been surreptitiously conveyed away from the fort of Reighur, by Narroba's attendants, and was not in Poonah at the time of its capture. The treasure was found by an officer of the name of Robertson; who was, he believed, the political agent of the company at Poonah. That officer had, it appeared, considered the various circumstances connected with the ownership of this treasure; but he would say that nothing appeared to him more unsatisfactory than this part of the case. Captain Robertson procured a knowledge, and got possession of a very large treasure. As the means used to procure that knowledge were not under the consideration of the House, he should allude to that point no further. Captain Robertson expressed his opinion that the treasure was not in Poonah at the time of its capture. Now he would not say whether that opinion was correct or not; or whether Captain Robertson's judgment was right or wrong; but it was very evident that this circumstance heightened the difficulty of the case. In consequence of this statement, the East-India Company interposed, and relying on the opinion of their own agent, they claimed the treasure as an arrear of tribute. This threw another difficulty in the way of decisions. At length, on the 1st of March, 1823, a minute of Treasury was promulgated, which laid down this principle—that, with reference to the money discovered at Poonah, it could only be claimed by Sir Lionel Smith, if it were in Poonah at the time that place was captured; and, in January, 1826, another minute was agreed to, which recognized

1149
the principle contained in the former. No doubt, therefore, could exist, as to the principle on which the case was to be decided; and it was incumbent on Sir Lionel Smith to make out the affirmative proposition, namely, that the treasure was in Poonah at the time of its capture. This was a difficulty which opposed itself, not only to Sir Lionel Smith, but to every claimant in this case. The principle laid down in 1823, and recognized in 1826, remained unaltered; and although he felt the difficulties which this gallant officer had to encounter in making out an affirmative case, still it was imperative on him to do so. The gallant officer had had recourse to the evidence procured subsequently by Captain Robertson to substantiate his claim. He was sorry that the gallant officer had adopted such evidence. If it were English evidence, he could not but view it with doubt and suspicion, and he felt still more doubt and suspicion when he considered that it was Indian. The vivâ voce evidence was supported by what was called documentary evidence; though it was not what, in this country, would be called documentary evidence. Then, he would ask, if Sir Lionel Smith had not made out his claim, and it rested with him to prove the affirmative, was this money never to be divided? If they argued that there was a probable case for Sir Lionel Smith, that there was a probability that the treasure was in Poonah when that place was taken, might it not also be argued, as was asserted by Colonel Protheroe, that it was removed from the fort of Reighur when that post was surrendered? Was it not probable that Narroba, when he proceeded to Poonah, thought that, in thus placing himself in the lion's jaws, he should remove all suspicion as to his wealth? Having taken such a step, was it not likely that he would remove his treasures with him? But whilst he lamented the difficulties with which the case was surrounded, he would ask, must not those difficulties be removed? And if so, by whom were they to be removed? Certainly, by Sir Lionel Smith. The place was captured on the 17th November, 1817, and it rested with the claimant to make out his exclusive claim to this treasure, by showing that it was in Poonah when the garrison surrendered. Where, he would ask, were these inquiries, which had lasted so many years, to end? He would not object to further
1150
inquiry, if he could at all see his way out of it, if those who demanded it would declare what parties were hereafter to be examined, and would give them an idea as to the credibility which might be attached to their evidence. What testimony were they likely to procure at Poonah in 1833 or 1834, that was likely to outweigh what was given at the time, and when the British power was paramount there?
Sir John Malcolmsaid, the peculiar situation in which he was placed, in consequence of the petitions then before the House, would, he hoped, excuse him for making a few observations on this subject. Independent of the command which he himself had held under Sir Thomas Hislop, in the Deccan army, he also held a situation at the head-quarters, which entitled him to a share in the prize-money, as well as the petitioners. But, as it was a mere personal claim, he had not pressed it; and the more especially, as he had been made Governor of Bombay. He had resided for a considerable time at Poonah, and was conversant with the evidence which had been there given upon this subject. The hon. member for Bridport had said, that Captain Robertson had a direct interest in procuring this money, because he would receive five per cent for all that he succeeded in recovering. That, however, was not possible, because, as a public officer, he was bound to adopt every means to recover the money, which appeared to belong to the Government for which he acted, uninfluenced by any reward or motive beyond the actual pay which he received. Captain Robertson was a man of too much honour and integrity to do any thing which could be fairly censured. With respect to Sir Lionel Smith, he got together the best evidence that could be collected at the time. The Solicitor General said, that Sir Lionel Smith should prove the affirmative. Now he (Sir J. Malcolm) conceived, that Sir Lionel Smith had, so far as it was possible, proved the affirmative. The Solicitor General had also observed, that he felt strong doubts as to whether the treasure was or was not in Poonah at the time that place was taken. Now, he looked upon the existence of these doubts as the strongest part of Sir Lionel Smith's case; because, where these doubts existed, they might be very fairly supposed to excite doubts in the minds of others as to whether the Government was about to

1151
make a just decision or not. Looking to the evidence, the impression on his mind certainly was, that the treasure was in Poonah at the time the place was captured. When doubts existed, the safest way was to take time, and to endeavour, by further inquiry, to remove those doubts.
Lord Althorpsaid, that in this case a solemn appeal had been lodged before the Privy Council; and the question for the Government was, whether this appeal having been lodged, it was proper to proceed with the distribution of the prize-money? Under the peculiar circumstances, it appeared to him, that it would be wrong to go on with the distribution; and therefore he would not resist the hon. Member's proposed Motion for an address to the Crown. He thought it only consistent with justice, that the appeal should be decided before the distribution took place. He could not, however, agree that the parties in this case had been harshly treated. A great deal of time had been given to them, and every facility had been afforded, to enable them to substantiate their claims. He did not see that there was any necessity to send out to India for further evidence, in illustration of this case. If such evidence even could be got there—and that was more than doubtful—a long period must elapse before it could be procured; and, as far as he had considered the case, it did not appear to him that it would be any way useful towards promoting the ends of justice, to send out again to India to procure evidence with regard to it. The case would be again brought before the Privy Council by a solemn appeal, and a decision would be made upon it there, which, in his opinion, ought to be a final one.
Mr. Humesaid, that he was anxious to call the attention of the House to the case of the unfortunate Narroba, the private treasurer of the Peishwah at Poonah, from whom the sum now claimed as prize-money had been principally taken. Poonah surrendered in November, 1817; the money was not seized till 1818 by Mr. Robertson, who was appointed political agent at Poonah, with instructions from Mr. Elphinston, giving him the power of an absolute monarch. According to these instructions, he was to punish resistance to his authority, by martial law, as acts of rebellion. He might, in truth, put to death as many individuals as he pleased. Some time after his arrival, he was informed
1152
that Narroba, who had been the banker and private treasurer of the Peishwah, had certain money in his possession. On this he sent for Narroba, long after all hostilities had ceased, and questioned him about the circumstance, on which Narroba admitted that he had money, but stated it to be his own, to the possession of which he was entitled under the proclamation of Mr. Elphinston. Captain Robertson, however, sent him to prison, seized all his treasure, books, and papers, and put his head clerk in irons. A more iniquitous proceeding than this never took place. Narroba's wife was under the necessity of borrowing a sum of twenty rupees, although he was himself worth nearly half a million of money, and, at length, in order to regain his liberty, he was compelled to sign a document, authorising Captain Robertson to do what he pleased with the money that had been seized, which amounted to about 370,000 l. Thus this unfortunate man was deprived of the whole of his property; and, therefore, it was most important, if there was to be another investigation of the case, to reconsider whether justice did not demand that this money should be restored to the heirs of Narroba. Not expecting that this part of the case would be entered into, he had not brought down to the House his copy of the papers, he could not enter minutely into the question, but he must ask, when was the inquiry to end? What new parties were to be examined? To whom was this money to be given? They ought not to put an end to this transaction, and make a final division of the money, until they were satisfied that the money ought to be divided. It appeared to him (Mr. Hume), that there ought to be a revision, and a re-consideration of this case, in order to determine, not whether this or that party was entitled to the division of this money, but whether, in justice and in honesty, it should not revert to the party from whom it had been originally taken. The Solicitor-General had said, that the question, was whether one or both of the armies was to have this sum divided amongst them, but he (Mr. Hume) would say, that neither of them should have it if they were not entitled to it. It was only necessary to refer to the language employed by Sir Edward West, in pronouncing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Bombay upon this case, to see the manner, the

1153
illegal and tyrannical manner, in which this property had been obtained from the unfortunate Narroba. Sir Edward West, in pronouncing the judgment of the Court on that occasion, said, 'The only circumstance from which the defendants could presume it was the Peishwah's money was, that Narroba had been, nearly up to the breaking out of the war, the Kasgeet, or private treasurer to the Peishwah. From this circumstance alone, a vague suspicion that Narroba had some of the Peishwah's money seems to have suggested itself to Lieutenant Robertson, and to have led him to all these extraordinary proceedings. Even at this day the defendants have not been able to adduce any evidence that the money seized was the Peishwah's, except the supposed admissions or confessions of Narroba, obtained from him after the seizure, by means the most illegal and oppressive. Many months after Poonah had been in our undisturbed and peaceable possession, many months after Mr. Elphinston's proclamation, in which he promises that all property, real and personal, shall be protected, and that courts of justice shall be immediately established, and many months after their actual establishment in Poonah, and the adjacent country, (when the inhabitants had as much right to the protection of the Courts of Justice as the inhabitants of Bombay,—Narroba, a person of high rank in the former empire, without even the imputation of any offence, and without the form or pretence of any legal proceeding, is taken from his house and wife and family, and thrown into the common gaol; his gomasta shares the same fate, with the additional severity of being kept in irons): Narroba's house is entered by a military force, his treasure is taken, without a shadow of evidence that it was not his own, and his family reduced to a state of destitution so complete, that his wife is under the necessity of borrowing twenty rupees. They are kept in prison many months, during which Captain Robertson endeavours to obtain admissions from them to justify these acts; and in this Court, the defendants offer in evidence, a paper signed by Narroba's gomasta in gaol, dictated to him, in the presence of Captain Robertson, admission obtained from Narroba in gaol, and the bond by which Narroba submits himself to whatever
1154
their honours might please to order to be done to him. Even after his release, the proceedings are equally extraordinary. His papers having been seized by Captain Robertson, he is interrogated as to the most intricate accounts of immense sums, and of many years; and thus, by an inversion of the most obvious rules of justice, his property is first seized and detained, without even a pretence of any right, and then he is required to show his own title to it, and that after he is deprived of the means of so doing by the seizure of his papers and accounts.' Upon the occasion when Sir Edward West made these remarks, the King's Court of Bombay, after hearing all the evidence, solemnly decided against the claims of the hon. Stuart Elphinston, and Captain Dundas Robertson. An appeal from that judgment was transmitted to the Privy Council, and Lord Tenterden, in pronouncing the decision of the Privy Council with regard to it, recommending the Crown to reverse that judgment, grounded that decision alone, upon the incompetency of the Court of Bombay to entertain the case, and upon the fact, "that this booty had been captured in a perfectly hostile manner, non flagranti sed nondum cessanto bello," though seven or eight months had elapsed from the capture of Poonah, up to the time when this treasure was seized. He hoped, therefore, that it was not too late to give a hearing to the case of the unfortunate Narroba before the Privy Council, that its merits would be fully investigated, and that justice would at length be done in a case of such injustice and oppression.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that it would be extremely hard upon the claimants for this booty, if the distribution of it were to be again deferred until an indefinite period, in order that there should be another hearing before the Privy Council, and he therefore thought the noble Lord should state, when this point would be decided, and when there would be a prospect of the payment of the money to the claimants. He did not object to the Motion of the hon. member for Bridport, but he really was of opinion, that the noble Lord opposite should now fix a time, beyond which the claimants should no longer be kept out of their money.
Colonel Evansmaintained, that the Marquess of Hastings had not the slight-

1155
est claim to any portion of this booty as Commander-in-chief. The Commander-in-chief of the army of the Deccan, by a division of which the capture of Poonah was effected, was Sir Thomas Hislop; and the Marquess of Hastings, though Commander-in-chief of the King's troops in India, and Commander-in-chief of one of the two armies employed in this war, the grand army, was no more Commander-in-chief of that portion of the Company's forces called the Deccan army, than Sir Thomas Hislop was Commander-in-chief of the grand army. The hon. Member referred to different Orders of the Day, issued in the course of this war, in proof of his statement, and concluded, by asserting, that according to all the evidence, Sir Thomas Hislop had as good a right to be considered the constructive captor, as Sir Lionel Smith was acknowledged to be the actual captor of the booty in question.
Lord Althorpapprehended, that there could be no doubt whatever that the Marquess of Hastings was the Commander-in-chief of the whole array on this occasion. The noble Lord also referred to general orders of the day, then issued by the Marquess of Hastings in proof of that fact. His hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, was very desirous that the Privy Council should take into its consideration the claims of the representatives of the banker Narroba, but those claims had been already decided upon. The decision of the Court of Bombay had been reversed by the Privy Council, on the ground of the incompetency of that Court to entertain the question. The proceedings of that Court were accordingly quashed, and the only question that now remained for revision related to the manner in which the money was to be divided. When that point should be again brought before the Privy Council, it would pronounce definitively upon it, and in a manner, he was sure, that would meet the justice and merits of the case.
Sir Charles Forbessaid, that he agreed in every word that had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, with regard to the case of the unfortunate Narroba, and the atrocious and abominable tyranny that had been practised in that instance, and he had only to regret, that he feared the door was now closed against any inquiry on behalf of the representatives of that ill-used and most tyrannically treated
1156
individual. It was a disgrace to the British name and character, that such enormities should have been practised; and it was still more disgraceful that the Privy Council should have indirectly lent its sanction to the enormity of such proceedings. He understood, that when this case was in discussion before the Privy Council, the enormities disclosed in the course of it, as practised towards this unfortunate man, excited no observations or animadversions whatever. There never, in truth, was a greater anomaly, than such a Court as the Privy Council deciding in cases like this, and he thanked his God that he was not a member of it. The decision of the Privy Council in this case would open the eyes of the people in India, and would prevent many similar appeals being made from that quarter to the King in Council. He repeated, that he feared the door of inquiry was closed against the Representatives of the unfortunate Narroba; but, at all events, he did hope that the legal expenses to which his Representatives had been put, in prosecuting his claims, would, like those of the other parties, be defrayed out of the funds which had been taken from this unfortunate man. He was glad that the enormities practised in that case, and the conduct of Captain Robertson, had been at length brought before Parliament, The people of India would be rejoiced to find that such things were not suffered to pass without animadversion in a British House of Commons.
Mr. Warburtondid not feel it necessary to make any reply, after what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp).
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Warburtonthen moved, that an humble Address should be presented to his Majesty, praying his Majesty to suspend the execution of his royal warrant of the 31st July, 1832, directing the distribution of the Deccan booty, until one or both of the petitions, addressed by Sir Lionel Smith and Sir Thomas Hislop to the King in Council, shall have been heard and disposed of.
Motion agreed to.

TITHES COMPOSITION (IRELAND).
Mr. Stanleymoved the Third Reading of the Tithes Composition (Ireland) Bill.]
Mr. Ruthventook that last opportunity again to enter his protest against a mea-

1157
sure fraught, in his opinion, with so much calamity to Ireland.
Bill read a third time.
Mr. Stanleymoved a Clause, by way of rider to the Bill, to the effect that the average of the last three years should be taken as the basis on which to fix the composition.
The Clause was agreed to, as was also a Clause moved by Lord John Russell, that the Bill might be altered or amended during the present Session.
Bill passed.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Bribery at Elections Bill.
The several Clauses, I to 11 inclusive, having been agreed to, Clause 12 was put to stand part of the Bill, when
Mr. Humesuggested an addition, to the effect, that in all boroughs, towns, or cities, where bribery was proved against certain individuals, they should be suspended from the exercise of the elective franchise, without affecting the rights of other electors.
Lord John Russellsaid, that there was a clause in the Bill, providing that the Committee to whom any petition complaining of an undue return might be referred, should report the names of the persons guilty of bribery, and he had no objection to the suggestion of the hon. member for Middlesex.
An Hon. Membersaid, that such a remedy would require a new Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpobserved, that when he had asked the noble Lord at what time he intended to bring on this Bill, he had received only a vague sort of answer, and then, having been absent from the House but three minutes, he had, on his return, found the Bill in the Committee. The noble Lord was persevering in his efforts, not by reason, but by numbers, to cut down the Constitution. He and the rest of his Majesty's Ministers were placing restrictions on some of the commonest acts of life. He had lately been canvassing for the city which he had the honour to represent, and which he hoped again to represent; and a most successful canvass it had proved: but it grieved him when, in the course of that canvass, he saw the wife or child of one of his own constituents lying on a sick bed, that he was prevented by the law from offering any assistance. Hon.
1158
Members might laugh; but it appeared to him to be a great grievance. How did the noble Lord define hospitality, and bow did he define bribery? For his (Colonel Sibthorp's) part, he thought the dinners given to Ministerial Members in Downing-street, and the feeding and fattening of them by his Majesty's Government, that they might have their votes, were indisputable specimens of corruption. Should the noble Lord persevere in endeavouring to carry his Bill through that night, by numbers, not by reason, if he (Colonel Sibthorp) sat there until the separation of the House, he would take every opportunity of flooring him. The hon. and gallant Member repeated his complaint, that he had been left in the dark by the noble Lord as to the period at which the Bill would be brought on, and that it had been brought on suddenly and unexpectedly.
Lord John Russellwas understood to say, that the occasion to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred was on the evening of Friday last, when the Bill had been committed pro formâ, when, at twelve or one o'clock in the morning, in answer to the inquiry of the gallant Member, he had replied, that he should bring forward the measure on this evening, and as early as circumstances would admit. Having said so much, it did not appear to him that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had brought forward any argument against the Bill now before the House. With respect to the Bill, he must say, that the whole of the legislative enactments with reference to bribery ought necessarily to be consolidated, but the present period of the Session was too late to accomplish such an object. The present Bill was directed exclusively to prevent bribery in corrupt places returning Members to serve in Parliament.
The Clauses up to 19 inclusive agreed to.
On the Question being put, that Clause 20 stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Fanewas opposed to this clause, which involved a great constitutional question; for it seemed by it, that if the two Houses agreed on the question, any borough might, by an address to the Crown, be forthwith disfranchised.
Lord John Russellsaid, he admitted this Bill to be a great constitutional question; at the same time he thought that where the majority of a place entitled to Representatives were proved to be corrupt, the minority of the electors of that place must suffer in the disfranchisement.
Mr. Dixonbegged to put a case—for instance, the city of Glasgow—where a certain party, say 7,000 out of 10,000, might be corrupt, would that be a ground for disfranchising the whole?
Lord John Russellreplied, that such had not been the case hitherto. The case of Liverpool was one in point; and in that case, though bribery had been clearly proved to exist, yet nobody had ever thought of proposing that the town of Liverpool should for ever be deprived of sending Representatives to Parliament.
The remaining Clauses agreed to.
Mr. Duncombesaid, he had risen to propose to the Committee three clauses, which would tend to render the declaration made at the beginning of each Session of Parliament, as to the impropriety and illegality of Peers interfering in the election of Members to serve in Parliament, not a mere shadow or a dead letter. There was nothing more notorious than that the Peerage did interfere, notwithstanding this declaration of Parliament at its assembling. He could, as an instance, state, that in the borough he represented (Hertford), the noble Marquess who lived in the neighbourhood, whose enmity to the Reform Bill was but too well known, had used his utmost influence at the late election; and, so far from his being deterred from pursuing the same course hereafter, he had lately compelled his tenantry, who were extremely numerous, to sign a bond, by which they who had votes for the borough of Hertford agreed to give up at quarter-day, upon receiving fourteen days' previous notice to quit, the possession of their tenements or holdings under that nobleman. The bond contained a clause of forfeiture in case the tenant refused to surrender, and the penalty for his refusal was 50 l. In the case of persons who would be entitled to vote for the county, who were his tenants, he believed there was a longer notice required; but the bond was required in this instance also, and the penalty on refusal was the same. The first clause which he had drawn out inflicted a penalty of 500 l. upon any Peer interfering, and proved to have interfered, in any election. The second clause pointed out the tribunal by which the penalty was to be inflicted. The third showed the mode in which the penalty was to be recovered. There was another Bill in progress in the other House of Parliament, to prevent corrupt prac-
1160
tices at elections—which was very kind and considerate of the noble Lords; and no one felt more grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the author of the Bill, for his good intentions, and the interest he appeared to take in the purity of elections, than he felt; but that Bill, like the Bill of his noble friend, entirely overlooked the impurity of which he complained, and in no way provided for the vindication of the sessional resolution. That the House of Commons, from the earliest period of our representative history, had ever been jealous of the influence and interference of Peers, was strongly proved by the fact that, until the reign of Edward 6th, the eldest sons of Peers were not allowed to approach this House, or considered eligible to sit in Parliament. The first instance of the sort was Sir Francis Russell's, member for Bucks, who succeeded his elder brother, Lord Russell, who died; and on Sir Francis Russell becoming Lord Russell, a long and angry debate took place, whether he should continue to represent the county of Buckingham, when, after much discussion, it was decided in the affirmative; from which time the encroachments of the Peerage had gone on, and, he was convinced, would continue and increase, unless the Commons adopted some legislative enactment to prevent them. The question, therefore, was simply this—whether the Reformed Parliament was in future to represent the Commons, and the Commons of England only, or whether Peers should with impunity interfere in elections? If the House was of opinion that they ought to interfere—which it would virtually establish if it negatived the principle upon which his Motion was founded—then let Peers be placed at once upon the same footing as all other electors, and let them, now and henceforward, if they thought proper, register and vote at elections, so that the people might know what they were about; but do not let a Reformed Parliament go through the farce of passing a resolution, which was an insult to the people of England, and a mockery on the understanding of the House. For his part, he thought, as it had been the pride and good fortune of this House of Commons to extend the rights and privileges of the people, so it ought to be its duty to see that the people were secure and protected in the undisturbed enjoyment of those rights, and that their votes could be freely and independ-

1161
ently given, for the promotion of those ends for which their votes were granted. All he asked was, that the sessional resolution should have the force of law, and thereby put an end, now and for ever, to that species of unconstitutional interference on the part of Peers—an interference frequently accompanied by acts of oppression—acts not less degrading to the Peerage itself, than subversive of the ancient and undoubted rights and privileges of the people of Great Britain. He moved that the clauses be brought up.
The Chairman called the attention of the Committee to the fact, that the clauses against the interference of Peers did not come within the scope of the title of the Bill, which was to prevent "bribery and corruption" at elections. He, therefore, thought that they could not be brought up.
Lord John Russellagreed with the Chairman, that the clauses were inadmissible in point of form, but, nevertheless, he thought the present not an improper time to discuss the principle involved in the Resolutions. In his opinion, the Resolutions of the House against the interference of Peers at elections, only applied to cases of gross and open interference. He did not think that it could be the object of a Reformed Parliament to shut out all interference whatever on the part of Peers. There was a wide difference between the legitimate and illegitimate influence of rank and property: the former he hoped never to see abolished. He objected to the proposed clauses as inconsistent with the ordinary course of justice (this referred to the mode of imposing the penalty), and calculated to produce collisions between the two Houses of Parliament.
Mr. Curriewished to know from the noble Paymaster of the Forces, whether it was legal or constitutional that a Peer should interfere in elections? To his own knowledge, the Marquess of Salisbury had indirectly, by bribes, and directly by threats, most illegally and unconstitutionally endeavoured to influence the electors of the borough (Hertford) which he (Mr. Currie) represented.
Lord John Russelldid not think it necessary to deprecate such conduct in either Peer or Commoner as highly illegal and unconstitutional. He, however, saw no reason why a Peer should not influence elections.
Motion negatived,
House resumed; Committee to sit again.

LOAN FOR GREECE.
Viscount Palmerstonmoved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Greek Treaty Acts, with a view to bringing in a Bill "to enable his Majesty to carry into effect a Convention on the affairs of Greece."
Mr. Humeobjected to the Speaker's leaving the Chair on so short a notice, without some explanation of the grounds of the noble Lord's Motion, and of the object he proposed to accomplish by the Bill.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the notice was given on Friday, and there could not be any further delay without great inconvenience. The object of his Motion was to enable the Government to complete the arrangements which it and the governments of France and Russia had entered into in February, 1830, for the final settlement of Greece as an independent monarchy. The Motion was, therefore, evidently not new in principle, and was a mere following up of the measure adopted by the Duke of Wellington's Administration. The House must recollect that, after much arduous and intricate negotiation, the three great Allied Powers had entered into a Convention, by which Greece was guaranteed an independent existence under the sovereignty of Prince Leopold, and had also agreed to guarantee that prince a loan of 60,000,000 francs, so as to enable him to assume and exercise the functions of the new monarchy with efficiency and dignity. The arrangements then entered into were not, as they all knew, completed, so that it became the duty of the Allied Powers to endeavour to prevent the mischievous consequences of their being abruptly suspended, and to bring them to a satisfactory conclusion with the least possible delay. Accordingly, negotiations were entered into anew, and, as the first and preliminary step towards that satisfactory conclusion, so much to be desired, was the selection of a proper person to fill the new throne, the choice fell upon Prince Otho of Bavaria, who accepted the sovereignty on the same conditions as those on which Prince Leopold had consented to undertake the monarchy—namely the guarantee of an outfit loan. The present Government, indeed, had no choice as to engaging in the guarantee with regard to the loan, for the previous stipulations on

1163
that subject had been made to the States of Greece, and not to Prince Leopold alone, so that they could not be annulled by the fact of his declining the sovereign authority. The terms, however, of the treaty by which this loan was guaranteed by the three Powers, differed somewhat from those which guaranteed Prince Leopold's; for besides being much more precisely and definitely binding on the Greek government, there were stipulations as to the mode in which it should be paid, that would in themselves be a guarantee against all permanent loss to the guaranteeing parties. It was, in the first place, stipulated, that the payment should be made at three comparatively distinct intervals or portions; and, in the next place, it was expressly stipulated that the very appropriation of the revenues of Greece should be the payment of the interest on the loan. Indeed, he had no doubt on his mind, that, in a very short time, the revenues of the new state would be so flourishing, that not only would the interest be paid punctually, but that there would be no need of the third, perhaps the second, instalment. He saw no reason, whatever, why Greece should not once more assume a proud station amongst the nations of the earth, and become one of the most flourishing, as it undoubtedly was one of the most favoured, territories on the face of the globe. Notwithstanding it had now been the scene of a ten years' barbarous and exterminating warfare, and a prey to all the ills of intestine commotion, and anarchy, and confusion, its revenues had improved, within the last year, and it required no very sanguine fancy to anticipate, from its maritime advantages and fruitfulness of soil, a commercial eminence, such as distinguished Venice and Genoa during the last brilliant days of Italian story. He must remind the House, that the occasion of Prince Leopold's refusal of the sovereignty of Greece was the unsatisfactory state of the northern frontier, laid down in the Convention of 1830. As that frontier, by making the Aspropotamos the boundary on the north-western side, excluded a great portion of Arcanania and Ætolia from the new Greek state, it appeared to Prince Leopold to be so insecure and indeterminate, that he felt he could not, with honour or satisfaction to himself or the inhabitants of the Greek peninsula, accept of the sovereignty, unless the three Powers agreed to re-consider the treaty, with a
1164
view to extending the frontiers to the original mountain line, extending from the Gulf of Volo to Arta. His suggestion was at the time refused, and, as a consequence, the negotiations for the settlement of Greece were interrupted. Since that interruption, however, the Powers had taken the subject into their earnest consideration, and had arrived at the conclusion, that the original frontier from Volo to Arta was, in every point of view, whether considered in its geographical or military relations, the most expedient that could be fixed upon, and accordingly, in the treaty under which Prince Otho was raised to the throne of Greece, the Volo and Arta frontier had been adopted. That frontier constituted a fine natural mountain range boundary, possessing every military and physical condition requisite to the protection of a small territory, and, besides, separated the Greek from the essentially Turkish provinces. It could not, however, be expected that Turkey would agree to a boundary which went to curtail her territory of Arcanania and part of Ætolia, without some compensation; and, accordingly, negotiations had been entered into under Sir Stratford Canning, the British Ambassador, which he had every reason to believe were all but formally concluded, and under which Turkey agreed to give up those provinces for a specific pecuniary payment, the exact amount of which he did not, at that stage of the proceeding, feel himself justified to make public. He might, however, state, without breach of official confidence, that the matter would be settled to the satisfaction of all parties, and that the payment would be made out of the loan which formed the immediate object of his present Motion. Hon. Members had asked, why bring forward a question of this kind at so late a period of the Session? The short answer to that question was, that if the loan were delayed for any length of time, the object for which the three Powers originally undertook to interpose would be entirely defeated, and Greece would be thrown into a state of anarchy and confusion, from which it would be next to impossible to rescue her. In short, to delay the payment of the instalment for another six months would be to refuse it, or, at all events, to render it useless. It was contended, on the other side, that England ought not to become a party to a loan of this kind, because it was impossible that Greece

1165
could repay it. Those who adopted that argument looked only to the present state of Greece; and, indeed, it was not wonderful that a country which, for so many years, had been struggling against the oppressor—which had so long been made the seat of a wasting and barbarous war—should present an appearance of poverty and desolation. But it did not follow, because Greece, under such circumstances, was impoverished, and incapable of raising a revenue, that, hereafter, when the object of the three Powers should be effected—when she was released from the yoke of the Ottoman—when she had an independent government of her own, when the energies of her people were called forth—when the natural resources of the land (and they were great) were sought out and cultivated—that then Greece should not be able to repay to the Powers of Europe all that they had advanced for the establishment of her freedom and independence. He felt satisfied that the House hereafter would have no reason to regret having acceded to the Resolution which it was his intention to move when the Speaker had left the Chair. The principle of his measure, he repeated, was identical with that which guaranteed a loan to Prince Leopold; and every circumstance that justified that guarantee applied with tenfold force to the present stale of that too long ill-used territory.
Mr. Bestsaid, that as the papers connected with this subject were only laid upon the Table last Saturday, he was not prepared to dispute the accuracy of the statements made by the noble Lord opposite; yet he must say, that he thought it moat extraordinary, in the present circumstances of this country, that the House should be called upon to pledge itself to the payment of 800,00 l. with so slight a probability of it ever hereafter being repaid. He knew it was said, that this country only guaranteed the payment of the money, in case the Greeks should not be able to fulfil their engagements; but if, as he believed, the first instalment was already pledged to the Turkish government for the surrender of a certain portion of territory which they held, instead of being appropriated to the improvement and cultivation of the wasted and desolated land of the Greeks, what security had this country that the Greek nation would ever possess the means of repaying the money? Under these circumstances, although this was
1166
possibly the last time that he should have the opportunity of taking a part in the proceedings of that House, he should certainly feel it to be his duty to express his opposition to the Resolution which the noble Lord had intimated his intention of moving, by going to a division upon it.
Mr. Robinsonthought, that it was the height of infatuation in the noble Lord to come down to the House and propose the present grant, after the statement made only a few nights ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the financial difficulties of the country. The noble Lord had said, that he made this proposition more on the ground of its being a legacy left them by the late Government than for its own intrinsic merits; but the noble Lord ought to recollect that the arrangement made by the late Government was entered into with Prince Leopold; and he did not see that this country was bound, after the rejection of the sovereignty of Greece by his Royal Highness, to continue the guarantee of any sum of money. It was rather strange, too, to hear the present Ministers, who, when out of office, so loudly declared against the extravagance of the late Government, declaring that they considered themselves bound by the acts of their predecessors. But there was no probability, it was stated, that this country could suffer any loss by the proposed guarantee, because the entire revenues of Greece were pledged for the repayment of the loan. Let the House, however, bear in mind that there were other Greek loans besides the present one; and he really thought that the parties who had formerly advanced their money for the benefit of Greece were entitled to some consideration; and if the revenues of the country were to be appropriated to the liquidation of her debts, those creditors ought, in fairness, to receive a portion of them. He was sorry to say that this country had not gained much benefit by interfering in the affairs of the Continent; objects which were purely continental had been accomplished at the expense of much English treasure; and he regretted to see that the noble Lord had, in this respect, fallen into the error of his predecessors. He objected to the present proposition being brought forward at so late a period of the Session, and during such a thin attendance of Members. Before he sat down he wished to ask the noble Lord, whether any security had been obtained for the establishment

1167
of free institutions in Greece under the new regime; or whether the young Prince Otho and his advisers were to be allowed to establish the government on any principles which they might think fit?
Mr. Hudson Gurneythought that Prince Otho was a very unfit person to be appointed to govern such a distracted and half-savage nation as Greece; and he was surprised that no one had been selected from the Greeks themselves to govern the country; it was the most absurd thing imaginable to choose a youth of seventeen years to rule over a turbulent and ferocious people. He was decidedly opposed to the present grant; and he thought that a more proposition could than when this improper time for its not have been selected country had so much difficulty to maintain its own finances in a proper condition, and to pay its own debt.
Mr. Wellesleysaid, that any person at all acquainted with the state of Greece, must be aware that a native prince was the most unfit individual that could be selected for its sovereign. He thought that the present Government were placed in circumstances of great embarrassment with respect to questions of foreign policy. They could not act altogether upon their own judgments, but were shackled by the arrangements made by their predecessors. He should give his support to the proposition of the Government, because, though he could not agree with the noble Lord in his anticipations of the great prosperity of Greece, he yet thought that the loan of this money afforded the only chance of restoring that country to a state of civilization. He thought it very unlikely that this country would be ever called to pay any money on account of this transaction; for he believed that Russia would not have become a party to the guarantee, had there not existed a great probability that the loan would be repaid by Greece.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, that one of the inconveniencies of discussing such a question at that late period of the Session was, that the persons most interested in the noble Lord's statements were not present. He would observe that it must be full in the recollection of every Member whom he had the honour to address, that after the rejection of the throne of Greece by Prince Leopold, the late Government never entered into any negotiation what-ever respecting the loan which now formed the subject of discussion in the House.
1168
Throughout the papers which he had examined on the subject, he had not observed that the Government of this country had done anything more than make a small advance to an agent of the Greek government resident in Paris. It had been alleged that the present Government of this country was bound to proceed in this matter, because the business of interference had been commenced by the preceding Administration. The late Government had not by their acts bound the present, neither could they in fairness be held responsible for the original interference; on the simple ground that they were not parties to that interference, it having taken place before they came into office. They were certainly no parties to the Convention, a leading feature of which was the nomination of Prince Otho to the throne of Greece—a nomination not only not desired by the late Government, but directly disapproved of by them. Both the Duke of Wellington and the Earl of Aberdeen had opposed it when proposed. It was true that prince was now three years older than he was then, but that did not fit him for the throne. For his own part he disapproved very much of the choice, and as it had been disapproved of by the former Ministry, it was absurd now to attempt to make them responsible for it. It had been suggested that there ought to be a short postponement of the present Motion, for the purpose of enabling honourable Members to come to a sounder and more advised conclusion upon that important question. To such a postponement he confessed he saw no objection. He hoped the Ministers would consent to postpone the consideration of this question for a short time, in order to enable those who were greatly interested in it to be present during the discussion.
Mr. Humeexpressed great surprise that the members of an Administration which had taken office on the declared condition of non-interference with foreign states, should outdo their predecessors in a course of the most ill-advised interference. He regretted to hear the speech of the noble Lord, who was disposed to think a great deal of the Greek king, but nothing of the Greek people. The House was wholly to support the king; the people were never thought of. The noble Lord had never once mentioned the Greek nation, nor had he informed the House that the Greeks wished for a king. Could the Ministers

1169
then suppose that it would be in their power to reconcile the discordant elements of which the Greek nation was composed, by placing over them a boy of seventeen years of age, or three men representing that boy? It was idle in the extreme to suppose that a government so formed, having no foundation in public opinion, could have sufficient influence and energy to maintain itself in such a country. But even if it were a monarchy of a better character, monarchy was not the form of government best suited to Greece—of all others he conceived it to be the least suited to that country. In his opinion, a federal republic, or at least a good representative government of some sort or other, would be infinitely better suited to the purposes of Greece, The money which this country was about, he feared, to advance for the purpose of maintaining Prince Otho upon the throne, would be money completely thrown away, and all for the purpose of upholding the monarchy—and such monarchy too—monarchy in the person of a youth whose father had but just recently taken a part in the Frankfort Confederation. In the present state of the House, he thought that coming to such a vote would be extremely improper; and, therefore, he should say, let there be a call of the House, and let the proposition then before them be submitted to a large assemblage of the Representatives of the people.
Lord Althorpagreed with hon. Members that the House was not bound by the acts of the Ministry, and it could not for a moment be supposed that his Majesty's Government had ever acted as if they thought that the House could be bound by their acts. He regretted to observe that the question had been argued throughout in a manner too insulated, as if the loan, which was only a part of an extended body of political proceedings, formed the whole of them. It must be well known to the House, that the interference on the part of this country in the affairs of Greece, had its origin at a period antecedent to the accession to office of the Duke of Wellington, and therefore, neither he nor the present Ministers, were answerable for the consequences. It was, of course, fully remembered that the interference commenced under the Administration of Mr. Canning; and even if that right hon. Gentleman had been desirous of avoiding the interference, he might have found him-
1170
self not a little embarrassed, for the enthusiasm which at that time prevailed amongst the people of England was intense—an enthusiasm of which, if he remembered rightly, the hon. member for Middlesex largely partook. The people of Greece demanded from the three great Powers a sovereign in whom all of them should have confidence, and they all at length agreed in nominating Prince Otho. The hon. member for Middlesex had observed, that monarchy would be a most unfit form of government for Greece; but, upon what grounds did he say so? It was admitted that Greece was in a semi-barbarous state, and did the hon. Member suppose that that was the condition of society the most favourable to the establishment of a republic? He thought it had generally been held, that the highest degree of civilization was, if not essential to the existence of a republican form of government, at least the most conducive to that object. In the present state of Greece, it would not for a moment be denied that some strong controling power was demanded; and the idea of forming a republic in a country so little advanced, did, he confessed, appear to his mind perfectly visionary. He, at the time the interference took place, was not so enthusiastic on behalf of the Greeks as was his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex. It had been observed that the parties had done wrong in selecting so young a man as Prince Otho—that remark proceeded upon the supposition that they were at liberty to select any one whom they might think proper; but he begged the House to remember, that the business of selection was no easy task, and it was rendered doubly difficult by the fact, that it had been agreed upon that no prince should be selected from the houses of the contracting parties. Upon these grounds, then, he hoped, that the House would confirm the treaty.
Mr. Faneapproved of the arrangement, and thought it the best that could have been adopted under the circumstances. He did not object to the payment of the money, because this country had a direct interest in the settlement of Greece.
The House divided: Ayes 49; Noes 16; Majority 33.

List of the NOES.

Baillie, Colonel

Courtenay, T. P.

Burge, W.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Capel, J.

Dawkins, J.

1171

Dixon, J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hodges, T. L.

Vincent, Sir F.

Loughborough, Lord

Watson, Hon. R.

Lyon, Captain

TELLERS.

Robinson, G. R.

Sadler, M. T.

Hume, J.

Shaw, F.

Best, Hon. W.

House went into Committee.
Viscount Palmerstonmoved a Resolution to enable his Majesty to guarantee a loan to the Greek government.
Mr. Bestsaid, he should oppose the Resolution in so thin a House at that late hour.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that so far from the House being thin, it was comparatively full. He begged hon. Members to recollect that this was not a final proceeding, but only the foundation for a bill, which might be opposed in its several stages.
Mr. Bestwithdrew his opposition.
Mr. Humerepeated his objections to the measure, and declared he should divide the House in a future stage.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, it seemed to be supposed that the three Powers were imposing on the Greeks a monarchical government against their inclination, whereas there had been three assemblies in Greece to consider of a form of government, and every one had decided in favour of a monarchy.
Resolution agreed to.
House resumed.

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord WYNFORD, an Account of the Suitors' Fund, and of the Interest paid in each year, for the last three years, on the Interest of Money lodged in the Court of Chancery, with the existing Charges on these Funds.—On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the Exports from this Country to Hayti, and of the Imports into this Country from Hayti, for five years, up to the latest period to which the Account can be made up; and also, an Account of the price of Sugar for three years before the Revolution in St. Domingo, and for three years subsequent to that event.
Bills. Read a third time:—Labourers Employment.—Read a second time:—Sugar Duties; Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Lord AUCKLAND, from Athy; by the Marquess of LANSDOWN, from the Members of the Irish Bar attending the Leinster Circuit; by the Earl of GOSFORD, from Kildare, Rathangan, and Thornton Rust; and by Lord HOLLAND, from Newtown Limirady, and Cootehill, against the Punishment of Death.—By the Bishop of LONDON, from the Clergy of Huddersfield, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from the Prisoners confined for Debt in the King's Bench Prison, for a Revision of the Law between Debtor and Creditor.—By the Duke of LEINSTER, from Tacumshane, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Minories and from Halifax, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill;—and from the Provincial Synod of Argyle, against; and by Lord HOLLAND, from three Places in England, in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).

AMENDMENTS IN THE CRIMIINAL LAW.
Lord Wynford, adverting to the Bill which remained in their Lordships' House for a second reading, the object of which was the Abolition of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery, observed, that he did not mean to offer any opposition to the progress of the Bill, being of opinion, that the experiment ought in the present state of public feeling, at least to be tried, to ascertain whether the crime of forgery could be adequately checked by any punishment short of death. The Bill which had lately passed this House for the abolition of capital punishment in the cases of stealing cattle, and substituting that of transportation, was an experiment of the same kind, and he was desirous that the alteration made by the Bill should have a fair trial, as well as that made by this Bill to which he referred. But at the same time he was anxious that the fullest information on the subject should be laid before their Lordships, and with that view he meant to submit a Motion to their Lordships for some Returns which he hoped would be assented to. Their Lordships, would, perhaps, recollect that in 1808, Sir Samuel Romilly introduced a
1134
Bill for the abolition of capital punishment in the case of privately stealing in dwelling-houses, and that the Bill received the assent of Parliament. One of his Motions was, that there be laid before this House a Return of the Convictions for the offence mentioned in Sir Samuel Romilly's Bill, for three years before and three years after the passing of the Bill. He believed that it would turn out that after the passing of that Bill, the offence had very considerably increased. It had been said in support of taking away the capital punishment in cases of stealing in a dwelling-house, forgery, stealing cattle, &c., that the Judges themselves had often exclaimed against the cruelty of the sentence. He had good reason to believe that this allegation was not well founded. The Judges had no reason to exclaim against its cruelty, for they always had it in their power to recommend the prisoners to the mercy of the Crown whenever they thought that the Royal mercy was called for; and he wished, therefore, that such statements should be corrected. Even under the Bill lately passed, when a Judge sentenced a criminal to transportation for life, he might recommend to the Secretary of State to mitigate even that sentence in cases where it might appear too severe, and no doubt the Secretary of State would attend to the recommendation. Another Return which he wished to have laid before their Lordships referred to a Bill which had been brought in by Sir Robert Feel, appointing the punishment of transportation for second larcenies. For the same purpose of having the fullest information on their Lordships' Table, he would move for a Return of the number of convictions that had taken place under that Act since it had passed. He moved, therefore, that there be laid on the Table a Return of the convictions for the offence of privately stealing in a dwelling-house in the years 1805, 1806, 1807, and the years 1809, 1810, 1811; also a Return of the number of convictions for second larcenies for which sentence of transportation had been pronounced since the passing of Sir Robert Peel's Act.
Earl Greyhad no objection to the noble and learned Lord's Motions, but he did not think that the Returns would afford conclusive evidence of the object which the noble and learned Lord had in view. The number of prosecutions and convic-

1135
tions before and after the passing of the Acts to which the noble and learned Lord referred, might depend on circumstances distinct from the passing of the Acts. The papers moved for by the noble and learned Lord, might, however, be useful, as affording matter for future consideration, but would have very little bearing on the subject of this Bill. As to the alterations which had taken place in the Bill lately before this House, in regard to the abolition of capital punishment for stealing cattle, &c., he had concurred in some of those proposed by the noble and learned Lord. But it was a mistake to suppose, that in passing sentence of transportation for life, substituted for the capital punishment, all discretion was taken away from the Judge. The Judge's discretion remained as before, and even that might be mitigated by the mercy of the Crown. If there was any impression to the contrary, he believed it would turn out to be entirely erroneous.
Motions agreed to.