Sitting of 28 August 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord ALTHORP, Returns of the Number of Ship Letter Bags,

897
&c, and sealed Packages, despatched from the General Post Office, London, to Places beyond the Seas, from 1st January, 1832, to 16th August, 1833, &c.
Petitions presented. By Mr. COBBETT, from Warwick, against further Restrictions on the Sale of Beer; from Swansea, in favour of the Tithes Stay of Suits Bill.—By Mr. VIGORS, from St. Tancras, for Carrying into Execution the Report of the Public Walks Committee; from Neath Abbey, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. WAR BURTON, from the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh, for an Inquiry into the State of the Medical Profession.

DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.
Mr. Warburtonrose to ask the question of which he had given notice, relative to the Deccan prize money. It was, whether, after the important discoveries which had taken place with regard to that fund, the Treasury would not think it fit to give the parties a regular hearing, at the Treasury itself, or to refer to the Court of Admiralty, or to a Special Commission. The facts were these—on the 22nd of June, 1825, a letter was addressed by the trustees to the Treasury, regarding the manner in which they would recommend the distribution of the money to take place, and pointing out certain facts which they thought they had discovered during their investigation. On the 14th of September following, they wrote another letter to the Treasury, stating, that on reconsidering the case, they wished to withdraw the first letter, and to substitute another of a very different nature; in fact, altogether at variance with that of the 22nd of June. When the case came to be argued before the Treasury in 1826, the substituted letter was referred to on the part of the Counsel for the Crown, but the whole of the information was withheld from the parties. The trustees were present at the argument, and were in possession of the facts stated both in the orginal and published letter. The latter document had been completely falsified, inasmuch as a most important paragraph was omitted. Other documents of a most important nature, which were in possession of the Marquess of Hastings, had been withheld from the other party, and if such irregular proceedings were allowed to go on, the whole of the judicial inquiry which had been instituted would be of no avail. He, therefore, wished to know, whether it was the intention of the Treasury to divide the money before another hearing was given to those parties who had been deprived of that information to which they were clearly entitled. If the parties were allowed to be heard, they would be enabled to point out many errors, and to adduce such reasons as he had no doubt would lead Ministers to postpone
898
the distribution of the money. He would conclude by moving an Address to his Majesty, "that the Petitions of Generals Hislop and Smith be referred again to the Privy Council."
Colonel Evanshad very great respect for the intentions of the hon. Member, but he must protest against the adoption of the course he had advocated, for he seemed to argue the case as that of a Chancery suit and a matter of private property, without any reference whatever to the public. If the course recommended by the hon. Member should be adopted, he (Colonel Evans) would venture to say, that the distribution of the money would be delayed for ten years longer. The hon. Member had alluded to the recent and important discoveries which had been made in regard to the correspondence, but he (Colonel Evans) did not believe those discoveries were of any great importance, so far as the great body of the captors were concerned. He respected the great services of Generals Hislop and Smith; but there was a numerous class of more humble captors, who ought to be considered. If the proposition were acceded to, it would entirely defeat the objects of the public with regard to prize property. There was no reason to suppose the Government wished to act partially in this matter, but they had certainly acceded too easily to individual importunity. He would earnestly request the Treasury to decide the question without any further judicial proceedings whatever, for he was convinced that the great body of the surviving captors—for vast numbers of them were dead—would be perfectly content with whatever decision the Government might come to.
Mr. Crawfordconcurred in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Officer, and he hoped that no further delay would take place in the distribution of the money.
Lord Althorpsaid, the House was aware that the papers relating to this question had been laid upon the Table, and it was his intention to apply himself to the substantial merits of the question. It was necessary, however, that, to a certain extent, he should make himself master of those papers, before he could possibly give any direct answer to the question put by the hon. Member opposite. The Privy Council, as had been stated, had referred the matter to the Treasury, which had to decide whether they should think it their duty to hear the case argued before them, or act upon the former decisions. But it was impossible

899
for him at present to say which might be the better course, until he had time to examine the papers now before the House. Up to the present moment he had not had that opportunity. Now, however, he should have more time, and he should certainly endeavour to make himself master of the case; and he hoped that in the meanwhile, this statement being satisfactory, he might have the confidence of the House that the Treasury, whatever steps they might take, were determined to come to a fair and impartial conclusion.
Motion withdrawn.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodrose for the purpose of asking some questions respecting the foreign policy of the country, which he was anxious to have answered, as far as the noble Lord could consistently with his public duty, develope the plans of his Majesty's Government. He was rejoiced at the course which Government had at last adopted towards Donna Maria: but, in other respects, he must say that he was much dissatisfied with the general policy pursued by Government for many years past, in relation to Spain, Italy, Turkey, and Poland. With regard to Portugal, however, he was satisfied with what had now taken place; and he could not but express a hope, that, with regard to Poland and Turkey, Government would soon pursue such measures as the honour and interests of this country imperatively demanded. With regard to Turkey, he would merely remark, that it was generally believed that Russia had gone so far as to threaten England if she interfered and granted assistance to Turkey. His first question was, whether the noble Lord was aware of the existence of a treaty lately entered into between Holland and the United States of America, which he understood was very ominous to the interests of England? Secondly, he wished to know what were the reasons which induced Government, in August last year, to refuse assistance to Turkey, when asked by the Porte? Thirdly, whether the noble Lord was really aware of the offers made to England on that occasion by the Pacha of Egypt, which he understood were really of a very extraordinary character? Fourthly, what was the object of Lord Durham's late mission to Prussia, and with what success it had been attended? And lastly, as Count Orloff was soon afterwards sent over to England, what reception he had met with at his Majesty's Court.
Viscount Palmerstonhoped, that the hon. Gentleman would not consider it any want of courtesy or of respect to him personally if he (Viscount Palmerston) should be obliged from public duty to decline answering in detail some of the questions proposed. With regard to the first question, he had no official knowledge of any treaty lately concluded between Holland and the United States, so that he could give no information upon that subject. With respect to the second point, the reasons which induced Government not to comply with the request made by the Porte for naval assistance, he was happy to correct an error as to dates. He was reported to have said on a late occasion, that that request had been made in the month of August last year—he said, however, in autumn last year. In fact, it was in the month of October that the application was made. Without giving any very detailed explanation of the matter, he would only remind the House, that when we were embarking in naval operations in the North Sea, and on the coast of Holland, and were under the necessity of keeping up another naval force on the coast of Portugal, it would have been impossible to have sent to the Mediterranean such a squadron as would have served the purpose of the Porte, and at the same time have comported with the naval dignity of this country; and as Parliament was not then sitting, Government could not acquiesce in the request made by the Sultan. He could assure the hon. Member, that if any person imagined, that, among other motives which influenced the conduct of his Majesty's Government, there was anything like a threat on the part of Russia, they were entirely mistaken. On the contrary, it was but justice that he should state, that so far from Russia having expressed any jealousy as to Government granting that assistance, the Russian ambassador officially communicated to him (Viscount Palmerston) while the request was still under consideration, that he had learned that such an application had been made, and that, from the interest taken by Russia in the maintenance and preservation of the Turkish Empire, it would afford satisfaction if Ministers could find themselves able to comply with the request. With regard to there having been any communication with the Pacha of Egypt, the hon. Gentleman had not explained to what he alluded, therefore the House would excuse him from saying more than that as it was a war against a Sovereign by a subject, and as

901
that sovereign was in alliance with the King of England, it would have been inconsistent with good faith to have had any communication with the Pacha. With respect to the mission of Lord Durham, great misapprehension had prevailed on that subject. The person who was ambassador at the Court of St. Petersburgh left in consequence of ill health, and it was before another was appointed, that his Lordship went out. He did not go with any specific instructions—he was charged with the general business of England at that Court, and his instructions embraced all points. The manner in which the noble Lord had conducted that mission had obtained for him the unqualified approbation of his colleagues and his Sovereign. His mission was perfectly successful. Count Orloff had not been in this country on a mission—he had been sent to the Hague on one: but to this country he came only in the character of a distinguished traveller.
Subject dropped.

MINUTES.
Paper ordered. On the Motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Number of Offices in the Court of Chancery, which have been Abolished during the years 1831, 1831, and 1835.
Bills The Royal Consent was given by Commission to the following Bills:—Customs' Acts' Repeal; Customs' Management; Customs' Regulation: Smuggling; Navigation; Registry of Vessels; Customs' Duties; Warehousing; Customs Bounties; British Possessions; Isle of Man Trade; Disembodied Militia; East-India Company's Charter; China Trade Slavery Abolition; Slave Trade Conventions; Buckingham Palace Furniture; Stage Carriages Act Amendment; Spirite, Wine, and Beer Licenses (Ireland); Grand Juries (Ireland); Cholera Prevention; Juries (Ireland); Quakers' Affirmation; Separatists' Affirmation; Chancery Offices Regulation; Bankruptcy Judges; Commissioners of Lunacy; Uniformity of Process; Fines and Recoveries; Notaries Public; Bank Notes; Stamp Duties; Composition; Court of Chancery; Civil List Charges; Sugar Refining; Assizes Removal; Parish Apprenticeship; Metropolitan Police; Land-Tax Commissioners' Names; Merchant Seamen's Wages; Infirmaries (Ireland); Trial of Offences (Ireland); Land Revenue (Scotland); Burghs Magistrates (Scotland); Royal Burghs (Scotland); Turnpike Road Accounts; Lighting and Watching; Inclosure Acts Awards; London Scavage and Package; Thames Tunnel; Woolwich Lands.—Read a third time:—Tithes Arrear (Ireland); Consolidated Fund; Edinburgh Community; Estates; Church Building; Stamps Forgeries.
Petitions presented. By the LORD CHANCELLOR. Lord AUCKLAND, and Lord WESTERN, from a great Number of Places to be relieved from Tithes Suits.—By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from thirty-four Places in Scotland, for an Alteration in the System of Lay Patronage; also from several Places, in favour of the Local Jurisdiction Bill; from Brechin, for the Establishment of Local Schools; from the Ward of Vintry, London, for the Repeal of the House and Window Tax; from the Protestant Dissenters of Swanage, for Relief; from several Places, for the Removal of the Civil Disabilities of the Jews; from Wakefield, &c., against the Scotch and Irish Vagrant Bill; from the Scnatus Academicus of Edinburgh, against the Apothe- caries Act; from Glasgow, to Extend the Sheriff's Jurisdiction to Bankruptcy; three Petitions from Cupar, for different Legal Objects; and from Kingley, in favour of the Factories' Regulation Bill.

SMALL DEBTS' (SCOTLAND).
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that there was now on the Table, a Bill of which he most highly approved, but which nevertheless, he did not feel bound to press through Parliament in the present Session. It was a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the Small Debts' Courts in Scotland. There were two reasons why he should not press the Bill at this moment. The first was, that there had been Commissioners appointed, among other things, to inquire into the jurisdiction of these Courts, and to report whether any and what alterations were necessary—a reason sufficient in itself: and the second was, the late period of the Session. The Bill had certainly come up to their Lordships on the 23rd of July, but the discussion on the Irish Tithe Bill, the Bank Bill, the East-India Company Bill,

895
and others of paramount importance had always interfered to prevent its being taken into consideration. It should, however, have his best assistance next Session.

TITHES—STAY OF SUITS.
Lord Westernpresented a great number of Petitions from Kendal and other places, against these suits, and in favour of the Bill for staying them, and commented upon the hardship that was felt by all those against whom these actions had been brought. One of these Petitions was from a Solicitor, who was professionally employed for no less than 1,000 defendants in one parish. He trusted, that the evils thus felt would not be increased now that the Bill for staying these suits was thrown out.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that it was undoubtedly true that there was considerable hardship in these cases, but still as the law had opened the door to these suits, those who brought them were not to be blamed. At the same time it must be admitted that great expense had been incurred, for the first thing that a man did under these circumstances was to send for an attorney, whom he could not see without incurring some costs. He was sure that those who had brought these actions had chiefly intended to show that they did not, on the part of those who might afterwards be interested, give up what they considered their legal rights; but he repeated the wish he had before expressed, that further expense might not be incurred.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

TITHES' ARREARS (IRELAND) BILL— BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
The Earl of Wicklowpresented a petition from the rev. Mr. Hincks against the Irish Tithe Bill. He was not aware till now, that that Bill had been passed. It was passed at the Morning Sittings.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad been equally taken, by surprise by the passing of this Bill at the twelve o'clock sitting. He was the more surprised, as he found that a clause which he had introduced in Committee had been this day struck out on the Motion of the noble Viscount opposite. He complained of this mode of proceeding, and protested against it. The proceedings of that House seemed to be in confusion, and he trusted that more regularity might be observed for the future.
Viscount Melbourneregretted this misunderstanding, for it was no more. He thought, that every noble Lord was aware
896
that the Bill would be passed at the early sitting. To do so was necessary, for the House of Commons had a right to expect that they should have some time to consider the Amendments that had been made in their Lordships' House. He had not been aware, that the noble Duke had intended to persevere with the clause.
The Duke of Wellingtonhad not had the slightest intention to give up the clause; and what he said on the subject now was, that the House ought to have had notice of this intention to pass the Bill at the early Sitting.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he must take the liberty of declaring, that this was a most unwarrantable proceeding on the part of his Majesty's Ministers. Were their Lordships' proceedings in Committee to be treated with contempt, and Amendments which had been agreed to in Committee to be afterwards surreptitiously taken out of a Bill? It was a degree of contempt really not to be tolerated. Now, that he was upon his legs, he wished to ask whether, if any of the persons to whom, under the Irish Tithe Bill, the loan was to be made, should not wish to avail themselves of that loan, but should, as he believed many of them desired, have recourse to their former legal remedies, to recover their property, the Government would continue to afford them that aid in collecting tithes which had been given before the order of the month of June last?
Viscount Melbournesaid, that it was not for him to state what would be the conduct of the Government in circumstances which had not yet happened. It would determine what to do when those circumstances did occur. The assistance given by the army and police before June last was, because the tithes had then become a Government revenue. They were not so now, and matters reverted to their former state. It was not the policy of any Government to employ military in the first instance to enforce the payment of a legal claim; but if legal proceedings were resorted to, and legal process was openly resisted by force, it might become the duty of a Government to see that that legal process was obeyed.
Conversation dropped.