Sitting of 16 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Consolidated Fund Appropriation; Exchequer Bills (14,007,950 l..); Copyright; Borough Justice Administration; Borough Boundaries; Borough Funds; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland); List of Voters; Convictions.—Read a second time:—Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Dr. BOWRING, from Inverness, for the dispatch of a Mail daily from London to the North.

CAPTAIN EDWARDS.
Sir Edward Codringtonpresented a petition from a Mr. Edwards, complaining that a deceased brother of his, a Captain Edwards, had been struck off the half-pay list in consequence of his refusing to pay a debt of 72 l.; and praying that copies of the correspondence which took place on the subject might be laid before the House. The petitioner stated that his brother really owed only 12 l., and that he offered to pay that; but that the Admiralty, refusing to take his explanation of the matter, had struck him off the half-pay list. The gallant Member said, that he could not vouch for the truth of these statements. One thing was certain—that the accused was not confronted face to face with his accuser, as should have been done. The petitioner complained, and he thought justly, of the interference of the Admiralty in a question relating to a private debt. The petitioner added, that his brother having been deprived of his half-pay, was thrown into gaol, having no means then to pay his debts; and that he died from the effects of a wound which he had received in fighting the battles of his country. The petitioner, in conclusion, prayed that the papers and correspondence in the case should be laid before the House. This was one of those cases, of which there were many, which he felt it his duty to bring under the notice of the House, and which loudly called for investigation.
Mr. Humehighly approved of the course adopted by the gallant Admiral. It was an improper exercise of the prerogative of the Crown to deprive any officer of his commission without trial.
Mr. Charles Woodwould not on that occasion go into the general question as to the right of the Admiralty to exercise such a power. His gallant Friend had stated, that it was impossible that a fair investigation could take place without having the accused and the accuser face to face. Now, it did so happen that no case could have been clearer than that of
1254
Mr. Edwards. He had given his word of honour as a gentleman to pay this money; and when called upon to state why he did not do so, he admitted distinctly, in a letter to the Admiralty, that he did not do so. He then offered some circumstances as an excuse; but they were not considered sufficient by the Admiralty. The fullest opportunity was given to him to clear himself. He sent a long explanation to the Admiralty, but it was not considered sufficient; and the Admiralty, in striking him off the half-pay list, stated to him distinctly that he was struck off upon the very grounds that had been admitted by himself.
Sir G. Sinclairsaid, that if that House was to exercise an appellate jurisdiction in such matters, it would not be able to get through its business, even by sitting from the 1st of January till the 31st of December.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that one great evil of this system of private investigation was, that the public were deprived of all means of judging whether the decision had been, right or wrong.
Sir E. Codringtonsaid, that the hon. Secretary had made a statement of the facts of the case. Why, then, should he oppose the production of the papers on which that statement was founded? He wished to know whether the hon. Secretary would oppose the production of the papers in the cases of those petitioners whose petitions he (Sir E. Codrington) had lately presented to the House?
Mr. C. Woodwould give the gallant Admiral an answer when he brought forward his motion next Session.
Petition laid on the Table.

AGENTS FOR PRIVATE BILLS.
Mr. Humesaid, that in the course of the present Session arrangements had been made by which the duties which were performed by officers of that House in connexion with the business of Private Bill agents, were put an end to from the commencement of next Session. In the course of the inquiries of the Select Committee on the House of Commons' offices, it was found that individuals acting as Private Bill agents had not fulfilled the engagements of the House by paying the fees on different Bills. It appeared advisable to the Committee that the present system should be altered; but nothing was farther from the wish of the Committee than to establish anything like a

1255
monopoly. The following paragraph was accordingly to be found in the third Report of the Select Committee on Printed Papers:—"Whilst your Committee agree with the Committee of 1833, and have elsewhere recommended that no officer of the House be allowed in future to conduct any private business as agent for Private Bills, or as agent at Election Committees, it appears desirable that agents so employed should be in some degree answerable to the Speaker and to the clerk of the House for correct conduct, and for their observance of the rules and orders of the House; but your Committee are of opinion, that evil instead of good would accrue to the community, if anything approaching to a monopoly or restriction of the number of agents should be produced under the recommendation they have offered." Any Gentleman who had had to transact private business must have felt the inconvenience that arose from the ignorance on the part of agents of the forms of the House, and also from the class from which they were often selected. The Committee considered it important that the officers of that House should have nothing to do with the conduct of the private business before it. The House, in making that very wise alteration, had made a considerable pecuniary sacrifice, in consequence of giving ample salaries to those officers who relinquished their private business, and compensation for their salaries to those who had retired, rather than give up their business as private agents. The Committee were most anxious that it should be clearly understood by the public, that no person filling the situation of servant to that House had any longer anything to do, directly or indirectly, with the conduct of the private business before it. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following resolution:—"That this House do agree with the Committee in their opinion as regards agents conducting or attending on the private business of this House; and that Mr. Speaker be requested to prepare such regulations as he may think best calculated to carry into effect the recommendation of the Committee."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerentirely approved of the course taken by the hon. Member for Middlesex. He was quite sure the House would have perfect confidence in leaving the matter in the hands of the Speaker, to consider what regulations should be imposed upon the
1256
agents, which would give security to the public.
Mr. Wilksthought the recommendation of the Committee ought not to take effect until the next Session of Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not agree with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wilks) that these regulations were not to take effect until the next Session of Parliament. If they were not now adopted, and acted upon, parties applying for Bills might very fairly say. that they were legislating ex post facto, and the House could not, under such circumstances, avail themselves of the advantages derivable from the plan.
Mr. Wilksthought it would be imposing a heavy burden upon the Speaker to compel him to give effect to those regulations. Independently of this objection, they should not be brought forward at that late period of the Session.
Mr. Hume: The hon. Member for Boston was himself a party to, and approved of, the paragraph in question. It would be time enough when the House met next year to make alterations if there were anything objectionable in these resolutions.
Resolutions were agreed to.

CANADA.
On the Order of the Day for bringing up the Report on the Public Works (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. Hume, in pursuance of notice, called the attention of the House to the petition from the House of Assembly of Upper Canada. He first noticed the Address of the Executive Council to the Governor, Sir F. Head, and his subsequent declaration, notwithstanding the remonstrance of the House of Assembly, to act without the aid of a Council, although it was required by the 31st of George 3rd, that such a Council should be appointed, in order to assist the Governor with its advice. The House of Assembly had itself subsequently been dissolved; but whether Reformers or Tories were returned to the new House, the principle of the resolution he (Mr. Hume) intended to submit would remain unchanged. The great ground of complaint was, that no union or harmony had hitherto existed between the House of assembly and the Council; so that during the twelve years preceding the last, out of 176 Bills, only twenty-nine had been

1257
passed into law. In the last year, out of 115 Bills, only thirty-two had been passed into law. The great object of the petition was, that the Council selected by the Governor should consist of men of principles accordant with those of the majority of the House of Assembly. It had been agreed to by fifty-one out of fifty-three Members: the fifty-one Members represented 301,000 persons, and property to the amount of 4,000,000 l.; while the two Members constituting the whole minority represented only 22,000 persons, and property to the amount of 224,000 l. The last address to Sir F. Head, requesting him to appoint other councillors, had been carried by thirty-two to twenty-one. The hon. Member read various extracts from public documents, to shew the intemperate manner in which the Governor had replied to addresses from various parts of Upper Canada, and particularly dwelt upon his refusal to take any steps for the suppression of Orange lodges, although he knew at the time of the resolutions of the House of Commons, of the reply of the King, and of the determination of Ministers upon the subject. He complained also of the undue means employed by Sir Francis Head, to influence the pending elections, and to procure the return of Members to the House of Assembly favourable to his view of the affairs of the colony. Whatever might be the result of the contest, it would not redound to the credit of the Governor, who had unfairly employed the patronage he possessed, and the consequence of it would be a popular reaction, which, instead of healing the wound, would widen the breach between parties. He did not know whether Ministers would assent to his resolutions, but he wished to hear from the Under Secretary for the Colonies the view Ministers took of the subject, and the probability that existed of their adopting some course to produce an amicable arrangement of differences in the colony. He concluded by moving the following resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this House, that the provincial Government of his Majesty's province of Upper Canada, ought, agreeably to the Act 31 George 3rd, c. 31, and the royal instructions, dated 1818, to be conducted by his Majesty's Lieutenant-Governor, by and with the advice and assistance of an Executive Council, composed of men possessed of the public confidence, and whose opinions and policy should be in harmony
1258
with the opinions and policy of the people of that province, as declared by the majority of their representatives in their House of Assembly, by which the contentment, peace, and prosperity of that important province will be increased, and the willing and loyal attachment of its inhabitants to the mother country be best promoted and secured."
Sir George Greywas sure, that even the hon. Mover would not expect him to go at large into this important subject when the House was within a few days of a prorogation, and when not more than about forty Members were present. The resolution of the hon. Member went to alter most materially the Constitution of Upper Canada, and no doubt many were absent who, at another period, would have been anxious to take part in the discussion. He would, however, make a few remarks, principally injustice to Sir Francis Head. First, he would mention, as Sir Francis Head had himself stated, that he had no power to alter the Executive Council in the mode required by the House of Assembly. The Constitution of that body, as well as of the Legislative Assembly, was at this moment under the consideration of Commissioners, and he apprehended, that before this House expressed any opinion it would wait for their Report. In the dissolution of the House of Assembly Sir Francis Head had taken the course the law pointed out when that body had refused the supplies, and when the Governor, from the addresses he received, had reason to think, that it did not represent the sentiments of the majority of the people. The result of the elections had confirmed him in the propriety of the course, for although the new House of Assembly had not met to record its opinions, the individuals composing it were, in many instances, different from those who had formerly been returned. As to the charge that undue means had been resorted to by Sir Francis Head to influence the elections, he (Sir G. Grey) had no information which enabled him to deny it, excepting that such a proceeding was directly contrary to the instructions of the Governor, which were upon the table, and to which Sir Francis Head had always professed most strictly to adhere. A comparison of dates would show, that the hon. Member was mistaken in the accusation he had made, founded upon Sir Francis Head's declaration with respect to Orange lodges. He was not

1259
then acquainted with the resolution of the House of Commons, and with the reply of his Majesty to the Address. Under all the circumstances, he (Sir G. Grey) hoped that the hon. Member would see the propriety of not pressing his resolution to a division. It was desirable, at least, to wait to see what course would be taken by the new House of Assembly, and what ulterior measures would be adopted by Sir Francis Head for the remedy of those grievances which he was appointed to remove.
Resolution withdrawn.

AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.
Mr. Grove Pricerose to call the attention of the House to the state of affairs in Spain. He never addressed the House under so great a degree of excitement. Within the last few days events had been such—so fearful and so disastrous—that he did not wish to see the Parliament prorogued without expressing some sentiments upon this fearful prospect. The hon. Member referred to the affairs of Spain for the last few months, to show that it. was impossible to form a moderate party in Spain. There were but two parties in Spain, and it had been, and would be, impossible to form a third. He was glad that those of the Stock Exchange who had been trafficking in the distresses of the country were likely to be disappointed, for he was sure that the bonds that had been entered into would never be paid. No common responsibility rested on his Majesty's Government for the tone of triumph they had displayed on this subject. The next matter was, that there was no third estate—no House of Lords— it had no connexion with the old Cortes— it was an exotic in Spain, and would never take root in the country, even watered as it had been by so much blood. The best Government for Spain was that which would meet with the accordance of the intelligent classes. Such a Government never yet had a trial there. The Constitution of 1812, was now the Government to be set up. He rejoiced at this for one reason, namely, that those who, on the Stock Exchange of London, had been so long trafficking on the miseries of that country were likely to be dispossessed of their ill-gotten gains. If these speculators could gain but a half per cent. they cared little what sufferings they inflicted upon others. There were many who staked their all in these securities—on the credit of his Majesty's Government; and no
1260
common responsibility rested on the Government for the tone of triumphant expectation in which they spoke of the affairs of the Queen. The same tone was held by part of the public press, which, in their leading articles, spoke of the resources of the Queen as inexhaustible, of her generals as brave and skilful, and of the Spanish people as friendly to her cause. He felt confident that not one shilling of these loans would be paid, and that they who advanced their money would have nothing for it but blurred and blotted pieces of paper. Now, what were the main, the leading features of this boasted Constitution of 1812? First, there was universal suffrage. This might please some hon. Gentlemen opposite, the hon. Member for Finsbury or others, who had not studied the lessons of history, and had not yet had much experience in the workings of the British Constitution. He looked upon universal suffrage as a great evil. But this was not all; for by the Constitution of 1812, there was an intermediate election. In this the electors had, in fact, no immediate connexion with their representatives. The representatives under the Constitution o 1812 were few in number, greedy, attending only to their own interests, and caring nothing for principle. It was a system which, to the evils of oligarchy, superadded all those of a fierce democracy. This system was tried in France; but it lasted only ten months. In the third place, this Constitution of 1812 recognised no religion but the Roman Catholic. Now, after all the discussions they had had for years in that House on freedom of conscience was there one Member in it who could be friendly to a Constitution like this? The English Government of that day never approved of this Constitution. It was left for some future Government to do that. The conduct of the Cortes under that Constitution was the subject of much complaint in England, because they attended so much to local and so very little to general interests. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock laughed. Did he know, that even the divine Arguelles himself, never went to the Cortes without being armed with a dagger to protect himself? Arguelles himself mentioned this to a friend of his. Under that Constitution there was no Upper House. It was, in fact, an exotic plant that never could flourish in Spain. The Cortes was to be triennial, and the royal authority would have no veto. This Constitution

1261
was hostile to the wishes of the Spanish people, and whoever supported it could not be an admirer or supporter of the British Constitution. There were times when it became necessary to support a Government against the democratic principle. Ferdinand was placed on the Throne without a blow having been struck for the Constitution. In 1820 some difficulties arose. Mendizabal excited rebellion in Spain. He was called from the Stock Exchange of London to manage the finances of that country. He recently went over a second time, and was placed at the head of affairs. It was disgraceful to see a man taken from the Stock Exchange of London, and made the First Minister of a great country. It was said, he did not know it to be so; but it was said, that he was the great agitator in the present commotions. The Queen was torn in pieces between two contending parties. She was scarcely Queen de facto. What hope was there for her cause when one-third of Spain was in the hands of the Carlists, and the rest under the control of the disaffected? There was only one hope for Spain, and that was, to recognize the legitimate claims of Don Carlos. The classes most hostile to them were Radicals and Republicans. From 1820 to 1823, Spain was disgraced by more atrocities than ever took place in any country, except, perhaps, during the French revolution. A libel was written by the Canon Vinuesso (as we understood). He merely recommended in it that the Constitution should be settled upon the principles of the old system. He was sentenced to the gallies for ten years, and after that dragged out by a band of assassins and butchered. Did the hon. Member (Dr. Bowring) hear of him? Did he hear of the Bishop who was shot by order of Mina? Did he hear of the massacre of Corunna, where fifty-two persons convicted of offences not capital, and forty-two others, were placed in a vessel, two by two, sabred, and then thrown into the water? Such were the happy days of the Member for Kilmarnock. And so now they had popular freedom again in Spain, with humanity and justice by its side. When men once lost their respect for morality and religion, when the laws were not enforced, there was no longer any Government. He would repeat, there was no chance for Spain, but in recognising the claims of Don Carlos. He was a man of firmness, They might be sure he would
1262
not yield while the least hope of success remained. He proved this, when Napoleon came to Spain. He then said, "My brother Ferdinand may resign his authority; but I never will give up my rights." Couple that with what has since occurred, and it proved that he was of a resolution never to yield. His sanguinary decree, as it had been called, was often alluded to. The fact was, that in issuing such a decree, he acted upon laws which long existed in the Basque provinces. According to these laws, no foreign troops, whether during war or otherwise, could enter those provinces without incurring the penalty of death. And the same law applied to the people of the other provinces of Spain. It was death to enter those provinces in arms. He should like to know what course Government meant to pursue under the present circumstances of Spain? He hoped, at least, that they would not sacrifice both the honour and the means of the country. If they connected themselves with the Constitution of 1812, they must form an union with the woman-killer, Mina, and with the assassins of Barcelona and Corunna. He begged pardon for trespassing so long on the time of the House. His excuse must be that he felt strongly for the state of Spain and for the honor and interest of this country. No man, desired more the success of good principles and of a legitimate Government in Spain than he did. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That the dispatch or dispatches of Mr. Villiers, announcing the proclamation of the Constitution of 1812 at Malaga, Saragossa, Cadiz, &c., and the recent events at Madrid, be laid on the table of this House."
Dr. Bowringcontended, that the constitution of 1812 was not opposed to the ancient usages of Spain. The hon. Member had referred to the conduct of a distinguished friend of his, General Mina. Now he could state that General Mina had assured him that he was not at all the cause of the death of the mother of Captain Cabrera, except having signed officially the warrant. But when the conduct of individuals was adverted to, he might be permitted to say, that although it was no argument to urge the conduct of one man against that of another, yet, if severity on the part of men told for anything, he was fully warranted in asserting that the charge told with much greater force against the adherents of Ferdinand, for, to his own

1263
personal knowledge, the commander-in-chief of Ferdinand kept a gallows constantly erected in the market-place of Valencia, where scores, nay, hundreds, were hanged by his orders, without any legal form of condemnation. The real cause of the anxiety felt by the hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House was, that they felt that the hopes of Don Carlos would be crushed by the triumph of the Liberal party in Spain. Of this he was quite certain, that the progress of good and liberal Government in Spain deeply concerned the interests of the people of this country.
Captain Bolderodid not think that the British auxiliary force in Spain had sufficient strength to stem the current that was running against them. They were badly appointed, badly paid, badly fed, and badly clothed. He hoped that Lord John Hay would be directed to issue rations to the men, in order that they might not be starved. His opinion of the parties in Spain was, that Don Carlos, with the claim of legitimate right on his side, and the Queen, with the force of arms on hers, were about to be crushed by a third party that had arisen in that country. The quadruple treaty had therefore fallen to the ground. One of the conditions on which the men had entered the service of the Queen of Spain was that they might terminate their engagement at the end of the year. It, however, appeared that three month's previous notice was required. An error had, therefore, occurred; but the error was not on the part of the soldiers, but on the part of the Queen's Government, and the poor men were made to pay the penalty. The Prime Minister of the Queen of Spain had put a false construction on the treaty. He recollected that it had been said that the man who put a false construction upon a treaty was a puritanical impostor. He felt a high respect for General Evans. The valour and skill which he displayed before the lines of San Sebastian made him feel proud that he was a Briton; but what had been the result of the sacrifice of so many officers and 800 fighting men? The noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, on a former night stated that the British Marines were not under the command of the Queen of Spain. How did it happen, then, that Major Owen acted under the command of the Quartermaster-general? There was no such person
1264
as a Quarter-master-general in the British navy.
Viscount Palmerston: It is not unnatural that the hon. Member for Sandwich, who takes so lively an interest in the affairs of Spain, should take an opportunity, at the close of the Session, again to record the opinions which he entertains, both of the merits of the respective contending parties, and of the probability of success on the one side and on the other, and I am not aware that in the observations made by the hon. Member, there really was much to call for any reply on my part. The hon. Member has repeated the opinions which he is well known to entertain; he has repeated the predictions which he has already made. With regard to his opinions, they are no doubt founded in such sincerity on his part, that, however I may differ from them, I feel they are entitled to respect. With regard to his predictions, they will be judged of by events, as his former predictions have been judged by, and by those events the hon. Gentleman is no doubt prepared to abide. I say, then, that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to follow him into a discussion of the merits of either the claims of Don Carlos, which we do not admit, because the Spanish nation do not admit them, or the merits of the royal statute, of which, as far as a stranger of Spain may form an opinion, was an approximation to a good form of government in that country. Neither will he require me to discuss with him the merits or demerits of the Constitution of 1812, which also, if I may venture to express an opinion, does not seem to me a form of government which could be practically carried into execution, and which, even if it were established for a moment by the general concurrence of the nation, yet for the sake of permanent tranquillity, it. would be indispensable to make in that constitution great and fundamental alterations. But these are questions which concern Spain and Spaniards, and which we are not called upon to decide. I most sincerely wish and hope, that the Spanish nation may acquire free institutions. What the particular form of whose constitution shall be, it remains for them to decide. But judging, as the hon. Member wishes us to judge, from the lessons of history, and from the experience of former ages, and judging also from those general principles which one is in the habit of applying to human affairs, I

1265
certainly am far from thinking that anything which has lately occurred ought to lead me to believe that the Carlists and a despotic Government are more likely than they were to be established at Madrid, The hon. Gentleman has said, that the history of Spain shows how unwise it is to endeavour to anticipate events, and to force prematurely upon a nation, institutions for which they are not ripe, I say, Sir, the history of Spain shows, and is one additional example to many which the history of the world affords, that if, on the one hand, it is unwise to force with too great rapidity, changes on a nation, it, on the other hand, is most unwise and most dangerous to stop and arrest the natural progress of improvement, and to attempt to make the social condition of man stationary, and that those who do so, as the Spanish Government in former times has done, are sure to entail great disturbance and great evils on future generations. The recent history of Spain shews, at all events, this great truth, that nothing is so dangerous on the part of a Sovereign as to break faith with his people. Ferdinand did break faith with the Spanish people when he returned to his throne in 1814. He publicly announced, that if he could not adopt the Constitution of 1812, he would at least take steps to give to Spain a free representative government. That promise was broken. He objected to the Constitution of 1812, which I think he might fairly, and not unreasonably, have objected to. But he endeavoured to establish a pure despotism in the country; and the history of the consequences which ensued, show that no Sovereign can break faith with his people, without discredit to himself, or without interfering with the future tranquillity of his country. The hon. Gentleman has expressed himself in a manner altogether unjustifiable, with reference to a person who was lately at the head of the Spanish Administration, M. Mendizabal. Having been in political relations with that individual, I should think I was not discharging my duty in this House, if I did not say, that I believe that in all the transactions in which that minister has been engaged, his character has been unsullied, and that he has shown, and shown too at great personal sacrifice, that he is devotedly attached to the welfare and interests of his country. The hon. Gentleman has undertaken the defence of Don Carlos's Durango decree.
1266
He has said that, however he condemned the limits of the bloody character of that decree, that it was issued in deference to the ancient laws of Biscay, and that Carlos had no discretion when it was forced upon him, except giving his sanction to its execution. Now, when the hon. Gentleman makes a defence of this decree, upon the ground of its being in accordance with the laws of Biscay, let me ask him, where were the laws of Biscay, and where was the absolute necessity to enforce these laws, when Don Carlos consented to the Eliot convention, because he stated that it is not only death for any man, not being a Spaniard, to put to death a soldier within the province, but that it was death also for any soldier, not belonging to the province to do so? If, then, that law justified the decree of Durango, it ought to have concluded Don Carlos against consenting to the convention with Captain Eliot, according to which convention Spanish soldiers, not belonging to the province of Biscay, taken prisoners within that province, were to be released. But I say, that if there is such a law, that law is "more honoured in its breach than in its observance." It is possible that Don Carlos might drag forward some musty records, some local, provincial laws, which, in a barbarous state of society, might justify acts which modern civilisation ought to teach every man to avoid and condemn. Therefore it is no justification of Don Carlos, even if it were true, that in the ancient records of the province of Biscay, any obsolete law might be found which would bear such a construction as has been attempted to be put upon the Durango decree. The hon. Member who spoke last had stated, that he gave me another opportunity of correcting my recollection, if it had happened to have deceived me, as to the fact of the marines under Lord John Hay not being placed under the command of the General of the Queen of Spain. I think I am confirmed in the statement I made by what the hon. Gentleman has himself said; for he has stated that Major Owen was requested by the Quartermaster-general of the Queen's troops to take a certain position, and that Major Owen complied with that request; that in the course of the day another order was issued to the Major to take up another position; but that Major Owen, not considering himself justified in placing himself in that position, declined to comply with

1267
the request made to him. That was a distinct proof that Major Owen was not under the command of General Evans, because, if he had been, it would not have been a request on the one part, and a declining to comply with it on the other, but it would have been an order by which, as a military man, it would have been his duty to abide at whatever hazard. I state, therefore, the fact, that whether the hon. Member thinks the marines are properly or improperly employed, they are employed under the command of Lord John Hay, and are not under the authority of the Queen. The only thing that is clear from what has passed this day, and, on other occasions, is that hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have set their hearts on the success of Don Carlos, and on the re-establishment of a despotic Government in Spain. Whether it is by being told that the decree of Durango is to be a little palliated; whether it is by misrepresentation that the British auxiliaries in Spain are in a state of insubordination, mutiny, and starvation; whether it is that we are told that the Carlists are traversing the whole country with ease, meeting with no impediment in the provinces; whereas, they have returned without meeting the slightest encouragement during their long march. To whatever part of the transactions in Spain hon. Members opposite apply their remarks, the whole drift of their observations seem to be this, that the cause of the Queen of Spain is hopeless, that Don Carlos must succeed, and that Spain is destined not again to enjoy the advantages of constitutional freedom. When Gentlemen are so anxious to repeat their opinions and their prophecies upon a subject, we are at least entitled to think that their wishes do not differ from their predictions. Now, I say, my wishes are contrary to these. I do most sincerely hope that the contest in Spain between constitutional government, on the one hand, and despotism on the other, may end in the success of the former principle. I do think that the wishes expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, however they may suit those other views which they may entertain, having a bearing upon domestic questions, rather than upon foreign policy, are not very congenial to the spirit of the Members of a British Parliament; and that it is not usual on the part of Englishmen that such an interest should be felt, and such a lively anxiety should be ex-
1268
pressed, in favour of a cause sullied by such atrocities and crimes as have been recorded, and the object of which cause is to extinguish the liberties of a great nation.
Mr. Borthwickthought that the question was not whether Don Carlos or the Queen had the better right to the throne. Whoever was ruler de facto, and our ally, we must support; but let that support be given in a bold and openly avowed manner, not in a manner calculated to compromise the dignity of the country, while it was ineffectual. Great Britain should either speak out on the Spanish question, or wholly withdraw from the contest, by prolonging which she was only increasing bloodshed, and perpetuating every cruelty that could dishonour humanity.
Sir John Elleylamented that the noble Lord should have taken that latitude of language as to attribute to Members on the opposition side of the House, particular motives for their conduct. He denied in toto being actuated by any such motives. His opinion was, that Spain should settle her own quarrels; but if she could not do so, and other parties must interfere, then he would say, let them interfere in a manner that was likely to be effectual. The hon. and gallant Member, after describing the gallant achievement of General Evans in assailing and taking the batteries of San Sebastian, asked what consequences had resulted? They had incurred the sad misfortune of losing, in killed and wounded, seventy-eight officers, and 800 men, and he could assure the House that the ground occupied in consequence of that success, was not in extent sufficient to feed a rabbit. He wished to ask the noble Lord a question, founded upon information which he believed to be accurate, although he had not received a single letter from Spain since the Legion sailed. If he understood the noble Lord last night, he had stated that neither General Evans nor his Legion were under any orders from this country. Now he had been informed that the inhabitants of San Sebastian had proclaimed the constitution of 1812, and that General Evans had informed them, that if they persisted in doing so he would withdraw his Legion. He wished to know whether he had acted for himself, whether he had received any instructions from the British Government, or whether any direct information had been sent by him to this country. The Legion was

1269
now completely stale-mated. They had no move, either to the right or to the left, or to the front. What move, then, had they upon the board? To retire by the fleet that took them there.
Viscount Palmerston: The hon. and gallant Gentleman had asked for information respecting certain communications which he supposed to have passed between General Evans and the inhabitants of San Sebastian. He was really unable to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman any information on the subject. General Evans was an officer in the Spanish service, his communications were made to his own Government, and he was wholly unable to state their nature or effect.
Motion negatived.

SAVINGS' BANKS.
Lord Dudley Stuart Lord Dudley Stuart moved for leave to bring in a Bill to explain and amend the Savings' Banks' Act. His object was to indemnify trustees and managers, acting under that Act. If the House would read it a first time, and have it printed, he would postpone the second reading until next Session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeprecated interfering with the constitution of the Savings' Banks without the exercise of the greatest caution. He could not consent to the introduction of the Bill, as it would excite great confusion and alarm.
Mr. Humealso objected to the Bill. The mere introduction of it would be productive of great evil, and, therefore, he trusted the noble Lord would not persist in his motion.
Lord Dudley Stuartconsented to withdraw the Bill for the present Session.

THE POST-OFFICE.
Dr. Bowring Dr. Bowring moved for a return, showing in detail and in columns the gross and net income of the deputy post-masters and mistresses in Great Britain and Ireland.
Ordered.
Mr. Humeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of the Government to carry into effect any of those reforms contemplated by the late excellent Bill sent up to the other House, on the subject of the Post-office? He deeply regretted the loss of that Bill, and feared that, in consequence of its loss, many beneficial changes proposed in the constitution of the Post-office could not be carried into effect. He believed that this was the first attempt on the part of
1270
the other House at interfering with Bills of this nature.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeeply regretted the loss of the Post-office Bill, which, no doubt, would have been productive of much good if it had passed into a law. The failure of that measure was altogether unexpected by him. For his own part, he should not be lax in carrying into effect many alterations which, he believed, would be beneficial in the Post-office. He understood, from the nature of the law regarding the constitution of the Post-office, that the Crown was not able to carry into effect many of the changes proposed in the Bill without the sanction of the Legislature; and, therefore, many improvements could not be effected, as if the Bill had passed into a law. If the Post-office had been constituted like the stamps and some other Government departments, then many changes would at once have been made by the Crown, and he should not have hesitated in making them; but finding this to be the case, he had held it to be his duty to apply to Parliament, and he was sorry to find that he had been unsuccessful. Although, then, they should not be able to effect all that was desired, still the exertions of Government would be directed to provide various improvements in the Post-office. Certain alterations could and would be made with regard to the Post-office packets and other departments.
Dr. Bowringstated, that he understood, notwithstanding the arrangement that had been entered into for the transmission of English newspapers on the continent at a small postage, that the Belgian government had imposed a fiscal charge on their introduction into Belgium. He should like to hear some explanation on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the Bill on the subject of the postage of English newspapers abroad had only received the Royal Assent a few days ago, and, therefore, the statement of his hon. Friend was, no doubt, correct; but, of course, a change would shortly take place.

COMMON FIELDS' ENCLOSURE.
Mr. Anderson Pelham Mr. Anderson Pelham moved, that the Lords' amendments to the Common Fields' Enclosure Bill be taken into consideration to-morrow.
Sir James Beckettobserved, that all their Lordships' amendments in this Bill were such as to render it doubly beneficial to the people.
Mr. Wakleyprotested against the Bill, which, he said, had by no means met with due discussion in that House. It was a Bill which materially affected the rights and enjoyments of the people, and he should oppose it by every means in his power.
Mr. Warburtonsupported the Bill. Those who opposed it confounded two things essentially distinct—common fields and commons. The enclosure and improved cultivation of common fields would be a great benefit to the whole country, and in no respect infringe upon the property or rights of the people.
Mr. Blamiresupported the Bill. So far from not having been duly considered, it had been discussed and printed over and over again. It was a most valuable Bill, in strict accordance with every principle of justice and good policy, and would be of great advantage to the labouring classes.
House counted out.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Church Temporalities (Ireland); Slave Owners' Compensation; Slave Treaties; Exchequer Offices (Ireland); Creditors (Scotland) Bills; Common Fields Inclosure.—Read a second time:—. Inns and Alehouses; Pension Duties; Poor Law Loans; Coal Trade.—Read a first time:—Exchequer Bills; Consolidated Fund; Copyright; List of Voters; Municipal Funds; Municipal Boundaries; Municipal Jurisprudence.
Petitions presented. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from St. Andeon and St. Nicholas, Dublin, against allowing Grocers to sell Spirits; and from Birmingham and Leeds, against extending the time for opening and closing Inns and Alehouses.

GREEK LOAN.
Viscount Melbourne, in moving the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Greek Loan Bill, acknowledged that the subject to which it related was one of very great importance, and, if followed up, would open a variety of views with respect to the foreign relations and foreign policy of this country; but the only question involved in the Bill turned on one point, and was confined to a very narrow compass. He should, therefore, content himself with briefly explaining the grounds on which he meant to move that the Bill
1240
should go into Committee. Their Lordships were well aware of the circumstances which led to the separation of the territory of Greece from the dominions of Turkey, under the administration of the noble Duke opposite. A Sovereign was subsequently elected to rule over Greece, and a guarantee, of a pecuniary nature, was entered into, for the purpose of enabling him to undertake that high situation. It was the intention of the noble Duke and of his Government, as Greece was in a most impoverished state, a long war having necessarily exhausted its resources, to give to that country pecuniary assistance in the first place. He did not mean to say, that it was then intended to grant assistance to the same amount, or on the same conditions, as had been afterwards determined on. In coming to that determination it was necessary to look to the new circumstances which had arisen, and it was with a view to those circumstances that this country had become a party to certain engagements. On the 7th of May, 1832, a convention was concluded at London between England, France and Russia, by which the three Powers engaged to supply the Government of Greece with a sum of money, the principal of which amounted to 60,000,000 francs, being 20,000,000 francs each. That convention was laid before Parliament, and was the subject of debate both in that and in the other House. The Act of the 3d of William 4th, which was passed on the 16th of August, 1832, empowered his Majesty to carry into effect the convention of the 7th of May, and under the third section of the Act the first instalment was paid. Prior to this, however, a dispute had arisen relative to the boundaries of Greece; and on the 21st of July, 1832, Sir Stratford Canning concluded a treaty with the Porte, by which the north-eastern boundary of Greece was extended and rendered more secure. By that treaty the Porte consented to cede to Greece the provinces anciently known as Acarnania and Natolia, on the payment of 40,000,000 Turkish piastres. This treaty was soon after ratified, and the payment of the second instalment of the loan guaranteed became necessary. The sum for which the Porte had given up the two provinces was, as he had already said, 40,000,000 piastres, or about 11,220,000 francs, which lowered to that extent the amount of the sum guaranteed by the tripartite convention, to be applied to the in-

1241
ternal affairs of Greece. The consequence was, that within a short time the Government of Greece complained, through the Minister of that country, of a great want of funds. It was necessary to provide for the interest and sinking fund of the loan, which required 2,212,000 francs, and it was proposed to advance 6,000,000 francs of the third instalment. Hitherto the three Powers had acted in concurrence, but when the British Minister came to confer with the Minister of Russia on this subject, he found that a very great difference of opinion prevailed. The French Minister was ready to guarantee, on the part of his Government, the third of the remaining 20,000,000 francs, and to allow it to be at once advanced for the service of the Grecian Government, but the Russian Minister took a different view of the matter. He was not willing that the third of the loan which was guaranteed by Russia should be advanced, but he proposed that it should be doled out in such sums as would enable Greece to pay the interest and sinking fund of the loan. Now, his Majesty's Government were of opinion, that the course proposed by the Minister of Russia was open to serious objection. In the first place, it was not conformable to the convention of the 7th of May, 1832, by which it was intended that the sum guaranteed should be applied, in the first instance, to enable the Government to give a firm constitution to the state. In the second place, it would be very injurious, in the present state of Greece, while that state was to be attributed to circumstances which the government could not control. The insurrections which had been excited in Greece rendered a large increase of force necessary, and a consequent increase of expense. This last evil would be best met by the energy, the spirit, and the resolution of the Government, and by the gallantry displayed by the native troops that had been employed to put down those disturbances. In the third place, it was evident that the course proposed by the Russian Minister was contrary to the independence of the Greek nation, because it would enable Russia to keep up a general sort of control over the conduct of the Government and over the finances of the country hereafter. Such a proceeding was manifestly inconsistent with that independent condition in which the policy and the reason of the convention clearly intended that Greece should be placed in. Under these circumstances
1242
it was that the present Bill was proposed to Parliament, the object of which was to enable his Majesty to authorise the payment of the third instalment of the loan, without the concurrence of Russia or France. It was not in his power to go into a minute statement of the finances of Greece; but looking to the information of competent persons, looking to the knowledge of those who represented his Majesty in that country, he had every reason to believe, that if peace were preserved, and the government properly administered, that country would be able to meet the charge which it had incurred under this convention. That the government would be advantageously administered he did not doubt, when he looked at the character displayed, the conduct pursued, and the wisdom exhibited, by those who at present possessed the confidence of the King of Greece. The noble Viscount concluded by moving that the House consider the Bill in Committee.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it appeared to him that it was not necessary to take the occasion of the introduction of this Bill to enter into a general discussion with reference to the foreign policy of this country. A good deal could certainly be said on the subject; but he did not think that it would tend to any useful object to introduce such a discussion at present, nor was it desirable, for various reasons, to be drawn into a discussion of so wide a nature under existing circumstances. At the same time, he must say, that this was a transaction of such a description, that it required some degree of notice. He should, therefore, draw their Lordships' attention to some of the circumstances that were connected with it, and to some of the consequences that might grow out of it—consequences which might prove extremely inconvenient to the country. The noble Viscount had accurately stated the circumstances which led to this transaction. It certainly was in contemplation, in 1830, to make a loan, for the purpose of establishing a government in Greece, and, he believed, on the same plan as was adopted with respect to the loan which was settled in 1832. The Greek state was established under the auspices and influence of the three great powers—Russia, France, and England. It was agreed, that a loan was to be made by the three powers, each guaranteeing a similar amount, each guaranteeing the payment of the principal and interest of one-third of 60,000,000 francs.

1243
It might be said, that each power ought to be at liberty to guide and determine its own conduct with respect to this loan; but certainly, the principle that pervaded the whole transaction amongst these three powers with respect to Greece was, that the proceeding should be carried on by common accord. If there were to be any interference whatever in the internal affairs of any state, it was fit and proper that that interference should be affected by many states rather than by one state. The independence of the state, whose concerns were thus interfered with, would be better preserved by two, or three, or four states, than by one state. Such interference was likely to be less injurious to the power and situation of the state interfered with than if the matter were taken up by a single state. Laying that down as a principle, he contended for this, that the policy of such arrangements, and the policy of this particular engagement, was, that it should be carried into execution (although on the responsibility of each state for its own share of the loan), with one common accord. The first instalment was settled by common accord, the second instalment was made by common accord, and the same principle ought to have been acted on with reference to the third. The noble Viscount, in stating what had occurred just now, had endeavoured to show to their Lordships that he could not obtain the consent of Russia with respect to the last advance to be made to Greece under this arrangement. It appeared to him that proper measures were not taken to induce Russia to make the advance necessary for Greece on that occasion. The first demand made by Greece was for 3,000,000f. Why, he would ask, was not a strong effort made to obtain the consent of Russia to make the advance of her share of the 3,000,000 francs? Why was Russia left out of that part of the negotiation? Why was any encouragement given to leave any part of the sum due in the hands of Russia? If Russia had been called on for her portion, it would be found to amount very nearly to the sum which this country was about to advance under existing circumstances; and the consequence would have been this —that the three powers would now be placed on precisely the same footing, which was the situation in which they ought to stand. They would be thus placed, not only with reference to Greece, but in relation to each other, as well as to the other powers of Europe. But how would it be
1244
hereafter? Great Britain would be a creditor of Greece to the amount of 20,000,000 francs, with a claim on the resources of Greece, which must, and would, be pressed for the interest and sinking fund of that amount of debt. Russia, on the other side, would have in hand the third part of 20,000,000 francs, to issue to Greece whenever and under whatever circumstances she thought proper. France was placed in a similar situation. He did not mean to speak with any jealous feeling of France or Russia; but they would be strangely mistaken with reference to the general policy of other states, if they did not conclude that they were giving a great advantage to Russia and France, when they left in their hands the power of making these advances at such times and seasons as they pleased. They no longer stood in any other position but as the creditors of Greece. And, he would ask, was that the attitude in which they should be placed? Was that the situation in which these relations, formed by the convention, should stand? The Emperor of Russia, he was aware, stated, that he kept this money for the purpose of meeting the interest and sinking fund of those sums already advanced by the former instalments of this loan. Unfortunately they had set him the example of walking alone with respect to these engagements. They had set him the example by making a movement without his consent, and without the consent of France; and he was much mistaken if, to aid the purposes of those powers, they would not take the same advantage of their position, to make advances when they thought it most conducive to their interests, and act by themselves, as England had done on this occasion. Though he admitted the propriety of the advance of 6,000,000 francs for the Greek government, yet he could not allow that it was expedient that it should be advanced, and solely advanced, by this country, without the accordance of the other parties.
Viscount Melbourneperfectly concurred in the sentiment of the noble Duke, that it would have been better if the three states could have been brought to act together; and he admitted also, that the course which had been pursued was liable to some of the inconveniences which the noble Duke had stated; but, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, this government could only do that which had been done. They had not, certainly, followed up the principle of the arrangement

1245
with which this transaction commenced, but they were forced to depart from it by an imperative necessity. He trusted, however, that the course which had been pursued, involved no risk of this country separating her policy from that of France and Russia in respect of Greece.
Bill went through the Committee, and was reported.

CIVIL OFFICES' DECLARATION BILL.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the second reading of the above Bill, the object of which was to enable individuals to fill certain municipal offices by making a declaration instead of taking an oath.
The Duke of Wellingtonopposed the motion. He was astonished that a Bill of so much importance, and which affected a great principle, should have passed the House of Commons with scarcely any observation. Their Lordships were taken by surprise, and he would not consent, at this late period of the Session, to proceed with the measure. He should, therefore, move, that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Lord Hollandhoped, that the indulgence meant to be extended to individuals by this measure would not be refused, and that their Lordships would proceed with the second reading.
Lord Wynfordcould not agree to the measure. It was opposed to the principle on which the Test and Corporation Repeal Act was founded. The declaration required by that Bill was, on "the true faith of a Christian," which emphatic expression was omitted here.
The Archbishop of Canterburyexpressed his entire concurrence in what had been said by the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord. He was convinced, that when those words were used in the Test and Corporation Repeal Act, they were intended as a religious test, and he did not think that any man who was a Christian could object to them.
The Marquess of Buteobjected to a Bill of so much importance being brought before their Lordships at so late a period of the Session, when it was impossible to give it that discussion which it required; but as it was before their Lordships, he felt that he could not refuse to assent to its principle. There were, however, parts of it to which he had objections, and those objections might possibly be removed in
1246
Committee. If, therefore, the House divided, he would vote for the second reading. He owned that he saw no ground for calling on the name of God, or for any such solemn declaration "on the true faith of a Christian," on the acceptance of a civil office. When the party taking office, made a simple declaration that he would do all in his power to maintain religion, as by law established, it was quite enough, without making a solemn appeal to God. He thought the "declaration" would be much better without the words "in the presence of God, and on the true faith of a Christian," and he took blame to himself, that at the time of the passing of the Test and Corporation Repeal Bill, he did not endeavour to have those words modified. Considering the change which municipal corporations had recently undergone, such a declaration was less necessary than before. Corporations were now little more than commissioners for watching, paving, and lighting their respective towns, and the great object in the selection was, to get the most fit and proper persons for that purpose. Surely, it was not necessary that men chosen for such a purpose, should make a solemn declaration "in the presence of God, and on the true faith of a Christian." He regretted that this Bill had not come up to their Lordships at an earlier period, and he thought if there was any ground for refusing the Bill, that would be a good one, though, as he had said, he did not intend to avail himself of it. If he were disposed to oppose the Bill, he should not feel deterred by the remarks made about their Lordships throwing out Bills. He thought that they would consult the advantage of the country, if they rejected many other Bills, which had been sent up to them, in order to correct the present practice of sending up a number of important Bills, at a period of the Session, when it was impossible to give them mature consideration. Here were a parcel of Bills laid on their Lordships' table in the middle of August when, as he had said, it was impossible to have them discussed with advantage. Such a system, would, however, he had no doubt, effect its own cure.
Their Lordships divided on the original motion: Contents 27; Not-contents 43: Majority 16.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Minto

DUKES.

VISCOUNTS.

Argyll

Melbourne

Leinster

Duncannon

MARQUESSES.

Falkland

Lansdowne

BARONS.

Headfort

Saye and Sele

Queensberry

Dinorben

Westminster

Ducie

Bute

Mostyn

EARLS.

Barham

Albemarle

Strafford

Chichester

Foley

Charlemont

Gardner

Ilchester

Templemore

Leitrim

Holland

Bill read a second time.

Bill put off for three months.

CORPORATE PROPERTY (IRELAND).
The House went into Committee on the Corporate Property (Ireland) Bill.
On the 1st Clause,
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he had some amendments to propose. The purport of them was to prevent the alienation of Corporate property in Ireland till the 1st of September, 1837, or till such intervening time, as Parliament might otherwise provide, except such alienation as might be the consequence of bonâ fide contracts, entered into before such date as their Lordships might fix in the Bill, and also excepting such alienations and disposition of property, as might be necessary to carry on the business of the corporations. He would move those amendments, without intending any discussion on them at present, but have them printed with the Bill, and their discussion could be taken on a future day, on the report. He would also object to some words in the preamble, to which he had stated his objection yesterday. He hoped, as this was a sort of compromise between him and the noble Viscount, that the noble Viscount would not object to the omission of those words in the second clause, "or any future reformation of such corporations." Those words would seem to imply that such a measure was intended.
Those words were, on the motion of the noble and learned Lord, struck out. The clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved, that the Commons' Amendments to the Amendments of the Lords to this Bill, be taken into consideration.
Lord Lyndhurst Lord Lyndhurst moved, that their Lordships do adhere to those amendments to the Bill, which the Commons had struck out. The Lords had struck out that part of the Bill, which would give to the counsel of the prisoner the last word. In supporting the general principle of the Bill, when it came up from the other House, he was anxious to get rid of the anomalies which existed in the trial of prisoners. The other House had, however, set up another anomaly. The usual practice in our civil courts was, that the accuser should prove the affirmative of his statement, that the accused should reply, and then that the accuser should set the matter to rights, as consistent with his original statement. The Commons had, however, given to the accused, the right to have the last word in every case, except cases of treason, or misprision of treason. Now, this was an anomaly as great as any they sought to correct, for if there were any case in which the prisoner ought to have greater latitude extended to him than another, it was that of treason, yet that was the only case in which the accused was deprived of the advantage of the last word in addressing the jury. Another anomaly was this:—In the case of an assault, a man might proceed by indictment, or by civil action. In the former case, the defendant's counsel would have the last word to the jury; but in the civil action, arising out of the same case, the last word would he not for the defendant, but the plaintiff. For these anomalies, and for the reasons which he had stated, when the measure was formerly under discussion, he hoped their Lordships would adhere to the amendments they had made.
The Lord Chancellorregretted, that his noble and learned Friend should feel disposed to persevere in the amendments which he had moved, for, from what he had heard, he believed it would cause the loss of the Bill in the other House, and he should he sorry to see a measure defeated the principle of which had been so generally approved of. He, himself, could have wished that the clause in the Bill, as it came from the Commons, had been somewhat differently framed, but he did most fully approve of the principle of the prisoner's counsel having the last word in addressing the jury. The practice in civil cases, where the defendant's counsel was obliged to forego the examination of witnesses, and thus keep the means of ascertaining the whole truth from the jury, in order to deprive the plaintiff's counsel of a

1249
reply, was a very bad one. He was opposed to any practice which would keep a knowledge of the whole truth from the jury. He did hope, that rather than risk the loss of the Bill, his noble and learned Friend would give way.
Lord Wynfordsaid, he should be sorry to lose the Bill; for, on consideration, he gave his cordial assent to its principle; but, whatever the consequence might be to the Bill, he thought their Lordships ought to adhere to their amendments, which he considered of vital importance.
Lord Wharncliffewould vote for the Lords adhering to their amendments.
Lord Lyndhurstthought it was not regular in any noble Lord, and still less so in the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to suggest the course which might be taken by the other House as a ground for influencing their Lordships' opinions. Their Lordships could not know prospectively what course the other House might take in consequence of any act or proceeding in their Lordships' House, and therefore should not be in any way influenced by it.
Lord Hollandsaid, it was not irregular to speculate on what the other House might do in any particular case, but there was an irregularity which was regularly committed every day amongst their Lordships, which passed without notice. It was that of alluding to what the Commons might do in case of their Lordships interfering with money Bills. This was certainly irregular, for though he admitted that it was prudent in their Lordships to abstain from doing so, yet he must add, that their Lordships' right to do so was one which they never had conceded. If the noble and learned Lord persevered, he supposed this Bill must be lost, but it did not surprise him. The noble and learned Lord was now quite used to the practice of throwing out Bills. He began by throwing out those of others, and he was now ending by throwing out one of his own.
Lord Lyndhurst: Not my own, I do not object to the Bill, but to the incrustation which it got elsewhere.
Commons amendments disagreed to and a Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be communicated to the Commons at a conference for not agreeing to their amendments.

TITHE COMPOSITIONS (IRELAND.)
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the second
1250
reading of the Irish Tithe Compositions Bill. Their Lordships would recollect, he said, that in the year 1833, a great expectation was entertained of the tithe question being settled, and under that impression an Act was introduced, empowering the Lords of the Treasury, out of the million allocated to them for that purpose, to advance sums to those who had been defrauded of their tithes, and kept from that which was lawfully due to them in the shape of property. A great many individuals received assistance, and observations had been made elsewhere upon the names of those to whom relief had been thus afforded, which he thought very unjust, and which must have arisen from a great misconception of the Act. It had been erroneously considered as only intended to relieve the clergy; but its great and material object was to prevent the continuance of litigation upon the subject. The parties owning this species of property had only one of three courses to pursue—to seek for the recovery of their tithes by the ordinary and legal means—a course from which the Parliament and the Government dissuaded them—entirely to abandon their claim for tithes, absolutely giving up their property without any equivalent for it—or to take the relief afforded to them under that Act. It could hardly be expected that they would abandon their tithes altogether; the first course was contrary to the policy of the Legislature. The observations that had been made, therefore, upon those who adopted the third course, originated in a misapprehension of the objects for which the Act was passed. Their Lordships were aware that in the Act for settling the question of tithe a clause was introduced for remitting the million loan in certain cases. That Bill having failed, it was the object of this Bill to give a discretion to the Lords of the Treasury to proceed for the recovery of what was advanced, with certain exceptions. For example, if persons had received the tithes of 1834 and 1835, and had also received the loan for those tithes, there was no reason why the Treasury should not call upon them to repay the advances made to them. The noble Viscount concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
The Marquis of Westmeathsaid, that a great many misstatements had gone abroad with respect to the. loan under the last Act. It was not, as it had been stated to be, a

1251
loan to the clergy exclusively; for it was distinctly stated in the House of Commons that lay impropriators might avail themselves of the loan, and they had done so; and the Treasury could not have advanced money to them unless a majority of the House of Commons (but he did not think any division took place on the question) had made it lawful to do so. The noble Viscount had referred to the obloquy which was thrown upon those lay impropriators who had availed themselves of the loan. If he (the Marquess of Westmeath) understood the matter rightly, the Lords of the Treasury were not to call upon any persons for the tithes of which they were deprived in 1833, unless they had received the whole or the greater part of the tithes of 1834 and 1835. Why, those persons were excluded by law from recovering the tithes of 1833, and were they now to be called upon to pay that of which they had not received one farthing, and which they could not now possibly recover? If that was the intention of the Bill, he must say that it was most unreasonable; but he took it for granted that the Lords of the Treasury would not misuse the power intrusted to them; With respect to the repayment of the loan, he thought that the provisions of the Bill were just—but he protested against the Treasury having a discretionary power to sue for the tithes of 1833. Neither the law nor the state of the country had permitted those tithes to be collected.
The Archbishop of Armaghsaid, it is not my intention to offer any opposition to the Bill in its present stage, because I do not wish to take upon myself the responsibility of the rejection of the Bill. But it appears to me to be founded in injustice, and I trust, my Lords, that you will be of the same opinion when I state, that it gives a freedom to persons who have disobeyed the laws and refused to pay the legal demands made upon them; while it punishes those who have obeyed the laws and who have paid their just debts. For instance, in parishes where the landlords and tenants have paid the clergyman, where the parties have paid the composition rent, this Bill authorises and directs the Lords of the Treasury to sue that clergyman. Then, in parishes where no payment was made, the parties are to be exempted from any demand. Now that is not the usual course of legislation; and it must be injurious to any
1252
country, but particularly to a country situated as Ireland is; it is an encouragement to people to disobey the laws. It is most unjust to the clergy, because if, for instance, the income of a clergyman was 500 l. and he received an advance of the loan to that amount, he must pay the whole, although he succeeded in obtaining only 250 l. That does not seem to me to be just. I leave it to his Majesty's Ministers to say, whether they would persist in carrying this Bill into effect, in a state which would render it not only unjust, but, most probably, inoperative.
Lord Hathertonsaid, the Act of last year was expressly designed for the relief of lay impropriators as well as the clergy, and he thought it unjust to cast any obloquy upon them for availing themselves of the relief afforded by that Act. It was equally unjust to compel the parties who had done so to repay those instalments which, by law, they were prevented from recovering.
The Marquess of Downshireagreed in what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate and the noble Lord who had spoken last. He thought it highly desirable that this matter should be set at rest, and that it would be very unjust to deal in the manner proposed towards the lay impropriators who had very fairly and properly availed themselves of the Million Act, because from what had passed in Parliament at the time of the passing of that Act there certainly was a declaration made, that tithes should be altogether done away with, and that induced many persons, especially in the south of Ireland, not to pay tithes at all. He thought it necessary that measures should be taken to prevent any recurrence to vexatious proceedings. As one of the persons who had derived benefit from the Million Act he felt bound to say, that he was very thankful for the assistance he received from it.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Act was passed for the relief of the clergy generally, and, therefore, it was not necessary that they should have received any particular tithes to render them liable under this Act; but if they had received any part of the loan at all, and had received property to such an extent as to enable them to repay the loan, it did not seem to him unfair to call upon them for repayment.