Sitting of 24 July 1838

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt; Recovery of Tenements.
Petitions presented. By Mr. AGLIONBY, from Dumfries, against the Pilotage Bill.—By Lord W. BENTINCK, from Glasgow, in favour of the Bill for the Better Regulation of Municipal Corporations in Scotland.—By Mr. RICH,

571
Sir E. SUGDEN, Lord G. SOMERSET, and Mr. M. PHILIPS, from various places, against the encouragement of Idolatrous Worship in India.—By Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL, from the Spirit Dealers of Killarney and Tralee, praying to be placed on the same footing with their fellow tradesmen in this country.—By Sir R. INGLIS, from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury, against the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension; and from the county of Glocester, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. HINDLEY, from Stockport, in favour of the Ballot.

GIBRALTAR LIGHTHOUSE.
The House went into Committee on the Gibraltar Light-house Bill.
On Clause 4, and on Question that the blank in it be filled up with one shilling,
Mr. Humeobjected to the tax of one shilling upon all vessels passing Gibraltar being imposed. This country allowed 250,000 l. for the support of light-houses, but the expense of the light-houses did not exceed 60,000 l. or 70,000 l. The remainder went into private hands. It was said it was applied in pensions to captains and seamen by the Trinity House. If it were necessary to apply such a sum in pensions, it ought to go under the proper head. The commerce of the country was already very much taxed. This clause was adding to the evil of giving to an irresponsible body like the Trinity House, additional power. He would ask the hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade on what principle it was that they proposed to extend the power of the Trinity House to Gibraltar? No Government ought to seek to give such powers to a self-elected body like the Trinity House. He should move the exclusion of the clause.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, the Trinity House had come badly out of the inquiry on the subject of lighthouses. Why then was it to be selected for the purpose of superintending the Gibraltar lighthouse. The Ballast Board in Ireland and the Northern lighthouse commissioners went upon the regular and proper principle of apportioning their revenue to the actual cost of the lighthouses. Let one of these boards, then be chosen. He should support the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny.
Mr. O'Connellput in a claim on behalf of the Irish Belfast Board (of which he was a member), for that board had conducted itself best of any. It had diminished the taxation on the public, and its members asked no remuneration for their services, thus standing in proud contrast to the Trinity House.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that was not the time to discuss the rival merits of their lighthouse Boards. The Trinity House, however, had been proved before the Lighthouse committee to have conducted itself with great propriety; and a bill had been passed last Session, giving it additional powers. He did not think the board deserved the censure which had been heaped upon it. Now, with respect to the clause in question, his hon. Friend had asked why put this lighthouse under the Trinity House? The reason for doing so was, because Parliament decided two years ago that lighthouses should be put under that body, and the proposal now made was merely following out the precedent laid down in the case of Heligoland. His hon. Friend then objected to the toll, and said there was a surplus revenue at Gibraltar. If so it was carried to the account of the public, and therefore paying this charge out of the surplus revenue would be nothing more than making a charge on the public of the sum necessary to keep up this light. His hon. Friend in this was contending for the principle of all lights being paid by the country, on which principle the House did not agree with the hon. Member. The hon. Member said this was a mere trifle. He was perfectly aware of that. The country had erected the lighthouse, and all that was required was a small sum for the annual expense of maintaining it. The shipping interest were willing to pay these dues, and he had introduced the Bill at their request and with their sanction. He hoped the House would agree to the charge in the manner suggested.
Mr. Wallace, as a member of the committee two years ago, begged to remind the hon. Gentleman that it was then understood that in case any new lighthouse was built they were not to follow the track of the Trinity House. He wished to know what was to become of the surplus income of Gibraltar; was it to go into the coffers of the Trinity House? It was monstrous to collect a revenue in the shape of lighthouse duty, under the name of charitable purposes.
Mr. Humesaid, that Gibraltar, since its capture, had been a free port, and the effect of the Bill would be to destroy that. He would put it to the House whether, for the sake of a paltry shilling, it would adopt such a clause. He wished to see the lighthouse erected, but he thought its

573
erection should take place at the expense of the surplus revenue of Gibraltar, or the surplus revenue of the Trinity House.
The Committee divided on the original motion. Ayes 92; Noes 22—Majority 70.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Lefevre, C. S.

Archbold, R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Baker, E.

Lockhart, A. M.

Barnard, E. G.

Lowther, J. H.

Barrington, Visc.

Lushington, C.

Blackburne, I.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Blair, J.

Lynch, A. H.

Blennerhassett, A.

M'Taggart, J.

Bowes, J.

Mahon, Visc.

Bramston, T. W.

Martin, T. B.

Broadley, H.

Morpeth, Visc.

Brotherton, J.

Morris, D.

Brownrigg, S.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Palmer, G.

Campbell, Sir J.

Palmerston, Visc.

Canning, Sir S.

Parker, M.

Chute, W. L. W.

Parker, R. T.

Clements, Lord Visc.

Peel, Sir R.

Craig, W. G.

Perceval, Colonel

Darby, G.

Phillpotts, J.

Divett, E.

Ponsonby, C. F.

Douglass, Sir C. D.

Praed, W. T.

Dunbar, G.

Price, Sir R.

Ebrington, Visc.

Pusey, P.

Fergusson, R. C.

Rich, H.

Follett, Sir W.

Richards, R.

Gibson, T.

Rushbsook, Col.

Goulburn, H.

Russell, Lord J.

Graham, Sir J.

Seymour, Lord

Grant, F. W.

Sibthorpe, Col.

Grattan, J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Grey, Sir G.

Stanley, Lord

Hastie, A.

Style, Sir C.

Hawes, B.

Sugden, Sir E.

Hayter, W. G.

Surrey, Earl of

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Thomas, Colonel H.

Hindley, C.

Thomson, C. P.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Townley, R. G.

Hogg, J. W.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Hope, hon. C.

Turner, E.

Hope, G. W.

Williams, W. A.

Houldsworth, T.

Wilmot, Sir J.

Howard, P. H.

Wodehouse, E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Wood, C. W.

James, Sir W. C.

Jones, T.

TELLERS.

Knight, H. G.

Maule, hon. F.

Lascelles, W. S.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Kinnaird, hon. A.

Boldero, H. G.

O'Connell, D.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Connell, M.

Chalmers, P.

Pechell, Capt.

Codrington, Admiral

Power, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A,

Redington, T.

Duncan, Lord

Somers, J. P.

Hector, C. J.

Tennant, J. E.

James, W.

Thornley, T.

574

Vere, Sir C. B.

TELLERS

Warburton, H.

Hume, J.

Ward, H. G.

Wallace, R.

Clause agreed to.
The remainder of the clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

EXPEDITION TO THE PERSIAN GULF.
Sir Stratford Canningwished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the president of the Board of Control, and he was much mistaken if the right hon. Gentleman would not willingly embrace the opportunity of affording information to the public on a point of considerable importance, particularly to the commercial interests of the country. It had been known to commercial men for some days, that an expedition composed of several armed vessels, and having on board a body of 500 or 600 men, commanded by Colonel Sherriff, had sailed from Bombay to the Persian Gulf. The only conceivable object of such an expedition must have reference to Bushire, the most important port belonging to Persia on the Persian Gulf, or to the island of Karak, in the neighbourhood of that place. As both belonged to Persia, it was obvious that an expedition sent with the view of taking possession of any of those places must involve us in hostilities with that power. It was therefore very important to those who were connected with the trade of the country to know if the expedition was directed to objects of a kind likely to be attended with that consequence.
Sir J. Hobhousehad to state, that it was undoubtedly true that a small expedition had by this time at least sailed from Bombay for the head of the Persian Gulf, consisting of a frigate, a brig, two steamers, and a Government transport, having on board about 500 sepoys, commanded by the gallant officer named by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had stated what would be the result, supposing certain orders to have been given. He could only inform the right hon. Gentleman that the expedition had been sent to that quarter in consequence of a despatch received from the Governor-general of India by the Governor of Bombay, in which was stated the reason why the Governor-general thought it advisable to send such an expedition. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the East India Company had a resident at Bushire; he knew also that they had a resident at Bagdad he knew

575
also that an important experiment had lately been tried in order to ascertain whether the navigation of the Euphrates was practicable. The right hon. Gentleman was perhaps also aware that our commercial relations with that part of the world had become much more extensive than formerly. It was in consequence of the political state of Central Asia that the Governor-general had thought it requisite for the protection of British interests to send that expedition to the port indicated by the right hon. Gentleman. He believed the right hon. Gentleman would think him right in declining to say anything further than that the expedition had sailed on the 2d or 5th of June, in consequence of instructions from the Government at home and the Governor-general of India.
Sir Stratford Canningwas satisfied with the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had answered his question, but he had one doubt remaining, which it was desirable to have removed. He did not think it was clear from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman whether the expedition was sent merely for general purposes, or with a specific object. Of course, if it ha no specific object, any apprehension wh h might be entertained of an immediate change in the character of our relations with Persia would vanish. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider himself at liberty to satisfy his doubts on this point.
Sir J. Hobhousefeared that his duty would not permit him to give any other answer than that he had already given. He had admitted the facts mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted when the proper time arrived that Parliament and the public would think the Governor-general of India perfectly justified in the course he had taken.
Subject dropped.

POOR-LAWS (IRELAND) LORDS AMENDMENT.
The order of the day was read for considering the Lord's amendments to the Poor Relief (Ireland) bill.
The Speakersaid, that before the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) took up the consideration of the amendments to the present bill he owed it to himself to make a few observations to the House on the subject. The House was no doubt aware that when amendments were made in any bill sent up to the House of Lords which were considered at all likely to be an in-
576
fringement of the privileges of this House, it was customary to communicate with the Speaker on the subject. It so happened, therefore, that he had been applied to by a very distinguished person in reference to this bill. In reply to questions which were put to him, he then said, that if his opinion were called for on the subject of these amendments he felt bound to say, that he considered them as an infringement of the privileges of the Commons' House. But, at the same time, as the bill was one of a very peculiar character, affecting not only the proprietors of the land but the great mass of the people of Ireland, and as the principle of rating was necessarily incidental to such a measure, he considered that if the privileges of this House were strictly pressed in such a case, they would almost tend to prevent the House of Peers from taking such a measure into its consideration in a way that might be on all grounds advisable. On referring to precedents he found two instances, namely, those of the English Poor-law Bill, and the English Municipal Corporations Bill, in which amendments were made by the House of Lords which were not strictly in conformity with the privileges of the House of Commons. Referring to those precedents, it was for the House to consider whether, in reference to the present bill, they should throw out the bill as amended by the Lords, and then introduce another bill in which those amendments might be incorporated; or whether they should waive the infringement of their privilege, and proceed to the consideration of the Lords' amendments. As the authorised guardian of the privileges of the House, he had thought it right to explain his conduct on the present occasion, which he trusted would meet with the approval of the House; at the same time he must add, that he thought the privileges of this House would be best secured by being not too far pressed.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the House he was sure, would feel itself much indebted to the Speaker for the anxiety with which he had attended to the protection of their privileges. He agreed entirely with the right hon. Gentleman, that in cases of bills of this description, in which taxation was not the sole but rather an incidental object, any latitude consistent with the due observance of the privileges of this House should be allowed to the

577
House of Lords in their legislative functions. On looking back at the English Poor-law Bill it would be found that there were amendments proposed in that bill by the House of Lords as fully connected with the subject of rating as any in the present bill. He hoped, therefore, that the House would enter upon the consideration of these amendments, which were, doubtless, framed with the view rather of forwarding the objects of the bill than otherwise. Perhaps there never was a bill of such vast public moment which was agreed to by the House of Commons in the absence of all party feeling, and by so large a majority, the third reading of it having been carried by a majority of 234 against 59. The bill had since received the mature consideration of the House of Lords, and, with the insertion of some amendments, had been agreed to. On the whole, considering the importance of the subject, and the vast number of provisions which were required for the purpose of carrying it into effect, and the diversity of interests and opinions which must necessarily be involved by it, even after the principle of the measure was sanctioned, he must say, that the amendments which the House of Lords had made in this measure were less in number and importance than might have been expected. Two or three of these amendments, however, were of considerable importance. One of the most important was that whereby an approach to the law of settlement was attempted. It was proposed by this amendment to divide the country into electoral districts, in order that, whenever a person was received into the workhouse of the union, the expense of his maintenance should be charged to the particular district to which he belonged. Whilst this was proposed, however, the question of residence was not to be raised, and there would be no exclusion of parties on account of their settlements, to whatever part of the kingdom they might properly belong. He considered, therefore, that this amendment was not liable to the great inconvenience which the law of settlement generally led to, namely, the prevention of the circulation of labour from one part of the country to another; and, therefore, although he felt much doubt as to the practical effect of this provision, which he was inclined to think would remain in a great measure inoperative, and though he certainly should not have proposed it
578
himself, he should propose that the House should now agree to it. The principle of the amendment was clearly to create a feeling of responsibility and of interest in all parties to attend to the general concerns of their respective districts, which night have a wholesome tendency. He should recommend, therefore, that the House should agree to this amendment with some verbal alterations which he had to propose in it. There was another clause inserted for the punishment of desertion of the wife and child by the husband and father. There was, however, a very material amendment with respect to which it was very probable, that the Speaker might have to consider whether or not it came within the privileges of that House. It was, in the first place, an omission of a clause inserted in that House with regard to 5l. tenements; and, in the second place, a substitution of another clause with respect to the charge which might be taken by the owners on the payment by rates of such tenements. According to the bill as it went up from that House, the occupiers of tenements under the value of 5l. were not in the first instance to pay the rate, but that they should have the power of charging the whole rate on the landlords. They were, therefore, in limine, exempt altogether from the rate. Now, the House of Lords had determined that these persons should, in the generality of instances, pay the rate; at the same time they did not alter the total amount of rate, whatever it might be, which was settled by the board of guardians on application to the commissioners, and they proposed another clause by which an arrangement took place between the landlords and tenants with regard to the small holdings. What the House of Lords proposed was in substance, that the owner and the tenant should make an arrangement between themselves by which the owner might agree to a certain deduction not exceeding ten per cent. for the sum to which the small tenements were liable, and with the approbation of the guardians, and the sanction of the commissioners, that such payment by the owners should exempt the occupiers of tenements. He thought it would be a very vexatious and inexpedient proceeding if they were to insist on their privilege as a ground of objection to this alteration. He thought it one of those alterations which did not touch the general question of taxation. It was not with

579
the view of exempting those persons as being a class which ought to be free from such a demand, that the clause was originally introduced. It was introduced with the view of the general working of the Poor-law: it was introduced with the view in the first place to the collection of the rates, and, in the next place, to the general formation of a body by which the charges should be collected, and not at all with reference to the class by whom the rates ought generally to be paid. In the same view, that was, looking to the general object of the bill, the relief the poor in Ireland, the House of Lords framed a different clause, and proposed that no holders of property should be exempt from the payment of rates. Now, it was a question of very considerable doubt in that Housef—indeed there was no point on which there existed, both on the one side and the other, so much diffidence as to the adoption of either alternative—whether the class which the Lords had included should be exempt from rating or not. His noble Friend the Member for Leitrim (Lord Clements), who took a great interest in this subject, and who had shown as well by his writings as what he delivered in that House, that he made himself fully master of the whole question, as it might affect the future condition of Ireland, was strongly and decidedly of opinion that there should not be a positive and absolute exemption of the occupiers, even of the smallest description of holdings from the payment of rates. The noble contended—and although he came to a different conclusion, he felt there was great weight in the argument—that it would be difficult to form a large body of rate-payers without admitting such small holdings, and that the payment of rate would make those subject to it take an interest in the well-working of the measure, and the good and frugal administration of the rates, which in poor districts could not be expected without such a distribution of the burden. The House of Lords had taken a view similar to that of his noble Friend, and considering that at the time the measure was discussed here, there were great doubts on this provision, he did not think it one upon which a difference of opinion should be raised between the two Houses, and he should agree accordingly to the amendments proposed by the House of Lords. There were some alteration made in the scale of
580
rating to which he should call attention when he came to that part of the bill. An alteration, too, of considerable importance was made in the schedule of the bill, as that which had passed that House, was changed for one much more complicated, in which there were no less than thirteen or fourteen classes of rates, taxes, and public charges. On looking over the schedule, although he agreed that it might be desirable to have one containing more particulars and more headings than those of the original bill, yet he did not think it necessary to have so many as those proposed by the House of Lords, and he was of opinion that such a number would be attended with difficulty in the working of the measure. Therefore, not omitting any essential particulars of the schedule passed by the House of Lords, he should propose one more simple. Having now stated the general alterations made in the bill, he did not think that any of these alterations went to impugn the principles established by that House, nor that there was any thing in the act generally which should induce them to refuse to consider and accept the greater portion of the amendments. The Lords had not introduced either out-door relief, nor, on the other hand, confined the relief merely to persons who were lame, disabled, and old. In short, they adopted the principle laid down by that House in confining relief to the destitute generally, and limiting that relief altogether to that of in-door. They had likewise adopted the whole plan for the working of the measure under the came control of commissioners. They had made one alteration with respect to the office in Dublin, which, practically, he thought, would have no effect, inasmuch as they did not exclude a provision in the original bill for obliging a commissioner or assistant commissioner to be resident in Dublin. The noble Lord concluded by moving, that the amendment he had referred to, be greed to.
On the 11th Clause,
Lord J. Russellobserved, that he had rather an important alteration to propose with regard to this clause. A very proper insertion had been made by the House of Lords, for the purpose of giving any one commissioner the power of acting for the board and making general rules; for there might be cases, as there had already been cases in this country, in which it would be very useful if the commissioners

581
had the power of delegating their powers. It sometimes happened that one of the commissioners was obliged to go to a distance, and great delay was caused by the necessity of forwarding him papers, and obtaining his assent to some step which required to be promptly taken. The House of Lords had limited this power of acting for the body, to the commissioner resident in Ireland, but he should propose to leave it to any one of the commissioners, without reference to his residence; and in order that there should not be too great a relaxation of their authority in acting separately, he intended that they should not be allowed to do so without the approbation of one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State.
Clause, as amended, was agreed to.
The greater part of the Lords' amendments were also agreed to, and a committee appointed to draw up reasons to be stated to their Lordships, in a conference for not agreeing to others.

REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS.
The Attorney-Generalmoved the third reading of the Registration of Electors Bill. Bill read a third time. The hon. and learned Gentleman then said, he had framed a clause, with respect to the admeasurement of distances, which he had communicated to the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who thought it was one in which both sides of the House would concur. Lord Ellenborough and the Court of King's Bench had decided, that the distance should be measured by the nearest road, and this House had done the same. There were three legislative enactments and two judicial decisions recognizing the propriety of the mode of admeasurement by the nearest road, by land or water. There were many difficulties and inconveniences attending the mode of admeasurement by a mathematical line or crow's flight, all of which would be obviated by the addition of the clause which he proposed to introduce, It would also remove all doubt and uncertainty about the state of the law, and put an end to conflicting decisions. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the addition of a clause to the effect, that in all cases in which it shall be necessary to compute the distance of seven miles from the borough to the voter's residence, such computation, shall be made by the nearest road, by land or water.
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the clause. The mode of admeasurement by the crow's flight or mathematical line was preferable, and was that which should be adopted, and such was the decision of the present Baron Foster, of the Irish bench, and also the opinion of Mr. Thesiger, which he considered quite equal to that of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, or of any other Member of the profession. He would move the insertion of a clause in accordance with this view.
The House divided on the clause. Ayes 50; Noes 18.—Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

James, W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Jervis, S.

Ball, right hon. N.

Labouchere, H.

Bannerman, A.

Lefevre, C. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Lushington, Dr.

Blake, W. J.

Maule, hon. F.

Bridgemau, H.

Morris, D.

Briscoe, J. I.

Parker, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Parnell, Sir H.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Captain

Bruges, W. H. L.

Phillpotts, J.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Power, J.

Crawley, S.

Rickford, W.

Crompton, Sir S.

Russell, Lord J.

Curry, W.

Stock, Dr.

Ferguson, R. A.

Style, Sir C.

Finch, F.

Thornely, T.

Hall, Sir B.

Townley, R. G.

Hayter, W. G.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Heathcoat, J.

Turner, E.

Hector, C. J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Yates, J. A.

Hodges, T. L.

TELLERS.

Howick, Viscount

Campbell, Sir J.

Hume, J.

Wood, C.

List of the NOES.

Blennerhassett, A.

Lockhart, A.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Lucas, E.

Darby, G.

Palmer, G.

Estcourt, T.

Trench, Sir F.

Goulburn, H.

Vere, Sir G. B.

Grant, F. W.

Vernor, Colonel

Herries, J. C.

Wood, T.

Holmes, W.

Hope, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Hope, G. W.

Round, J.

Kemble, H.

Sibthorpe, Colonel

Bill passed.

POST-OFFICE.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the House resolve into a Committee on the Post-office Bill.
Colonel Sibthorpopposed the motion, because he thought it inconvenient to discuss a bill effecting a great change in one

583
of the public establishments at so late a period of the Session, and because he suspected that the Government brought forward the measure, which created new appointments, not from considerations of public advantage, but for the purpose of giving themselves the dispensation of patronage. Three new commissionerships were to be created by the bill, and they were to be patent offices; so that, however badly the duties might be performed, the holders of them could not be removed. This change, which would throw an additional burden of 1,900 l. on the country, was proposed without any good reason, and he should therefore move, by way of amendment, that the bill be taken into consideration that day six months.
Mr. Goulburnthought the change proposed by the bill called for some statement from the Government to justify it. If it were intended to appoint the commissioners for life, he should certainly object to such a proposition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the Government could not fairly be accused of introducing this bill from a desire of patronage, for their object was to make a change the necessity for which had been long felt. So long ago as in 1797, under Mr. Pitt's Government, the change now proposed had been recommended, and the consolidation of the Scotch and Irish post-offices with the English Post-office since that period made the change more requisite. Under Lord Liverpool's Government, too, a report in favour of this change was presented by the commission of which Lord Wallace was the head. He quite concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the head commissioner should not be a permanent officer, the great object being to obtain Parliamentary responsibility. But the other two commissioners should be permanent, in the same manner as the subordinate commissioners of the Woods and Forests, or the official under secretaries of state for the various departments. A more effective system of post-office administration was absolutely necessary. As an authority on this subject he might quote the Duke of Richmond. If ever there was an individual qualified to give perfect satisfaction as Postmaster-General, it was the Duke of Richmond; and yet, notwithstanding the great energy of mind and assiduity of application which ho brought to the office,
584
his administration was far from giving satisfaction, owing entirely to the fundamentally defective system which prevailed in that department. Fie hoped the bill would be allowed to go into Committee, especially as it had passed the House last Parliament, while its principle had been sanctioned by at least five successive commissions.
Sir R. Peelwas not content to rest this question entirely upon authority. The Duke of Richmond had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as a high authority—the man of all others best fitted to administer the Post-office department; and yet what course had the noble Duke taken with respect to this very bill? When it reached the House of Lords last year, he gave it his most decided opposition. Then the right hon. Gentleman cited the commission of 1797, which reported in favour of the principle of this bill; but if Mr. Pitt approved of it, why did he not adopt it? Why had the successive Governments since that time not carried the principle into effect? The right hon. Gentleman's reference to authority upon this matter had not the slightest weight or applicability. If it was thought necessary to have a Parliamentary officer with a seat in that House, instead of the Postmaster-General, why was the same principle not to be applied to the other revenue boards of Customs and Excise? At present the Post-office was administered by a political officer—the Postmaster-General, with a salary of 2,500 l. per annum, and a secretary; now it was proposed to have three Commissioners, the first having 2,000 l., and the other two 1,200 l. each, with, he presumed, a secretary besides. He objected to the increase of expense from 2,500 l. to 4,400 l., and he very much doubted whether the advantage of having the head Commissioner, a Member of that House, subject to change with different Administrations, would be anything like an equivalent. He thought the bill very clumsily drawn; the superfluous phrases with which it abounded, were quite amusing. He should oppose the committal of the bill.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, the present system of administering the Post-office, was a most vicious one, and had been condemned by every man who had paid any attention to the subject. The best system for the management of the Post-office, in his view, would be to place it under the

585
charge of a Commissioner, who should devote his whole time and energies to the duties of his office, and have a seat in that House, in order that he might be immediately responsible to it. He was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Baronet lay so much stress on the difference between the salary of the Postmaster-general, and those of the proposed Commissioners. When the management of a revenue of 1,500,000 l. and the whole correspondence of the country, was to be considered, he thought it the most miserable impolicy to regard the difference of 1,000 l. The right hon. Baronet had talked of the good old system under which the affairs of the Post-office were formerly managed. He would only remind the House that in those days, the late Secretary for the Post-office had an income of 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. a-year, which was more than was now sought for the salaries of all the proposed Commissioners. There were also two Postmasters-general with 2,500 l. a-year, two more for Ireland, and one for Scotland. He did not think that this department could be compared to the Customs or Excise. Besides the other important functions fulfilled by it, it was often engaged in negotiations with foreign Governments, to which there was nothing analogous in the business of the other Revenue boards. As to the objection that the office of the Chief Commissioner was to be of a political nature, he did not think it would be right or fair to any Government to debar them from placing at the head of such a department as the Post-office, some political friend in whom they might have confidence. Whether or not the proposed change were adopted, of this he was quite sure, that no system could be worse than that which now existed, and if they wished to place it on a better footing, they should begin by reforming the office of the Postmaster-general.
Sir R. Inglisdefended the memory of the late Secretary of the Post-office from the aspersion cast upon it by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought that respect to his memory would have been sufficient to ward off their attacks, and he regretted that more good feelings had not been evinced than to make them. There was no department of the public service better managed than the Post-office under Sir F. Freeling, and the public had never a better servant.
Mr. Labouchereexplained: He had
586
said nothing in diparagement of Sir F. Freeling, he had not even mentioned his name, and any observations he had made were directed against the system and not against those individuals who may have had the management of it.
Captain Bolderosaid, that the sum of 5,000 l. or 6,000 l. a-year enjoyed by Sir F. Freeling, was a great part of it, in lieu of perquisites appertaining to his office, which he had conditionally relinquished. He had held that most onerous and responsible situation for a period of fifty years, and a better servant the public never had. It was too bad, therefore, that he should now be disparaged, and the feelings of his family hurt by the observations of the hon. Member.
Mr. Labouchereagain denied, that he had said anything disparaging of Sir F. Freeling, and asserted, that in anything he had said, he had not the slightest intention of reflecting for a moment on his memory. He did not make the remotest charge against him, and he believed, that the Post-office and the public had derived benefit from his services.
Mr. Warburtonthought it would be a great improvement to issue a temporary commission for two or three years, to superintend the great changes now taking place in our internal system of communication, and to prevent the Post-office from becoming exclusively a revenue department, instead of a great public engine for facilitating and increasing the intercourse between various parts of the country. No Administration could hold place which resisted the demands of the public for a speedier and cheaper system of conveying letters.
Mr. Wallacedid not think it would be for the advantage of the Post-office that the Chief Commissioner should have a seat in that House, and could not see, if that principle were recognized, why the members of the Board of Customs or Excise, should not also have seats. With regard to putting this office under a commission, he believed that it was absolutely necessary; he believed that the time had come when a great change must take place, and really working men be put into that department. They must no longer have the absurdity which ran through the whole establishment of the Post-office. He should most cordially support the proposition for a commission, however much he might object to some of the details.
The House divided on the original motion. Ayes 81; Noes 56: Majority 25.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Kinnaird, hon. A.

Aglionby, H. A.

Labouchere, H.

Archbold, R.

Lefevre, C. S.

Baines, E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Ball, rt. hon. N.

Martin, T. B.

Bannerman, A.

Melgund, Viscount

Bellew, R. M.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Bernal, R.

Morpeth, Lord

Blake, W. J.

Morris, D.

Bowes, J.

Muskett, G.

Bridgeman, H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Connell, J.

Brodie, W. B.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Brotherton, J.

Parker, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Parnell, Sir H.

Chalmers, P.

Pechell, Captain

Childers, J. W.

Phillpotts, J.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Redington, T. N.

Conyngham, Lord

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Craig, W. G.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Crompton, Sir S.

Salwey, Colonel

Curry, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Dalmeny, Lord

Strangways, J.

Divett, E.

Stock, Dr.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Style, Sir C.

Evans, G.

Thomson, C. P.

Finch, F.

Thornely, T.

Fitzroy, Lord

Tollemache, F. J.

French, F.

Townley, R. G.

Gordon, R.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Grattan, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Wall, C. B.

Hayter, W. G.

Wallace, R.

Heathcote, J.

Warburton, H.

Hector, C. J.

Westenra, J. G.

Hindley, C.

Wood, C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, Sir M.

Hodges, T. L.

Wood, G. W.

Howick, Lord Visct.

Yates, J. A.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

James, W.

Maule, hon. F.

Jervis, S.

Stanley, E. J.

List of the NOES.

Blackburne, I.

Graham, Sir J.

Blennerhassett, A.

Grant, F. W.

Boldero, H. G.

Herries, J. C.

Bramston, T. W.

Hodgson, F.

Broadley, H.

Hog, J. W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Holmes, W.

Canning, Sir S.

Hope, hon. C.

Chandos, Marquess of

Hope, G. W.

Chute, W. L. W.

Kemble, H.

Clive, Lord Viscount

Knightly, Sir C.

Darby, G. E.

Lockhart, A. M.

Eastnor, Lord Visct.

Lowther, Colonel

Ellis, J.

Lowther, J. H.

Eastcourt, T.

Lucas, E.

Farnham, E. B.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Gibson, T.

Mackinnon, W.

Gladstone, W. E.

Mahon, Lord

Gore, O. W.

Neeld, J.

Goulburn, H.

Palmer, R.

588

Palmer, G.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Parker, M.

Somerset, Lord G.

Parker, R. T.

Trench, Sir F.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pigott, R.

Verner, Colonel

Praed, W. M.

Wodehouse, E.

Richards, R.

Wood, T.

Round, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

TELLERS.

Sandon, Lord Visct.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Sheppard, T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

House in Committee, first Clause agreed to.
On the second Clause, fixing the salaries of the Commissioners,
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, he saw no reason why the aggregate salaries of the Commissioners should exceed the sum paid at present to the Postmaster-general, and he had resolved to move accordingly, and take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. Wallacethought the salary of the Secretary might be added, but if the question came to a division, he should certainly vote with the hon. Member for Lincoln.
Sir R. Peelwas ready to take the sense of the House as to whether there should be any commissioners; but if there were to be commissioners, he would maintain that they ought to be sufficiently remunerated; he therefore could not support the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln, because, though perfectly ready to determine that the conduct in chief of the Post-office should be vested in an individual, he was unwilling to seek the attainment of that object indirectly. If the House resolved that there should be commissioners, he thought their remuneration ought to equal that of other commissioners placed at the head of public departments; he should therefore recommend that the Chief Commissioner have 2,000 l. a-year, and each of the other commissioners 1,200 l., of course still adhering to his original opinion that it would be much better to have one efficient chief officer.
Clause 5, as amended, was agreed to.
On Clause 6, enacting that the person first appointed commissioner may sit in the House of Commons as a Member,
Mr. Humesaid, that when the Bill was originally introduced, he strongly pressed his objection to this clause. He did not see the utility, much less the necessity of it, feeling as he did, that the time of the commissioner would be much better

589
occupied if directly devoted to the affairs and arrangements of the Post-office, than in answering questions in that House. He should therefore move, that this clause be struck out.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, according to the proposed plan, there was a necessity to have a Member in that House to represent the office.
Colonel Sibthorpagreed with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that there was no necessity of having a gentleman sitting at the elbow of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a representative of a public office, merely to answer questions, to which, judging from past experience, as regarded Her Majesty's present Ministers, they would in all probability get very unsatisfactory answers.
Sir R. Peelthought that the reasons, upon the whole, preponderated in favour of the head-commissioner being a Member of the House of Commons.
Mr. Laboucherehoped, that the House would agree to this clause, which he thought was the most essential part of the bill.
The House divided on the question, that the clause stand part of the bill.
Ayes 69; Noes 37: Majority 32.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Adam, Admiral

Hodges, T. L.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hodgson, R.

Archbold, R.

Hogg, J. W.

Ashley, Lord

Holmes, W.

Ball, rt. hon. N.

Hope, hon. C.

Baines, E.

Hope, G. W.

Blake, W, J.

Howard, P. H.

Brabazon, Lord

Howard, Sir R.

Bramston, T. W.

James, W.

Brodie, W. B.

Lemon, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

Lucas, E.

Campbell, Sir J.

Martin, T. B.

Cavendish, C.

Melgund, Visc.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Morpeth, Visc.

Clements, Lord Visc.

Morris, D.

Craig, W. G.

O'Connell, J.

Dick, Q.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Parker, J.

Estcourt, T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Finch, F.

Pinney, W.

Fleetwood, H.

Redington, T. N.

French, F.

Rice, E. R.

Gibson, T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Gordon, R.

Sandon, Lord Visc.

Graham, Sir J.

Stock, Dr.

Grant, F. W.

Strangways, J.

Grattan, J.

Strutt, E.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Thomson, C. P.

Hawkins, J. H.

Townley, R. G.

Heathcoat, J.

Troubridge, Sir E.

590

Verner, Colonel

Wood, G. W.

Vigors, N. A.

Wood, T.

Warburton, H.

TELLERS.

Westenra, J. C.

Labouchere, H.

Williams, W. A.

Steuart, R.

List of the NOES.

Blackburne, I.

Lockhart, A. M.

Boldero, H. G.

Lowther, Colonel

Broadley, H.

Mackinnon, W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Mahon, Visct.

Canning, Sir S.

Neeld, J.

Chalmers, P.

O'Brien, W. S.

Clive, Lord Visc.

Parker, R. T.

Darby, G.

Pusey, P.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rose, Sir G.

Dunbar, G.

Rushbroke, Colonel

Ellis, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Gladstone, W. E.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Gore, O. W.

Thornely, T.

Goulburn, H.

Trench, Sir F.

Greene, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hayes, Sir E.

Wallace, R.

Henniker, Lord

Hillsborough, Earl

TELLERS.

Ingestrie, Visc.

Hume, J.

Kemble, H.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Lascelles, W. S.

Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
The House resumed.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Prisons; Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland); and Schools (Scotland).—Read a second time:—Royal Exchange; Loan Commissioners Relief.—Read a third time:—International Copyright; Prisons (West Indies).
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of EXETER, from a place in 'Ireland, against the Irish Corporations Bill; from Bradford, complaining of the present Factory system.—By the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from Norwich, to the same effect.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Wells, for an alteration of the Beer Bill. [The Prisons Bill, the Parliamentary Burghs (Scotland) Bill, and the Schools (Scotland) Bill, were brought up from the Commons.]

THE BRITISH LEGION.
The Marquess of Londonderryseeing the noble Viscount (Melbourne) in his place, wished to call his attention to something which fell from him the other night. He was quite sure that the noble Viscount had no intention or desire to convey a wrong impression, but the noble Viscount had stated, in answer to his question whether he had any information respecting any arrangement for the liquidation of the claims of the unfortunate officers and soldiers of the British Legion—that the commission for that purpose was in active operation. [Viscount Melbourne, constituted.] He had looked into all the reports, and found that the import of all was the same. But, however that might be, he had since received a letter from Colonel Shaw, which he begged leave to read to their Lordships:—
"Colonel Shaw begs to inform Lord Londonderry that on Tuesday last he had

551
a conversation with Capt. Hay respecting the commission to settle the claims of the Legion; that gentleman informed Colonel Shaw that the commission had not yet assembled, nor did he know when it would; and that Mr. Ximenes had informed him that he (Mr. Ximenes) was the only commissioner appointed by the Spanish government, which had not the means of paying the claims even were they investigated."
He was quite convinced that the noble Viscount could not have stated, that the commission was in active operation, had he been aware of the real state of the case, it appeared now that this M. Ximenes, who was the only Spanish commissioner, had declared that there was no intention of assembling that commission. Under these circumstances he should be glad to understand from the Noble Viscount, whether he would have any objection to produce any correspondence which might have passed between her Majesty's Government, Sir G. De Lacy Evans, and those gentlemen respecting the assembling of that commission. It appeared to him quite clear that it was the intention of the Spanish government if possible, to protract and delay the investigation until after Parliament had been liberated; and then, during the recess, those unfortunate men would be left without any hope of escaping from their present distress. The noble Viscount had stated that the commission was proceeding to settle their claims; and he (the Marquess of Londonderry) had positive evidence that it had not yet assembled. He wished, therefore, that the matter should be explained.
Viscount Melbourneknew not what the correspondence was, to which the noble Marquess had alluded, but of course if it were any part of the papers which had been laid before the other House, there could be no objection to its production in that House. With regard to what had fallen from him the other night, he did not know that he had answered for the activity of the operations of that commission. He certainly had stated that two commissioners had arrived in London, and that he therefore considered that the commission had been constituted; but how they were going on of course he could not know.
Subject dropped.

QUADRUPLE TREATY.
The Marquess of Londonderryhaving the other night been referred to the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty, wished now to repeat the question which he had then put, with respect to what that noble Earl considered to be the construction of the 2d article of the Quadripartite Treaty. He apprehended that the noble Earl had taken an entirely incorrect view of that question. The noble Earl certainly construed that article of the treaty in a way totally different from the noble Duke (Wellington) behind him, whose opinion had been confirmed and corroborated in the fullest manner by the colleague of the noble Earl, the noble Viscount at the head of her Majesty's Government. Such was the difference of opinion between the noble Viscount and the noble Earl; and under those circumstances he had a right to call on the noble Earl to satisfy the country and the House that he had abandoned those private views which he had formerly stated to their Lordships, and adopted the opinions entertained by the noble Viscount at the head of the Administration. This was a matter of grave importance, because if the noble Earl would still in a supposed case hold himself justified in issuing instructions, such as those which had been complained of—founded on his notions of the treaty, that private opinion of the noble Earl's, contradicted as it had been by his noble colleagues, might involve this country and Europe in a war. He wished, therefore, to know whether the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty had recanted his former opinions in deference to those of the noble Viscount, or whether, if he retained them, he would declare that he did not intend to act upon them.
The Earl of Mintosaid, he was happy that the noble Marquess had discovered that the best means of obtaining an answer to a question was to put it in the presence of the person to whom it should be addressed; he certainly had not answered the question on a former occasion, because he was not in the House when it was put. With regard to the question itself, although he meant to give it a distinct and explicit answer, he must in the first place say, that as it regarded merely the private opinion of an individual Minister or Member of that House, he did not think it was one which any noble Lord was justly entitled to put; but having

553
said that, he begged to add, that neither the close argument, nor the eloquence of the noble Lord, nor his great authority, political or legal, had sufficed to wean him from his previous opinion. What he had before expressed it still remained; and accordingly, whatever weight that private opinion might have in the affairs, which came under his direction, their Lordships knew in what way it would operate. If any difference of opinion existed on the subject between himself and the noble Viscount, or any other noble Lord, he might regret it; but he must still venture to think that his own construction of the treaty was correct.
Lord Broughamsaid, the noble Earl's pertinacity in adhering to his opinion did not lessen his conviction of the palpable error of that opinion, or that by acting upon that opinion the noble Earl would be guilty of putting in peril the honour and reputation of this country, and the peace of Europe, by committing a most flagrant violation and outrage on one of the most solemn principles of international law. But if the noble Earl's perseverance in error had not increased his opinion of the noble Earl's wisdom, it had at least increased his opinion of the propriety of the division which he had pressed upon their Lordships the other night. For, notwithstanding that the First Lord of the Treasury entertained and expressed the sounder opinion, yet the First Lord of the Admiralty was the person who was to issue the orders, if any were to be issued at all, and the noble Earl now had stated, that in that erroneous opinion he still persisted. He would now only put a question to the noble Earl (Minto). There was no doubt that the argument which had been used the other night against the production of those orders was, that it might be very inconvenient to produce instructions that were of a contingent nature; but the argument could not always be used, and as the time must sooner or later arrive when no risk to the public service could be incurred, and when the contingency no longer existed, he hoped that then those instructions would be found to be in the ordinary official form, signed by two Lords of the Admiralty, and perhaps countersigned, so that then there might be no objection to their production.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas understood to say, that there was no ground for the apprehensions which the noble and
554
learned Lord had seemed to entertain, in consequence of the erroneous opinion of the noble Earl; for, as he had stated on a former occasion, although the private opinion of the First Lord of the Admiralty might be of importance, with respect to the business of minor consequence connected with that office, such was not the case with regard to great questions of policy, for then it must be the opinion of the whole Cabinet which was to direct the proceedings of Government; and the opinion of the noble Earl, whatever respect might be due to it, would not be entirely conclusive on the subject. As to the particular papers which had been moved for on that occasion, he begged to say, that the inclination of his mind was always to avoid, as far as possible, calling on the Government to produce papers of that nature. He did not think it was the practice of the House to do so; and he knew that sometimes serious injury resulted to the public service from the production of documents of that description which depended upon some contingency. He knew nothing as to giving confidence, or not giving confidence to the Government; but he did not think it right to call on the Government to give papers which he knew, if he were sitting on the other side of the House, he should not be inclined to produce. Such was the principle on which he generally acted; but he must confess that at first, when he had heard this paper defended by so important a Member of the Government as the noble Earl (Minto), and the particular officer who had carried it into execution, he did feel that it was necessary that the House should see the paper, because it went much farther than could have been expected. But then, when the noble Viscount came forward and said, that he did not concur in that opinion, but his (the Duke of Wellington's) opinion on the subject, he did not feel it to be his duty to press for the paper; but he reverted to his original intention when he came down to the House, which was, to vote against the granting of the papers.
Lord Broughamadmitted, that the general rule as laid down by the noble Duke was quite correct. But he considered that a case had been fully made out for an exception to that rule. The noble Earl had persisted in his error, and who knew whether it might not be now acted upon? Who knew that the noble Earl

555
might not overcome the noble Viscount? Would the noble Earl say, if the order was signed by the noble Earl himself alone, or by some other Member of the Government in conjunction with him?
The Earl of Mintosaid, that the question assumed, that such an order had been issued, which he had never admitted. The account of what had passed, which had been given by the noble Duke, seemed to him strictly accurate. The noble Duke had stated that which was known to all persons acquainted with official business—that whether the orders were issued or not, they could only be issued under the directions of a Secretary of State, and not upon the responsibility of the single Minister at the head of the Marines.
Lord Broughamsaid, that the noble Earl now chose to treat this order as not existing, but the inconvenience of producing it had been alleged to arise from its being a conditional order. Now if it did not exist, it could not he conditional, for nonentities were in their nature neither conditional nor unconditional. But as the noble Earl said, that he would not tell whether it was signed by himself alone, because he had never admitted the existence of the order at all, he begged to know whether he would object to give the date of any orders issued from the Admiralty to any cruisers whatever within the last four years, which were only signed by the First Lord of the Admiralty? No inconvenience to the public service could arise from such a return, because only the dates were to be given, and they would not occupy three lines.
The Earl of Minto. They would not occupy one line, because there was no such order that he was aware of.
The Marquis of Londonderrybegged to congratulate the noble Viscount, that he had been able so well to organize his forces, judging not only from the exhibitions in that House, but from specimens of another nature in another place. He regretted to see such exhibitions as were presented by the Government, in whose hands, unfortunately for the honour of the country, the administration of affairs was now placed. He only hoped, with regard to this difference of opinion between the noble Viscount and the noble Earl, that the opinion of the noble Earl at the head of the Admiralty might be kept under control; and that care would be taken that no instructions should be issued to
556
the cruizers on the Spanish coast, which might endanger the honour and peace of this country.
Subject dropped.

SPANISH INDEMNITY BONDS.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that in giving notice that he should to-day present a petition from the holders of Spanish Indemnity Bonds, he had ventured to express an opinion, that he should make out a case, which called for the interference of the Government in their behalf; and he must say, that if the privation and sufferings of any parties were calculated to excite the sympathies of her Majesty's Ministers and obtain from them relief, in the present case those inducements were doubly strong—because the Ministers had been themselves partly the cause of the misfortunes, and the Government was bound to see, that relief was extended. These claimants differed widely from the common class of claimants on the faithless government of Spain. They had heard in that House of the great hardships of those persons who had been connected with the Auxiliary Legion, and who had implored frequently the assistance of Parliament, owing to the impossibility of obtaining the liquidation of their just claims by the Spanish Government; and though, perhaps, in their case, the Government at home, in consequence of the tacit encouragement which it afforded to that expedition, might be, in some degree, morally bound to assist those claimants; still, it was not at all legally bound to interfere in their behalf further than to use its good offices in endeavouring to procure from the Spanish government the payment of their debts. So the holders of any Spanish stock, who had suffered so seriously from, the bankrupt policy of that government had no claim except on the good offices of the British Government. The credit of their own Government was not to be called forward to support those who, by entering into these speculations, had taken the chances of dealing with a government of that character; but those persons, whose petition he should present to their Lordships, stood on a different footing; they were claimants under a treaty which had been ratified by their own Sovereign; and unquestionably, if the Government did not see, that the conditions of that treaty were carried into effect, the claimants were justly entitled to come upon the Govern-

557
ment for indemnity. The state of the case, was briefly this; in 1813 a convention had been entered into at Madrid, when Sir W. A'Court was British ambassador at that court, by which the Spanish government was bound to indemnify those persons who had suffered in the war in the South American colonies. That Convention was ratified by Ferdinand on his restoration, and a commission was appointed to carry it into effect, but little hope was entertained, that the obligations under it could ever be fulfilled. He remembered, that Mr. Canning had spoken despondingly of the success of that commission, but claims were registered under it to the amount of two millions sterling on the part of British subjects, and Spanish claims to the amount of twelve hundred thousand. Subsequently, however, a compromise had been entered into, by which the British claimants compounded their claims, for 900,000 l., and the Spanish for 200,000 l That compromise had been carried into effect; of the 900,000 l., 600,000 l. had been paid in specie at the time, and 300,000 l. had been created in bonds, on which the interest had been paid regularly till within the last three years. Now, he having been the person who had negociated that treaty, the persons who held those bonds imagined, that he would probably take an interest in its fulfilment, and had, therefore, applied to him frequently to lay their case before Parliament; but he had dissuaded them from petitioning as he had thought, that they might safely rely on the honour and credit of the Government to see, that a treaty of that kind with such conditions should be carried into effect; but when he found, that the whole amount was only 30,000 l. a-year, he considered it impossible, whatever might be the state of the Spanish government, that that sum should not have been paid, if the Government here had used proper means to enforce its payment. Culpable as he thought the remissness of Government had been, he did not wish to indulge in any unnecessary reprobation of their conduct; he only wanted to stimulate them to exertion—to whet their almost blunted purpose, and to force upon them the necessity of exacting that act of justice, which, he was sure, there could be no difficulty in obtaining. He would just ask their Lordships—supposing, that this had been a claim on Don Carlos, and that he had been successful in the civil war—
558
would they not have heard long since of a threat of reprisals? And did they not believe, that if a threat of reprisals had been issued the money would have been produced before this time? If fraud and dishonesty were practised by a government, even though it were a liberal government, such ought to be the course pursued. These parties, then, had not merely a claim on the justice of the Spanish government, but they had also a claim on the honour and good faith of this country, which was bound to see that that treaty to which those persons had submitted on the faith of their own Government, was strictly fulfilled. Such, indeed, had been the confidence which that circumstance inspired, that at a time when Spanish funds of every other description were unsaleable in Europe, these bonds not merely kept their former standing in the market but actually rose in value. He did say, then, that if these bonds were found to be no better security for payment from the Spanish government than any others, the loss ought not to fall upon those holders, but that they were entitled to be indemnified by their own Government. He would now present the petition. He would not make a motion on this occasion; but he thought, that these parties ought to receive some redress. If, however, nothing could be done, he thought, that the House ought to come to some resolution on the subject.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that persons having claims had undoubtedly a right to call on the Government of this country to enforce those claims, and to see, that they were observed by the Spanish government. So far as this, he concurred with the noble Earl. The noble Earl also said, the Government had not taken measures necessary to obtain that redress which the subjects of her Majesty had a right to ask. Undoubtedly the noble Earl could not expect, him to agree with him in that respect. He thought if the noble Earl had been acquainted with the statements made by our Minister at Madrid, and the manner in which he had pressed these claims, that the noble Earl would have been satisfied, that there had been no want of due diligence, or want of consideration towards the rights of her Majesty's subjects on the part of the Government. The noble Earl said, that whatever might be the state of the finances of Spain, that the Government ought to have enforced this payment. This was a subject upon which he was un-

559
willing to dilate. Every body knew the difficulties in which the government of Spain was at present placed. He believed there would be great difficulty even in procuring the sum necessary for the liquidation of this demand. The claim was admitted by the Spanish government, and he believed it had every disposition to exert itself to liquidate it. The English Government had addressed the Spanish government as far as, under the circumstances in which that government was placed, they had thought wise, prudent, and satisfactory. They had not made reprisals, and he would put it to the noble Earl whether it would be better to break in upon their general system of policy, and for the sake of these claims, to do that which would endanger the Spanish government, be likely to embroil further the affairs of that country, and to impoverish its resources and thereby cut off all hopes of the liquidation not only of these claims but of all other claims of her Majesty's subjects on the Spanish government? In concluding he would say, that there had not been any want of attention or any listlessness on the part of her Majesty's Government.
Petition laid on the table.

SALE OF BEER ACT.
Lord Portmanhaving presented a petition from the licensed victuallers of New Sarum in favour of the Beer Act,
Lord Broughamsaid, that he should take this opportunity of stating, that he should not think of pressing his bill on this subject this Session. He hoped, that it would be suffered to pass the House and not be carried into execution till next Session. This would give a warning to persons not to embark their capital in beer-shops.
Petition laid on the table.

THE WESTMEATH ELECTION.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that in March last he felt it his duty to bring under the notice of their Lordships some transactions which arose out of the last election for the county of Westmeath. He then said, as the fact was, that the statements which he had to make rested on rumour, but the reason of this was, because, although he had applied to the Irish Government for the necessary information, he had been unable to obtain it. He now, however, did not labour under the same
560
disadvantage, because since then an investigation had been held upon the subject by order of the Lord-lieutenant. It appeared that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland—and this remark applied to all former Lords-lieutenant, as well as the present, had been in the habit of instituting Courts for the investigation of certain circumstances from time to time brought before him. He would not undertake to say whether such a power ought to be exercised or ought not; but he at the same time thought the subject was one that was well worthy the attention of those noble Lords who were acquainted with the principles of constitutional law. For his own part, he thought such a practice calculated only to produce mischief, and he could not understand what good could result from an inquiry by a tribunal so constituted. In the present instance, the case to which he wished to call their Lordships' attention arose out of the misconduct of a magistrate, whose appointment he deprecated at the time as improper. As he on a former occasion stated to their Lordships, this appointment was made at the instance of Sir Richard Neagle, who, as their Lordships must recollect, was himself removed from the commission of the peace in 1832, and again reinstated in 1836. It was necessary that he should allude to that transaction. In 1832 the Irish Government found it incumbent on them to call Sir Richard Neagle to account for certain language which had been held at a tithe meeting of which he was chairman, and the result was, that Sir Richard Neagle wrote a letter in which he recommended the Roman Catholics not to pay tithes. This conduct was unpalatable to the Government, and the consequence was, that the noble and learned Lord who then, and now, held the office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland removed Sir Richard Neagle from the magistracy of the county of Westmeath. Before his restoration, however, Sir R. Neagle wrote a letter to him (Lord Westmeath), recommending Mr. Sheil as a fit and proper person to be placed in the commission of the peace; and in this letter he stated, that the other Member for the county concurred in the propriety of Mr. Sheil's appointment. In reply to this communication, he informed Sir Richard Neagle that he saw no necessity whatever for increasing the number of the magistrates in the district of the county in which

561
it was intended Mr. Sheil should act, and as to the opinion of the other party alluded to, he observed that little stress could be laid on the recommendation of that gentleman, as he resided at a distance of nineteen miles from the place in question, and therefore could not be a competent judge as to whether a necessity for the appointment of another magistrate existed or not. Subsequently to this he received a communication from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject. The noble and learned Lord stated, that Mr. Sheil had been recommended to him by the lord-lieutenant as a party whose appointment was desirable on the ground that it would tend to a more satisfactory administration of justice in that particular locality, and he answered this communication by assuring the noble and learned Lord that there was no occasion whatever for such an appointment, there being already six or seven magistrates who discharged the duties at petty sessions in a highly satisfactory manner, and that in short the appointment would not for other reasons be a proper one to make. Notwithstanding this, however, the noble and learned Lord thought fit to introduce Mr. Sheil into the magistracy of the county of Westmeath, and such a mode of proceeding was so contrary to the doctrine laid down a few nights ago by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that it was impossible not to call their Lordships' attention to it. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, on the occasion to which he referred, recognised the propriety of confidential communication between the lords-lieutenant of counties and the keeper of the Great Seal in relation to all appointments to the commission of the peace; but that was a very different case from the present. In that case it was alleged by the noble Earl, the lord-lieutenant of the county of York, that parties had been appointed to the magistracy from political motives; but how was the allegation met? why, by showing, that the noble Earl was the party who was in fault, because he had neglected to enter into communication with the Lord Chancellor on the subject. Those noble Lords who heard what fell from the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack understood the matter as he did, and his understanding of the observations of the noble and learned Lord was, that had the noble Earl stated to him any local reasons which rendered such appointments inexpedient,
562
they would not have been made. This was his understanding of what passed in the debate to which he referred, and it was, therefore, impossible for him not to be struck with the contrast which existed between the conduct of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and that pursued by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. There was a great deal of excitement during the last election for the county of Westmeath in the town of Mullingar. It was found necessary for the peace that troops of soldiers and large bodies of police should be brought into that town, and on the evening of the 11th of August a great——
Lord Plunketsaid, that he was induced to interrupt the noble Marquess, not because of anything he had said in reference to himself personally, but merely to apprise their Lordships that no objection was intended to be offered to the motion with which the noble Marquess meant to conclude. The object of the noble Marquess was the production of the evidence taken before the commissioners who presided at the inquiry held on this subject at Mullingar on the report of those commissioners, and as he, so far from objecting to that motion, was ready to consent that the whole of the papers should be laid on the table, he submitted to the good sense of the noble Marquess, whether his interruption was not justifiable. The noble Marquess must be aware that the statement of facts which he was about to enter upon grew out of the evidence taken during the inquiry; and how, he asked him, were their Lordships to assume whether his statements were correct or not until the evidence on which they were founded was before them. It was impossible to go into the case in the absence of the evidence, and therefore, the noble Marquess must see, that the course he was about to pursue was clearly irregular. The noble Marquess might aver that to be the fact on the one hand, while he might be justified in denying it on the other; and as such a proceeding could not be otherwise than painful to their Lordships, he hoped the noble Marquess would postpone what he had to say until the papers were placed upon the table of that House. Their Lordships would then be in a position to determine who was right and who was wrong, and not before.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that the noble and learned Lord had no right

563
whatever to trespass on his patience, or interfere with the exercise of his undoubted privilege of addressing their Lordships in the manner he had done. It would seem that the noble and learned Lord had interrupted him for the purpose of making a speech himself; but he must be allowed to tell the noble and learned Lord that such a proceeding was not consonant to the practice of their Lordships' House. In the line of conduct which he thought fit to pursue there was a difference of opinion between him and the noble and learned Lord; but all be wanted was to lay Parliamentary grounds for his motion, and this he contended he had a perfect right to do.
Viscount Melbourne. You can have the papers without any statement.
The Marquess of Westmeath. Yes, but the noble Viscount must permit me to give their Lordships the grounds upon which I call for their production. In March last, when he brought this matter before their Lordships, he was without proper information, because the Irish Government did not choose to enter into communication with him; and what was the result? why that libels had been showered upon him from all quarters, for which he might have brought the parties to the bar of that House, had he thought fit, or appealed to the laws of his country. The fact, however, was, that he had been grossly ill-treated by the Irish Government, and therefore it was, that he had no desire to see their conduct cushioned. The noble and learned Lord was fully aware of his intention to bring the subject forward that night, and if he were not prepared for the discussion that was not his fault. He must therefore stand upon his right, and as he was not bound to withdraw from his intention he would not.
Viscount Melbourne. No statement is necessary, as there is no objection to your motion.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that the noble Viscount had no right to stop him in the course he was pursuing. He knew he was right, and therefore he would proceed. There was on the evening to which he adverted a tumultuous meeting at a public-house in Mullingar, and after the police and resident Magistrates had arrived there Mr. Sheil and Mr. Fitzsimons introduced themselves to this meeting. In March last he stated, as he believed at the time, that the two individuals whom he
564
had named were found in the public-house by the police; but in this he was wrong, as they were not found there, but made their appearance immediately after the police had obtained admission to the house. They, however, identified themselves with the transactions which took place, and, consequently, the error into which he had fallen was of no importance whatever, as the effect produced was exactly the same. The fact was, that he had been misled in this instance. But why had he been misled? Simply because the Irish Government wished to take advantage of him. He would now state nothing which could not be borne out. The parties who went to the public-house on the occasion referred to were twenty-five policemen, and they were accompanied by the chief constable, and the resident magistrate. The chief constable, as was his duty represented the transaction to the proper authorities. Indeed, he would have been guilty of misconduct if he had not. But what was the consequence? Why, that Mr. Deglisau received the thanks of both Colonel Shaw Kennedy and Colonel O'Donoughue for his conduct. He begged their Lordships to bear this in mind. Mr. Deglisau heard nothing more of the affair for many months, not until he was called upon by the Government to furnish a copy of his report. The occurrence took place in August, and it was not until December that this report was called for by the Government, although their attention had been previously directed to the circumstance. Mr. Deglisau had not only been grossly insulted and spat upon, but his personal safety rendered it necessary, that he should be attended by two orderlies during the whole of the election. On the night of the 11th of August he was accosted by Mr. Fitzsimon in an insulting manner. Mr. Fitzsimon asked him what business he had there; and although Mr. Sheil knew Mr. Rowan, the resident magistrate well, he allowed him to be shoved and pushed about without even once interfering to prevent it. The Irish Government thought the matter of sufficient importance to institute an inquiry and it was not a little remarkable, that when he first stirred in it he was informed, that the official report had been lost. Although this statement had been made, it appeared from the testimony of Mr. Fitzsimon, that the report had passed into the hands of Mr. Sheil. It was afterwards in the pos-

565
session of Mr. Fitzpatrick, the secretary of the Liberal Club; and he was able to show that its contents were known to Priest O'Brien, Priest O'Farrell, and several other parties connected with that club, in subsequent committees. Mr. Drummond, in a studied manner, endeavoured to get rid of the subject, and it was not until he had been suddenly called on for the report by Lord Morpeth, that he took any steps to obtain it. How was it possible, after such prevarication on the part of the Irish Secretary, that the affairs of that country could be properly carried on. On the 11th of December Mr. Drummond wrote to Mr. Rowan as follows:—
"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 9th instant, referring to the conduct of Messrs. Fitzsimon and Sheil, and I am to inform you that these gentlemen having been called upon for an explanation in consequence of your report, they transmitted to the Government statements differing in many respects from yours. In consequence of this variation, it was directed that the papers should be sent again to you for any observations you might have to offer; but owing to some accident, which cannot at present be accounted for, the papers cannot be found in the office. Search is still making for them, and a letter has been written for the purpose of ascertaining whether they have been sent to the Irish Office in London. If found, they will be immediately transmitted to you. If not found, it will be necessary to call on all parties concerned for copies of the letters and statements.'
In this letter Mr. Drummond stated, that Mr. Fitzsimon and Mr. Sheil had been called to account; but what was the testimony of Mr. Sheil on this head? Why he denied, that he had ever been called on for explanation by the Irish Government. [Lord Plunket: How does that appear?] It appeared from the evidence given by Mr. Sheil on the inquiry. What was it that further appeared from that evidence? Why, that Mr. Drummond was in communication during the whole of these transactions with Mr. Sheil. Mr. Sheil declared, that the Lord-lieutenant was perfectly satisfied with his conduct; but what did Mr. Drummond say? Why, that Mr. Sheil had been written to for explanation. There was, then, mistake somewhere; for Mr. Sheil not only denied Mr. Drummond's statement, but asserted, that the Lord-lieutenant was satisfied with his conduct. It was true, that after the occurrence at the public-house, Mr. Fitzsimon apologized
566
both to Mr. Rowan and Mr. Deglisau, but he at the same time used language towards the police, which was insulting to them and the Government. Mr. Rowan declared that he appealed to Mr. Sheil to maintain tranquillity, but without effect; and he was then told, that the police had no right to be there to interrupt the freeholders. From the evidence of the son of the person who kept the public-house, it appeared, that there was only five beds in it, and consequently, as the persons assembled in it, amounted to fifty-one, it was clear they were amenable under the "Tippling Act." The Government, however, dispensed with the law, and turned round on their own officers; but what sort of tribunal was it by which they were tried, Mr. Deglisau was ordered, on Tuesday, to appear at Mullingar; on the Monday following, to take his trial. On Wednesday he went to Dublin, to see Major Warburton; and it was not until the Friday that he reached Mullingar; so that, in point of fact, he had only a single day to prepare for his defence. He applied to the Commissioners to enforce the attendance of the witnesses he was anxious to examine; but what was the answer of the Commissioners to that application? Why, they told him, they possessed no such power. All they could do, they said, was to administer an oath, and if a witness refused to come forward, they had no means of compelling his attendance. This was singular, but strange; still he was himself called on to appear, simply because he had brought this matter under the notice of their Lordships. He really should be glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord whether such Courts as this were to be resorted to in all future times? It was Mr. Sheil who gave rise to the disturbance, and yet he supposed that Gentleman was to be continued in the commission of the peace for the county of Westmeath. He had no doubt, that when these papers were placed on their Lordships' table, they would exhibit a pretty picture, with respect to the manner in which the Irish Government was carried on. He would defy them to get rid of the conduct of which their protegé had been guilty. But how different was the course of proceeding in this and in other cases. Mr. Blacker had been dismissed from the commission of the peace, merely because, an Orange emblem had been placed in the balcony of one of his windows, without

567
his knowledge; and, because Mr. St. George, one of the most respectable men in Ireland, had done something that was distasteful to the Government, he also was removed from the magistracy. The truth was, that the present case was the parallel of that in which Mr. O'Connell was concerned. Mr. O'Connell was a magistrate for the county of Kerry, and although he had used denunciations at Carlow, which Mr. Vignolls, the chief constable of police, was ready to verify, his statement being substantiated by the testimony of two of the officers of the 71st regiment, yet Mr. O'Connell was allowed to continue in the commission of the peace for the county of Kerry. This, then, was anything but even-handed justice. He (the Marquess of Westmeath) brought the subject forward, on public grounds, and not wishing to say anything of Mr. Sheil more than he could help, for he did not even know him, the only additional remark he would make, was, that he did not think Mr. Sheil was in such a situation in life as to justify his being placed on the bench of a county where the magistrates were all men of great respectability and large property. The noble Marquess, in conclusion, moved for the production of the evidence taken during the inquiry at Mullingar, and the report of the Commissioners thereupon.
Lord Plunketsaid, that it was not his intention to reply to that part of the speech of the noble Marquess which applied to himself in relation to the appointment of Mr. Sheil to the magistracy of the county of Westmeath, and he thought their Lordships would also excuse him if he declined to follow the noble Marquess through the imputations which he had cast on the Lord-lieutenant, Mr. Drummond, and Lord Morpeth. He mentioned Lord Morpeth, because he was one of those against whom censure had been pronounced by the noble Marquess; for it was Lord Morpeth who had recommended the appointment of Mr. Sheil, on the ground that it would not only be satisfactory, but lead to the peace and tranquillity of that part of the country. It was, in fact, on the recommendation of Lord Morpeth that he (Lord Plunket) made the appointment; but still he denied, that the noble Marquess had any right to complain of that appointment, inasmuch as he had been applied to for information on the subject, but had failed
568
to state any objection which could be considered as valid. This was the reason why he had used Lord Morpeth's name. The observations which the noble Marquess had made about Mr. Deglisau, Mr. Blacker, and others, had no relation whatever to the present subject; but although the noble Marquess had spent upwards of half an hour in making statements respecting the trial which had resulted from a transaction which took place in an alehouse in Mullingar, he should like to know on what authority the noble Marquess rested these statements. The only authority on which such statements could be made, was the evidence; and that was not before their Lordships. How, then, could they judge whether the noble Marquess was right or wrong? If he were to give a peremptory contradiction to the statements of the noble Marquess, he should be liable to censure; and, therefore, he conceived, that the noble Marquess could not be held blameless for having brought forward as facts, matters which it was impossible he could verify. He would not impute any thing like wilful mistake to the noble Marquess, but if he thought fit to cast imputations, he ought to enable that House to judge for themselves, whether those imputations were just or not. His belief was, that the noble Marquess was mistaken; but how could he verify this assertion in the absence of the evidence? On the evidence, the whole case rested; and no doubt when it was produced, the noble Marquess would take an opportunity of going over the whole ground again. So far as he knew of the evidence, he believed the noble Marquess was in error from beginning to end, in all that he had stated; and this he would find, when the papers for which he had called were produced. He would not have said thus much, if he had not felt it to be his duty to contradict the extravagant statements in which the noble Marquess had indulged; but with respect to his own conduct in the affair, all he could say was, that when a recommendation was forwarded to him by the Lord-lieutenant, he had a right to act upon it without reference to the noble Marquess. Mr. Sheil was a highly respectable gentleman, and, although he might not possess as large a property as other magistrates, still his property was considerable. It was no objection to Mr. Sheil that there were enough of magistrates without him; and that was the only

569
objection which the noble Marquess had urged against his appointment. The noble Marquess said, that his prognostications with respect to Mr. Sheil, were borne out by the evidence; but if it should turn out that the contrary was the case, why had not the noble Marquess attended the inquiry, as he might have done, in order to make good the charges he had brought forward? In conclusion, he must say, that he had scarcely ever witnessed a more unprecedented course than that which had been adopted by the noble Marquess that night in moving for these papers; and he could only add, that, if he was rightly informed, the statements made by the noble Marquess, so far as the charge against Mr. Fitzsimon and Mr. Sheil were concerned, were strongly denied by the evidence relating to the transactions themselves.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he could not agree with the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down, that the course taken by the noble Marquess on the present occasion, was very unusual—although it was one which might not, perhaps, be exactly in accordance with the Parliamentary rule. The noble Marquess had risen for the purpose of calling the attention of their Lordships to that which must ever be considered a very important subject by their Lordships—namely, the appointment of magistrates in Ireland, and the conduct of the noble and learned Lord with respect to those appointments. He held in his hands, the papers which had been moved for by the noble Marquess on a former occasion, and, in moving for others, the noble Marquess had taken occasion to advert to the conduct of the noble and learned Lord in the appointment of magistrates, and to the conduct of those magistrates. The noble Marquess had also moved for other papers, the object of which was to show what had been the nature of the conduct of the Irish Government with regard to appointments to the magistracy, as well as what was the state of society in Ireland, which was produced by those appointments. He found, that one of the gentlemen who had thus been appointed magistrates, having thought proper to place himself at the head of an illegal meeting in Ireland, held for the purpose of stimulating the destruction of property, which had ever been considered sacred by Parliament, had been dismissed from the magistracy by the Marquess of
570
Anglesea. And yet some time afterwards the noble and learned Lord opposite had thought proper to appoint this very gentleman to the magistracy—contrary to the remonstrances of the lord-lieutenant of the county, the noble Marquess who had introduced this motion—and subsequently to the transactions complained of. [Lord Plunkett: The appointment was not, in any way, connected with those transactions.] He begged the noble and learned Lord's pardon; but no one could doubt that the appointments of both the gentlemen alluded to in this motion—appointments made in the teeth of remonstrances on the part of lords-lieutenant of counties—were nothing less than political appointments. He was prepared to prove it, if necessary, from the papers he held in his hand. They were recommended to be appointed to the commission of the peace by the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland himself—and were appointed in spite of the remonstrances of the lieutenant of the county in question. It appeared, that the Government had thought proper to order a party of police to preserve the peace in the county of Westmeath during the period of the elections, and that one of those gentlemen, although himself a magistrate of the county—had opposed himself to another magistrate, who was in the discharge of his duty, keeping the peace in a public-house in the county. Would any one say, that this was justice—or that this was the manner in which a just Government should be carried on? He only wished to justify the noble Marquess in bringing this case before their Lordships, a thing which the papers already produced fully justified him in doing. He was sorry to be under the necessity of referring to the subject; but he must say, that until Ireland should be governed with justice and fairness—they might give her either poor-laws or corporations, if they pleased; but they would not render her condition by any means so happy a one as he was most anxious and desirous to see it.
Returns ordered.