Sitting of 16 July 1839

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Colonel Trench, from Stationers of Scarborough, against using Stamped Envelopes to collect the Postage of Letters.—By Mr. Norman, from East Kilbride, against a further Grant to the Church of Scotland.—By Viscount Castlereagh, from Donaghadee, against any further Grant to Maynooth.—By Mr. Easthope, from Leicester, Nottingham, and various places, for the Abolition of the Stage Coach Duties.—By Mr. Hume, from Slane, and Colton, against the renewal of the Bank of Ireland Charter; and from certain Artists, for an investigation into the management of the Fine Arts.—By Mr. Hodges, from Landowners in Kent, for an Amendment in the Tithe Commutation Act—By Mr. Wakley, from the parishes of Holborn, against the Collection of Rates and Poor-law Commission Continuance Bill; from the Working-men's Association of London, for an Inquiry into the cause of the Birmingham Riots.—By Captain Gordon, from Aberdeen, and Irvine, for a Uniform Penny Postage.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Mr. Freshfieldsaid, that his object in rising to address the House on the present occasion was, to show the situation of the business, or rather of the suitors now in the Court of Chancery—to point out the assistance Which that Court might receive from the
400
Court of Exchequer, if the Court of Exchequer were rendered efficient—to explain the circumstances which prevented that latter court from being efficient—to offer to the House a remedy calculated to render it efficient, and to demonstrate the necessity of applying a remedy from the returns at present upon the table of the House. He was aware that it was incumbent upon him to be as brief as the importance of the subject warranted; and therefore more abruptly than was agreeable to his own feelings, he would enter at once into the grievances of which he then rose to complain. He believed that every Gentleman who then heard him was aware, that it appeared, upon the face of the returns then upon the table, that there were 712 causes now waiting for hearing in the Court of Chancery. It was also well known, he believed, to all present, that when you talked of a cause being set down for hearing in the Court of Chancery, it implied that there had been a considerable delay before the cause had arrived at that stage. If, therefore, hon. Members would carry in their recollection the delay which occurred previously to a cause being set down for hearing, they would see at once that it was a most serious grievance to the suitor, that 712 causes must be heard before his own could be called on. Let them but add to this, that the present Lord Chancellor had admitted, that if no cause were set down in the meantime, it would require three years to clear off the 712 causes which were now in arrear for hearing in the Court of Chancery. It must, therefore, be clear to the House, that for the next three years, even though the parties were at present ready for hearing, the doors of the Court of Chancery were as much shut against all fresh suitors as if no Court of Chancery existed. He knew that it had been said, that this was a crying evil, because it was a denial of justice. He was inclined to say, that it was a more crying evil than a denial of justice, for it was a delay of justice. He had no doubt, looking at it as a matter of history, and following out the circumstances of families, that in an absolute monarchy, where the law was the arbitrary will of the sovereign, it was a less evil that he should protect his favourite against the operations of the tribunals by forbidding all proceedings against him, than that in a system like ours men should be exposed to a liability of delay, which, after a long alternation

401
of hope and fear, was certain to be followed by the most disastrous disappointment and distress. If it were necessary to illustrate the point, he could adduce many cases that would be most interesting to the House. He would, however, confine himself to two, because they tended to show the extreme inconvenience which resulted from the delay, and not from the denial, of justice. In one case the party was, in his firm opinion, entitled to a large property, which was at present the foundation of a peerage, and on which the maintenance of that peerage depended. That individual—a gentleman of great classical attainments and small independent fortune—felt that it was due to his only child to institute proceedings in the Court of Chancery for the recovery of his property. He did institute such proceedings—he encountered great and enormous delays—he expended so large a portion of his fortune, that he felt himself entitled to withdraw from the contest into that happy retirement in which he delighted to live, because he felt that the attainment of his object was, in point of time, impossible in his own life, or so costly in point of expense, as to be likely to absorb all the remainder of his resources. It might be said, that this was a mere imaginary claim, or that if it was not, he must have succeeded in his suit. He begged the House to allow him to state two facts in support of this gentleman's claim. When he determined to leave the proceedings in such a stage that his son, when he came of age, might take them up, so strong was the sense of his opponent as to the generosity of his conduct, that he sent him a full service of plate, a very unusual return for any person to make for an attempt to recover from him 30,000 l. a-year. So far, too, was the case from being considered a case of a doubtful nature, that it was supported by the unanimous opinions of some of the very first lawyers of the day.—It was supported by the opinion of Sir Arthur Piggott, of Sir S. Romilly, of Sir V. Gibbs (then Attorney-general), of Mr. Sergeant Williams, of Mr. Sergeant Shepherd (afterwards Lord Chief Baron in Scotland), of Mr. Butler, of Mr. Preston, of Mr. Mayne (afterwards a judge in Ireland), and of Mr. Abraham Moore, of the western circuit. This was a case where the mere delay and expense prevented an individual from arriving at justice. Delay here was expense, for expense attended
402
every step of the proceedings, though no advantage was derived from them. The next case to which he would call the attention of the House was of this nature:—An individual died in the year 1803. His daughter, who was abroad at the time of his death, instituted proceedings in the Court of Chancery in the year 1809. Her proceedings were delayed, so that she did not obtain a decree in her favour till the year 1812. Let not the House, however, suppose that that decree was like a verdict in a court of common law, which would immediately give her the fruits of the struggle she had passed through. No: by that decree she had only established her right to be a party to the suit. The extent of her right was yet to be decided in the Master's office. An account was ordered to be taken by the Master of the sum due to her. Now, having obtained her decree in the year 1812, when did the House suppose that she had succeeded in getting her first report? In 1817; for five years the matter was in the Master's office before he made a report, and then he found that no less than 62,000 l. were due to her. In 1818, this report was brought under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor. On objections taken to the grounds on which the account was taken, the report was referred to another Master, Mr. Courtenay, now the Earl of Devon, to review it. Five years more elapsed, when Master Courtenay found that, not the sum of 62,000 l., but a sum of 36,200 l. were due to her—that is, about 26,000 l. less than was awarded to her by the former Master. These proceedings, be it observed, were going on in the Master's office. In the meantime large fees were accruing, and were paid every term. But it was not only in the Master's office that this expense was incurred. Would the House suppose that the party, having obtained a decree in her favour in 1812, there were proceedings taken to dispute her right to that decree? Yet, so it was. In the year 1825, the House of Lords, to whom appeal had been made, affirmed the original decrees; so that, while the parties had been proceeding in the Master's office to take the account, they had also been proceeding in the House of Lords to see whether the decree could be maintained or not. There, too, the plaintiff was declared right. It might be supposed, that at this stage of the suit the 36,200 l. was

403
paid. No such thing. In 1825, the House of Lords declared that there could be no question as to the plaintiff's right. Two Masters in Chancery had already reported on the extent of the money due to her. One saying that it was 60,000 l., the other that it was 36,200 l. But in 1827, this second report having been under the consideration of the Court, Lord Chancellor Eldon made an order that this report should be referred to a third Master. In consequence of Lord Devon having ceased to be a Master of the Court, it was referred to a third Master. Lord Eldon, however, in making that order for the review of the second report, imagined that the defendant had admitted, that 18,500 l. was due to the plaintiff, and accompanied it, as he thought, by the just and equitable order, that 18,500 l. should be paid into court to wait the event of the further proceedings in the suit. In the year 1828, Lord-chancellor Lyndhurst thought, that it was not so clear, that the defendant had made the admission which Lord Chancellor Eldon supposed him to have made, and in consequence discharged the order of his predecessors. Now, how much did the House suppose, that the plaintiff in this case recovered? Tired out by delay, and inconvenienced by expense, no step had since been taken: but one party despairing of recovering her rights, and the other not having the moral courage to proceed for the recovery of the expense to which he had been put during his defence, rested on their arms, and from that time to this no further proceedings had been instituted on either side. He mentioned these two cases to show that the great inconvenience arising from the delay of justice was more disastrous even than the denial of justice. These were not, however, extreme, but favourable cases, they were the cases of affluent parties, not, as they might have been, of parties in other circumstances. He called upon the House to consider the uncertain station in which all parties to this long-protracted litigation were placed. Even the sleepiness of the court drew after it the most disastrous expenses, far exceeding any amount of costs which might be suggested in the remedy he intended to propose. He could conceive no state of things more harassing than that which left the parties in doubt as to whether they should be ruined by want of success, or by the extremity of delay, Such a state
404
of things enabled the wrong-doer to sit in tranquillity and triumph; for while it discouraged bonâ fide litigation, it encouraged malâ fide litigation, and, as Lord Langdale expressed it, invited the wrongdoer himself into court. The rich man could make the delays a source of oppression to his inferiors in wealth: for if he determined to resist a just claim, he could resist it with a moral certainty, that in his life time the suit would not be ended, and if he determined to advance an improper claim, he could advance it with no less equal certainty, that be would never be called upon to pay costs for it. In every point of view, then, the delay of justice was more disastrous than the denial of justice, both in its immediate and in its remote consequences. If this, then, were one of the faults of the Court of Chancery, arising out of its being so overloaded with business, that there were now in the Court of Chancery, and in the Court of the Master of the Rolls 712 causes set down for hearing, ought not some assistance to be furnished to it? Was there not a foundation laid for asserting, that it was a source of grievance, and that an immediate remedy ought to be applied to it? For a certain period the Court of Chancery had the independent assistance of the Court of Exchequer. Up to the year 1817, the Court of Exchequer sat daily as a Court of concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of Chancery. It was an ancient court, and had every power of a court of Equity. It had also a common law jurisdiction; and its two courts were always sitting during the term, and for some weeks after it. There was, therefore, no day in which the suitor could not institute proceedings in the Court of Exchequer. He believed, that as a court of equity; it never sat less than 123 days in the year. The convenience to the suitors was great, and even the expense was not so great as that of the Court of Chancery. The suitors also derived considerable advantage from having the choice of going, as they thought expedient, either to the Court of Exchequer or the Court of Chancery. In the year 1818, however, the Legislature began to meddle with the Court of Exchequer as a court of equity; and the result was, that its utility was impaired as a court of equity, although it was increased as a court of common law. The first change made in the constitution of the court was, to enable the Lord Chief

405
Baron to sit alone as an equity judge, whilst the other barons were sitting as judges of common law. The moment that act passed, it led to a considerable increase of business on the common law side of the court. But the suitors in equity had no longer their 123 days; the Lord Chief Baron had other claims upon his time. When the Court sat, the public was not satisfied if it had only three barons present. The public expected the Court to be what the lawyers called full, and therefore the Lord Chief Baron gave as little of his time as he could to the equity business, thereby reducing considerably the number of days which he sat as an equity judge. The next change in the constitution of the Court took place in the year 1830. Then the Court of Exchequer of Pleas was declared to be no longer a close Court, to be practised in only by certain officers specially appointed to their offices, but a court open to all the attornies of the superior courts at Westminster to practise in. The consequence was, an immense influx of business into the common law side of the court; and if, prior to the year 1817, it was essential that the Lord Chief Baron should give but a few days to the equity business of this court, and should devote as much of his time as possible to the common law side of it, it followed that the subsequent great influx of business into the common law side rendered it still less possible for him to give his attention to the proceedings in equity. He ought to have stated, that before these acts passed, there were commissions issued to appoint, by warrant, one of the puisne Barons to preside in equity, instead of the Lord Chief Baron, when he was engaged at Nisi Prius. It would be seen, however, by the House, that these acts never had the operation which was intended by the Legislature. Well, in 1833, a further change took place. An act was passed for the better administration of justice in the Privy Council, and it provided, among other things, that a puisne Baron should sit in equity, when the Chief Baron was engaged in common law, Nisi Pries, or in the Privy Council. He would only read the recital of the act, to show the House that he had not mistaken or misstated the effect of these legislative alterations:—
"And whereas, by reason of the great increase of business on the common law or plea aide of the said Court of Exchequer, the Lord
406
Chief Baron is prevented from giving so much time as heretofore to the sittings on the equity side of the said court, and the sittings on such equity side of the said court being necessarily suspended during the absence of the Lord Chief Baron, great inconvenience is thereby sustained by the suitors and practitioners oil the equity side of the said court: And whereas the Lord Chief Baron may, by this act, become liable to the performance of other additional duties unconnected with the said Court of Exchequer, and it is desirable that the said Court of Exchequer should sit as a court of equity, without any unnecessary interruption."
And then followed the remedy, which was, to give one of the puisne Barons the right to sit in equity on such days as the Lord Chief Baron should sit on the common-law side of the court during the term, or at Nisi Prius, or in the Privy Council. Still the Legislature was not satisfied, and in 1836 another act was passed, and it was remarkable to see the fatality with which the Legislature had interfered with the equity side of the Court of Exchequer. This act allowed a puisne Baron to sit while the Chief Baron was on the circuit. Now, could any Gentleman who was at all excited by curiosity, and who had pried into the movements of the judges, tell him how many days a puisne Baron could sit while the Chief Baron was on the circuit? The act was almost wholly inoperative, for the puisne Baron must be on the circuit as well as the Lord Chief Baron, and it should be recollected, that there was only one puisne Baron who was appointed at a time, and the warrant had to be altered if the particular puisne Baron appointed was unable to attend. But the Legislature did not stop here. Even a fifth act was passed in 1838, enabling all the Barons to sit in bank after the term, and when the Lord Chief Baron was trying causes at Nisi Príus in London and Middlesex. Now, even those who formed the lay part of the House would see, that if it was material that the Barons should form a strong court while they set in bank, there was very little chance of the puisne Barons sitting, as it were, in a third court, the court being permitted to sit in bank to hear those motions and arguments which could not be heard in the course of the term, and it followed as a matter of course, that even more than before, the equity side of the court was closed, and almost hermetically sealed. The returns for which he intended to wove would

407
show, that the 123 sitting days in equity had been so reduced, that parties were deterred from going into court, and suitors might be said to be as much denied justice in the Exchequer as in the Court of Chancery. Now, what was it which be ventured to propose as a remedy for this evil? He would say, "do all that the Legislature has intended, but has omitted to do." The Legislature intended to create an effectual court of equity, and intended that a puisne Baron should always sit when the Chief Baron was not able to attend on the equity side of the court. The confusion, inconvenience, and delay, to the practitioners and suitors occasioned by these acts was extreme. It often happened that a puisne Baron might come down to the equity court, and the parties might all be ready, in the expectation that the Lord Chief Baron had gone down to Guildhall to try causes at Nisi Prius. The cause would hardly be opened, when a messenger would come to say, that the Lord Chief Baron felt rather unwell, and that he had requested Mr. Baron Gurney to sit for him at Guildhall. Upon this the Baron sitting in equity would say, "Then I have no sort of jurisdiction; I am very sorry for the parties, and all the expense they have been put to, but I can do nothing: I am functus officio." He would venture to say, that in the very last sittings in equity in the Exchequer, no less than thirty orders had been made for the payment of money when the puisne Baron had no sort of jurisdiction, and yet these orders were made, and he had no doubt that they would be obeyed, The remedy for all this would be found in the simple and just expedient of having one judge sitting always in equity, so that the equity business of the Exchequer might be transacted, and the Court of Chancery he relieved. But was there any other recommendation of the remedy which he had proposed? They would recollect that a court had been built for the equity side of the Exchequer; it wanted only a judge to sit there. There were already officers of the court; no new machinery was required, and the only question was, whether Mr. Baron Alderson should sit there as at present, or as a permanent judge in equity? He was not to be deterred from making this suggestion, because interested motives might be ascribed to him; for he would say, at the peril of a sneer from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that he was
408
always anxious to reform the law, and he would never sacrifice the interests of the public by refraining from the suggestion of any alteration which appeared to him to be practicable and expedient.
The hon. Member was interrupted by a motion that the House be counted, and only thirty-eight Members being present, the House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Municipal Corporations (Ireland); London City Police; Soap Duties Drawback; Indemnity.—Read a second time:—Turnpike Acts Continuance.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Ripon, from the Aborigines Protection Society, to suspend the removal of Indians from Upper Canada.—By the Earl of Roden, from Clergy of Bristol, against allowing Catholic Chaplains to Gaols; and from Stony Middleton, Clifton, and
370
All Saints (Derby), for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Duke of Rutland, from Stationers of Scarborough, against using Stamped Envelopes for collecting the Postage of Letters.

RIOTS AT BIRMINGHAM.
The Earl of Warwickwished to put a question or two to the noble Viscount respecting the accounts that had been published, respecting the proceedings at Birmingham, which were of so alarming a tendency. Should he be premature in introducing the subject, he should be happy, upon the slightest instructions from the noble Viscount, to delay bringing it forward; but, it appeared to him, that the importance of the accounts seemed to press for immediate attention. Standing in the situation of lord-lieutenant of the county, still he had not received one word of communication on the subject from the magistrates or any other authorities of the town, or even from the Home-office. Had it been so, he should have been very glad to have given immediate assistance and attention, for the purpose of securing the public peace. He wished to ask the noble Viscount, whether he could give any information as to the actual situation of the large town he had named, and whether there was a sufficient force of police down there, and whether there was also the military assistance on the spot that was required, to enable the authorities to preserve peace and order? It was a matter of the greatest surprise to him, if the public accounts that were given were correct, that so much mischief had been done, and that the mob had been allowed to proceed almost without interruption, after so much time had been given to the authorities of the place to make preparations, as they must have been aware of the state of excitement the population were in. He was unwilling to say more on this part of the subject at present, and therefore should abstain from alluding to it further. The people, however, who had carried on these Chartist outbreaks against the respectable people of the town were neither more nor less than a portion of the Political Union that had been established in that place for some years, and which Political Union, although declared by the Government to be illegal, had, nevertheless, been connived at and supported by them to the present time. The individuals who formerly directed it now found, that they could no longer direct or control the classes composing it. But having been sup posted by his late Majesty's Govern-

371
ment in all their previous conduct and proceedings, the people expected, with some degree of justice, the support of her Majesty's Government in their ulterior proceedings. He thought, that for a long time, these persons had been allowed to go a great deal too far, and he could not help expressing his surprise, that as the lord-lieutenant of the county, he had had no communication made to him by the magistrates on that subject. He should also be glad to know by whose advice it was, that so much apparent apathy existed last night, so that neither the police nor the soldiers were called upon to act for a considerable time after the riots prevailed. He was given to understand that the soldiers were only summoned at between ten and eleven o'clock at night. He should be very glad to hear what the state of Birmingham was at the time the Government received the last information. Although he very much questioned the policy of the proceedings which suffered this matter to go on so far, yet he should be very glad to give every support in his power to the magistrates of the place, and, if it were deemed necessary, he would willingly go down that night to Birmingham. Very nearly the same language which was used at the meetings of the Political Union had been used at the recent meetings there, and he regretted that some prompt step had not been taken before this to stop it. The magistrates also that had recently been appointed under the new corporation in that town were, many of them, taken out of the of the class connected with the Chartists, to fill those most responsible and respectable situations, and some of them were actually Political Unionists and Chartists. There could be no doubt, that they were placed, at the present time, in a very difficult situation with regard to preserving the peace of Birmingham, when buildings were burnt and houses were attacked with fire and sword, and he believed some of them had encountered personal danger. He hoped and trusted that her Majesty's Government would give that attention to the state of affairs there which the situation of the town required, and that all concerned would exert themselves to prevent a repetition of those outrages.
Viscount Melbourne: The noble Earl has asked, if I understand him right, whether I can give him any information as to the present state of the town of Birmingham, and as to the riots and distur-
372
bances that have taken place there. The accounts that have been received by her Majesty's Government are of a very general nature, but I very much fear, from what I have heard, that the accounts that have been published in the public papers on the subject are too true. I understand that accounts have been received, station that some houses have been burnt, and that some have been pillaged and plundered, and that the persons who did this mischief, and who committed this outrage, had been disperse, and that the town is now in a peaceable state. Hew the riots had been permitted to break out, is a question which I will not enter into at present; nor am I able to state whether the authorities of the town are to blame for allowing these things to go so far. The noble Earl has asked whether there were a sufficient police force, and also whether there were a sufficient military force at hand for the maintenance of the peace of the town? I apprehend, unquestionably, that there is an ample force both of police and military for this, to effect so desirable an object. The noble Earl has also stated that he, as lord-lieutenant of the county, has not been applied to on the present occasion—that no application has been made to him, either by the magistrates of Birmingham, or any of the authorities of the place. Why that course has not been taken, I am unable to state at present, or to give any explanation of it. The noble Earl then proceeded to state what he conceived to be the cause of the present outrage, and in referring to that, he stated that the Political Union had been connived at by the Government. I will not go farther at present than deny, that the Political Union, or its proceedings, had been connived at by the Government of his late Majesty, or by that of her present Majesty, or that anything has occurred to justify the noble Earl in saying, that the conduct of those persons has been so entirely supported by the Government, that people naturally entertained that belief and conviction, that the conduct of those who have disturbed the peace of the town, upon the occasion the noble Earl has referred to, was upheld and supported by the Government. I can only say with respect to the meetings that have been held in the town of Birmingham, and with respect to the language used at those meeting, and to the opinions that have been expressed at them,

373
that I have always, in the highest degree, disapproved of them. I have always felt, and have always given it as my opinion, that sooner or later it would lead to such results as have taken place; and, so far as I am concerned, instead of being surprised at them, my only surprise is that these results have not taken place much sooner, and upon a much more extensive scale. At the same time, I contend that her Majesty's Government has acted with perfect propriety and prudence in the course which they have pursued, and I think it would have been extremely injudicious if it had acted towards the Political Unions in any forcible manner. I believe the evils do not arise from the formation of these Political Unions, but that the evils arose from other meetings that had been held, and from language which other gentlemen had given themselves the licence to use at their meetings, and which they had been undisguisedly holding forth to the people, that it is by force and violence they are to carry their objects and their designs. I have always seen the danger of such proceedings at their meetings; but in the state of the law and the present state of the country, I have not seen, nor do I yet see, the means by which these proceedings can be put an end to, and I never knew a time or an occasion on which it would have been so extremely inexpedient to resort to stronger measures than have been taken. With respect to what the noble Lord has said relative to those persons having been supported in their proceedings by some expression of the Government, I can state with the utmost confidence, that they never had been supported in anything that was illegal, or that can be considered an infraction of the laws, or in anything which it was unbecoming a Government to support them in; and with respect to what was imprudent or dangerous, it was impossible for the Government to do more or take any stronger measures than expressing their disapprobation of the proceedings at the meetings.
The Duke of Wellington: in answer to what fell from my noble Friend near me, it appears from what fell from the noble Viscount, that there was no deficiency of any description—that there was no deficiency of either police or military, but it appears to me that there was a great deficiency of authority, a deficiency on the part of the magistrates to keep the peace;
374
and I should like to know who are responsible for these magistrates. There was a corporation formed in the town when engagements had, as I understand, been entered into, that no corporation should be formed in that town without further investigation, and without the consent of Parliament. This was directly contrary to the advice that was given at the close of the last Session, that a corporation should not be formed there without having the express consent of Parliament. But not only has the corporation been formed, but magistrates have been appointed—not by the Government, not by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, but by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in consequence of recommendations in a manner, in my opinion, contrary to the laws and constitution of the country, and, as I believe, contrary to the wishes and intentions of Parliament, who, when they passed the Corporations Bill, understood and recommended that the magistrates should be appointed in the usual manner by the Crown, and not recommended by any party or any body of men residing within the corporate district. What has been the consequence? After a riot—a most disgraceful riot had existed for more than a week—for, I believe, upwards of ten days—this large town, one of the largest and greatest manufacturing towns in the kingdom, containing property to an immense amount, and one of the most respectable populations in the country, has been treated like a town taken by storm—houses have been burnt down, others have been pillaged, and property to an immense amount has been plundered and destroyed. I have been in many towns taken by storm, but never have such outrages occurred in them as were committed in this town only last night, and under the eyes of magistrates appointed, not under the Great Seal, but by the Secretary of State for the Home Department. In their presence, property was taken out of many houses and burnt in the public streets, before the faces of the owners of it, notwithstanding the presence of the police and troops, with ample means of putting an end to these disgraceful disorders. This state of things ought not to have been allowed to go on under the eyes of the magistrates, and also under the eyes of troops, without anything being done to prevent these outrages. It would have been impossible

375
formerly, that these things could have gone on in this great country, once so peaceable and happy; but the peace, the honour, and the best interests of the country have been sacrificed by these disgraceful proceedings.
The Earl of Warwicksaid, that the noble Viscount denied that the Government had given any countenance to the Political Unions; but they appointed the very men who formed these unions to the office of magistrates; and they had even appointed delegate chartists of that town magistrates. He had written to the Secretary of State on this subject, and had remonstrated on the appointment of such persons as magistrates of the town. Such were the persons to whom the power of keeping the peace was delegated. On his applying to the Secretary of State, he was told that time would be taken for consideration; but these persons had at last been appointed. He could give, if it were necessary, a list of the names of the parties he had alluded to; but he did not wish to mention them unnecessarily, but he could assure the noble Viscount that six or eight of these new magistrates were political unionists, and there were three or four chartists now discharging the office of magistrates in that town. He had no wish to go on with this subject, but the noble Lord had almost compelled him to do so in self-defence. He could prove satisfactorily the statement that he had just made as to chartists being magistrates, from the account of the examination of one of that body that had been taken up at Birmingham. He alluded to the examination of Lovett, the chartist secretary, who was proved to have put out this statement as to the riots in that town:—
"That this Convention is of opinion that a wanton, flagrant, and unjust outrage has been made upon the people of Birmingham by a blood-thirsty and unconstitutional force from London, acting under the authority of men who, when out of office, sanctioned and took part in the meetings of the people; and now, when they share in the public plunder, seek to keep the public in social and political degradation; that the people of Birmingham are the best judges of their own right to meet in the Bull-ring, or elsewhere; have their own feelings to consult respecting the outrage given; and are the best judges of their own power and resources to obtain justice; that the summary and despotic arrest of Dr. Taylor, our respected colleague, affords another convincing proof of the absence of all justice
376
in England, and clearly shows that there is no security for life, liberty, or property, till the people have some control over the laws they are called upon to obey."
It went on a great deal further, but he would not trouble the House with more of it. As for the language used at the meetings of the political unions, from the position which he held in the county, he paid particular attention to it, and he had no hesitation in saying that it was as strong and violent as that used by the chartists. He did not find fault with many of those individuals himself, but he thought they were unfit men to be magistrates, and they ought not to have been selected for the appointment by her Majesty's Government, under the circumstances of the case.
Viscount Melbourne: the noble Duke said that there was a deficiency of activity and a want of zeal on the part of the magistrates, but he must excuse me for saying that that is begging the whole question. The noble Duke after making this complaint, said, that he could find no parallel case with it. Has the noble Duke forgotten the unfortunate affair at Nottingham, where a large building was burnt, while two troops of yeomanry were standing round, and within sight. No doubt they acted under mistake, as to the law, but they thought they could not act without the authority and under the orders of a magistrate. This was a mistaken view of the law, for it was out of the question that they should stand by, and see a felony committed before their faces. But these things arise suddenly, and I am informed that the police waited in this case also for the orders of the magistrates, who were not quite prepared, not expecting any tumult or disorder that night. I am not fully informed on the subject, and cannot explain the matter either clearly or satisfactorily. I can easily conceive and understand that a serious riot might arise without any fault attaching to the conduct of the magistrates. It might be attributable either to error or a mistake. I do not know whether that is so on the present occasion, but it has been so in former times. As at present informed, I know not what term to apply as being most appropriate to it, and I am not prepared to say, that it arose either from timidity, and still less from any indisposition on the part of the magistrates to do their duty, There can

377
be no doubt that the proceedings at Birmingham are very lamentable, but at the same time, I cannot help thinking that the noble Duke greatly exaggerated the matter, when he said that he found no parallel for the treatment of this town in any place which he had seen taken by storm. This was going a little too far, when it appears that only two houses have been burnt.
Lord Lyndhurst: The Globe newspaper of this evening states that thirty houses have been destroyed.
Viscount Melbourne: I have not seen the statement alluded to, but the noble and learned Lord will have an opportunity of addressing the House presently. There can be no doubt but that the circumstances that have occurred are sufficiently lamentable; but I should think that in a town taken by storm more houses and property would have been destroyed than was the case at Birmingham. But I repeat, the thing is sufficiently lamentable, without persons of the authority and station of the noble Duke indulging in violent exaggerations on the subject. Then, as to the magistracy—in appointing the magistrates every thing has been done with the utmost fairness. The persons appointed are persons of great respectability, who either reside in the town or near the town, and who have a fair share in the business of the town. Such, I am assured, has been the composition of the magistracy, and with respect to the other matters of complaint that some of these persons have been members of political unions, and have used violent language, my opinion on that subject is, that it ought not to be a disqualification to serve as a magistrate. The use of strong language should not operate, in my opinion, as a disqualification. This opinion I have always entertained; and I am afraid, if we were only to appoint those who have acted prudently, that we should be put to very great difficulty in finding magistrates, and, above all, if they are to be confined to persons of certain opinions. If I had to look in particular to the town of Birmingham for persons of sound discretion, for persons who had never committed errors, who have never used violent language, or have never broached dangerous or extravagant theories, I confess I should not know where to find them, or to whom to apply to find them for me.
The Duke of Wellington: I am rather
378
surprised that the noble Viscount should bring a charge against me of having indulged in exaggerated statements; but I am still more surprised that the noble Viscount, considering the situation he holds, should only have known the state of things in Birmingham by the public accounts which he has seen, and that he should not know anything about the matter, or whether the riots were owing to the absence of magistrates, to the absence of troops, or to the fault of the troops standing by, or to anything similar to that which happened at Nottingham some years ago. In short, the noble Viscount knows nothing at all about the matter; and I confess that I could not hear him make his statement without some expression of astonishment. This is not the way in which a country should be governed. I said that I had seen several towns taken by storm, and that I had never known one so treated as the accounts state that Birmingham was treated last night. The noble Viscount now says he knows little about it, but he believes that all that happened was, that two houses were burnt. But was the noble Viscount aware that a great many others were what is called gutted, and the property and furniture taken out and burnt in the street. This, my Lords, is an outrage which I never before knew to be committed in this country, nor to my knowledge, at any siege that I have been present at. It is really horrible to think that such scenes should occur in a town like this, and that other events of a very similar character should be taking place in some parts of the North of England, and that the Government should have taken no notice of them. They do not seem even to intend to do anything.
Viscount Melbourne.Why does the noble Duke say that. When did these things happen? The night before last! [A noble Lord—last night]—last night! How is it possible that the Government could have hitherto done anything in the matter. Why does the noble Duke say that nothing has been done? What right has he to suppose that no measure is intended by the Government? I say, my Lords, that during the time these disturbances and gatherings together at night have occurred in Birmingham, every step possible has been taken by the Government to prevent outrage and danger to life and property. What reason has

379
the noble Duke for imagining the Government will neglect their duty on the present occasion? My Lords, I say the Government have never neglected their duty with regard to the preservation of the peace of the country, and the noble Duke has no right to assume that we shall neglect our duty now.
The Duke of Wellington: What I said, my Lords, and what I now repeat is, that these riots have prevailed for the last ten days, and no steps have been taken to put them down effectually—to punish the magistrates, who have neglected their duty—or those who have taken part in the riots, although several of them are in Warwick gaol for it at the present moment. I repeat, nothing has been done.
Earl Fitzwilliamthought the noble Duke was going much too far when he asserted that nothing had been done, and when he called for the punishment of the magistrates. What right had the noble Duke to assume that they had not clone their duty? It was merely an assumption on the part of the noble Duke, and he (Earl Fitzwilliam) and their Lordships had as much right to assume the contrary. It appeared to him that the noble Duke, in his desire to make charges on this occasion, had lost sight of what was just to the parties. If they had been criminal, that they ought to be punished there could be no doubt; but it savoured somewhat of injustice towards the magistrates of Birmingham to say, that it was a charge against the Government that they had not punished the magistrates for that neglect of duty which the noble Duke at the present moment was incapable of substantiating against them. But let him recal the recollection of the noble Duke and the noble Lord the lord-lieutenant of Warwickshire to the fact, that this was not the first riot which had taken place in the town of Birmingham that had been attended with consequences quite as disastrous as those which had now taken place, which, on comparison with those to which he had alluded, were not worth mentioning. And let noble Lords consider under whose auspices and under what Government this had taken place. He would call to the recollection of the noble Lord, who must be better acquainted with the history of Warwickshire than he could possibly be, that of 1789 or 1790. The noble Lord did not like to have that recalled to his recollection, when the high
380
church mob destroyed the houses of Dr. Priestley and those who entertained opinions similar to those which Dr. Priestley held. If his noble Friend were to be blamed for what had now occurred, let the same test be applicable to the ministers of that day, and he should like to know if the noble Lord would try and condemn them on the same test. All he asked was, that noble Lords who were so anxious to seize this as a favourable opportunity for making charges, would recollect that similar occurrences had taken place at other times, and that if any charge was now made, a similar one ought to recoil on those who were in authority at that time. He trusted that justice would be done to all parties who had been guilty of this outrage, and if it could be proved that there had been any criminal negligence on the part of the magistrates, that these magistrates had connived at the outrages of the people, had wilfully and intentionally connived at them, then let them be tried and punished; but not at the present moment when nothing whatever was known of the real facts of the case.
The Marquess of Londonderrycould not help being struck with the degree of lightness with which the noble Viscount had treated this subject, and also with the nature of the answer he had given to what had been stated by the noble Duke. The noble Viscount also had surprised him by charging the noble Duke with being morose on this subject. [Viscount Melbourne: I never used the word "morose."] Yes, you did [Cries of "No, no."] Yes! and the noble Viscount did this at the very time when he admitted total ignorance of the details of these occurrences at Birmingham. These riots had been going on in Birmingham for days, and yet the noble Viscount could not tell in what state the town was at this moment. There was not a noble Lord in the House who was not equally as well informed upon that point as the noble Viscount. It really did seem to him to present a lamentable instance of ignorance and want of interest on the part of the noble Lord and the Government. But, after so much had been said about Birmingham, he would ask the noble Viscount, if he had any accounts from Newcastle and Sunderland? Had the noble Viscount any information of the number of pitmen that were now assembling in those places, as the Chartists were doing in Birmingham; and were any preparatory

381
measures being taken to prevent an outbreak of such conduct as had been shown at Birmingham? These things were not to be treated in the light way the noble Viscount would attempt to get over them. It might be very well for the noble Viscount to treat his statements of the atrocities that were perpetrated in Spain with lightness, and in the noble Viscount's usual good-natured way; but he might rest assured that such a mode of dealing with outrages like these, commenced in a large manufacturing town, would not do for the people of England.
Viscount Melbournedid not remember ever having treated any statement of the noble Marquess of the atrocities in Spain, or any other atrocities, with lightness. He had certainly had information from the towns which the noble Marquess had mentioned, that a great deal of alarm existed there; and, of course, measures would be taken to preserve the peace of those towns.
Lord Wharncliffecould not feel surprised at the want of authority on the part of a magistracy, such as those constituted by the Municipal Corporation Act. At the time that Act was pending, the noble Viscount and his Colleagues were warned of the consequences that must ensue—that the magistracy in such a corporation as was then proposed to be given to Birmingham, and other towns, would necessarily be elected on mere party considerations, and that from the nature of their position with regard to the populace of those places, they would not possess that amount of moral weight that was necessary to secure efficient magisterial authority in the event of any outbreak. He was surprised that the noble Viscount should suppose that the people of Birmingham, who had been all their lives used to agitation, should all at once calm down and obey the authority of the law. He need scarcely advert to the case of a Mr. Muntz, one of these Birmingham magistrates, who was engaged in agitating the people up to the very moment of his appointment. How was it to be expected that such a person could command the respect and obedience of the people as their magistrate? How could it be expected, that when he had been all along leading them on, they would all of a sudden turn round and obey him when it happened to be his duty to recommend a contrary course? It was his firm belief,
382
that the manner in which the magistrates had been appointed in all the towns that had received corporations, and the party course they had adopted, had very much increased, if they had not led to, all the disturbances that had taken place.
The Marquess of Lansdownedid not rise to offer any opinion as to what had occurred at Birmingham, because he was confident—and in that he begged wholly to differ from the noble Duke—that it was impossible for either the Government or the House, or any individual, to form a correct opinion as to what had passed at Birmingham, and that, if the Government were rash, or to use the expression of the noble Marquess "light" enough to form an opinion, and act upon it in the present state of the case, and upon what had already transpired, they would be in the highest degree criminal, and would make a most improper exercise of their public functions. Entertaining these sentiments, then, and, therefore, without entering at all into the question, he rose merely for the purpose of stating a few facts, which would prove to their Lordships how extremely improper it would have been for the Government to have announced any opinion, or to have acted upon any partial account of the circumstances. The last accounts received from Birmingham were dated half-past twelve last night; these were from the mayor of Birmingham; and at half-past two that morning from the superintendent of police. Both the mayor and superintendent of police stated, that it was impossible for them to bring the whole facts in that dispatch under the consideration of the Government, because they were at that time actively and unremittingly engaged in the preservation of the public peace. Were they or were they not right in thus devoting themselves to that object? By their exertions, the public peace had been subsequently preserved, and it was for them afterwards to make known the circumstances to the Government, and for the Government to act on those facts—duly weighing and considering them when fully, not partially, known—but it certainly was not the duty of Government to proceed to punish the magistrates, or any other of the parties concerned, merely upon imperfect accounts of the transactions received only ten hours after the events had occurred,
The Duke of Wellington: Notwithstanding what has just fallen from the

383
noble Marquess, I must repeat what I before said. It appears clear that her Majesty's Government knew that some disturbances had taken place at Birmingham; yet, when the noble Viscount was appealed to, he knew nothing at all of the matter. I read the accounts of all these matters in the newspapers, and I concluded the noble Viscount would have plenty of information on the subject. What also led me to suppose the Government would know all about the matter was, that it appears that troops and police were actually in the town while these outrages were occurring. As the noble Marquess has got up to correct me, I am obliged to him for his correction; but what I said was, that although there were troops in the place, a very gross outrage was committed; houses were burned and plundered; they were even gutted, and property was taken out and destroyed. Very likely the noble Marquess may have other authority; my authorities are the newspapers; and it seems clear that what I state is the fact—that the houses were gutted, the property brought out into the streets, and there burned. I say again this peaceable town, this rich manufacturing town, was worse treated than any town ever was treated when taken by storm. I say this from my own knowledge. I have received the correction of the noble Marquess, and I bow to it, but notwithstanding that correction I shall venture to draw another conclusion, and I hope this will be correct. It appears from the newspapers, for of course ministers know nothing, that the mayor and the police superintendent did not interfere with the troops and police until after these outrages had been committed—not until after the town had been burnt and plundered and the property destroyed. The conclusion I draw is, that the magistrates who acted in this way were highly culpable. The noble Earl called our attention to former outrages at Birmingham. Why, my Lords, if Birmingham is so liable to these misfortunes, it is another reason why her Majesty's Ministers, on the first intimation being received of these riots—and it seems they knew of there being disturbances ten days ago—should have taken the hint from that information and those disturbances, and have taken some steps to prevent outrage, and preserve the peace there. I have no hesitation in saying, that the former disturbances at Birmingham were
384
well deserving the attention of Government. There are means (such as issuing a special commission) of making known the sense of the Government in regard to those transactions. There might be an inquiry instituted into the conduct of the magistrates—the noble Marquess knew something of this manner of proceeding—at all events something ought to be done to mark the opinion of Government relative to this important subject. But it appears that we are all wrong—that nobody has any right to notice any of these things. It seems your Lordships must take care what you are about, lest you should fall under the lash of the noble Marquess; and if a town is burned and plundered, you must not mention anything about it, because the noble Marquess will attack you for being so unjust as to say wrong has been done. I fully acknowledge the justice of the correction I have received from the noble Marquess: all I hope is, that I may not have another for having made these observations.
The Marquess of Lansdownehad not denied the right of the noble Duke or of any other noble Lord to advert to the circumstances of this outrage, or to form an opinion on them; but what he did say was, with great submission to the noble Duke, that her Majesty's Government were not wrong in abstaining from forming, within seventeen hours of the occurrence, an opinion on the circumstances which had taken place in the town of Birmingham; and still more were they not wrong in abstaining from punishing individuals in the present imperfect state of information; and he still adhered to that opinion. The noble Duke stated that wrong had been done. Nothing was more easy than to ascertain that fact; but it was not quite easy within seventeen hours after the events happened to ascertain who were the doers of the wrong. He maintained that it was not a hasty opinion that was called for from Government, but an anxious and mature deliberation before they proceeded to act.
The Duke of Wellingtonwas sure the noble Marquess would not willingly or knowingly have misrepresented what he had said. He had not alluded to the magistrates, but to another set of men, to those who had been guilty of riots a few days ago. Might not those persons have been brought to trial, by means of a special commission, or by some other mode?
The Marquess of Lansdowne: There are a great number of persons taken up, and awaiting their trial.
Discussion dropped.

SOUTH AMERICA.
Viscount Strangfordsaid, having in the early part of the Session given notice of his intention to bring before the House the proceedings of the French in South America, it was then his intention to have adverted principally to what had occurred in Mexico, but having learned, from what had been stated in another place, that negotiations were still going on between Mexico and France, under the mediation of this country, he was anxious to avoid doing anything that might possibly disturb these negotiations, and he should, therefore, abstain at present from his proposed observations. Had he acted upon his original intention in regard to this subject, he should have taken the liberty of calling the attention of their Lordships to the conduct of France towards several of these South American States, and he should have left it his duty to lay before their Lordships an account of the general system she seemed to have pursued in regard to them—to call their attention to the factious eagerness with which the most trifling and frivolous circumstances were taken up and magnified and converted into questions of national importance—to the profit, territorial, financial, political, and commercial, which France uniformly contrived to extract from all such affairs—and the losses to which the subjects of the British Crown in that part of the world were subjected in consequence of them. On the present occasion, however, he would content himself with the presentation of a petition which had relation to one of the questions arising out of this subject, the protracted blockade of Buenos Ayres which had now lasted several months. The petition was signed by upwards of 300 of the first merchants, traders, and ship-owners in this great metropolis—an expression of public opinion so strong that he had yet to learn that her Majesty's Ministers possessed that favour and popularity in the City of London which would entitle them to disregard it. He would not trouble their Lordships with any details of the original dispute between France and Buenos Ayres; at the close of the last Session, he had had the honour of laying them before their Lordships, when he proved, that the course
386
pursued by file noble Viscount opposite was, in point of justice, equality, and international law, utterly groundless and unjustifiable. For the sake of argument he would admit, that France had the right to make the demands she had made on Buenos Ayres, and to enforce them to the extremity of war; but what he did not admit—on the contrary, would always most strenuously deny—was, that courses which, in themselves, and on their own ground, might be perfectly justifiable, might be pursued by unjustifiable means. That the proceedings of France towards Buenos Ayres had been unjustifiable he would now proceed to show. Buenos Ayres, in addition to the misfortune of having so powerful a state as France for its enemy, was unfortunately subjected also to the still worse evil of a civil war among a portion of her own subjects—a war which he had no hesitation in declaring had been fomented by the agency of the servants of France. This could be proved by documentary evidence—by a collection of state papers which he now held in his hand. Unlike other papers they had recently seen, these were all widely published by the authority of Government. They contained no transcripts of documents surreptitiously obtained and discreditably made public, nor would hey give rise to any discreditable disclosures as to who purloined them in the first instance, and by whose connivance they were afterwards published to the world; they were openly communicated by the Government, not put forth in an underhand manner by those who were "willing to wound and yet afraid to strike." It appeared that the French landed their troops on, and took possession of, an important island called Martin Garcia, an act which seemed to call forth the remonstrance of her Majesty's Government, for they called on the French minister for an explanation. The explanation was given, but it was not satisfactory; for from papers laid on the Table of the House of Commons on the 9th April last, it appeared that Lord Granville was instructed to make a further application to the French Government on the subject. This was Lord Granville's letter:—
"Paris, March 7, 1839.—I have received from Viscount Palmerston a copy of your Excellency's dispatch to Count Sebastiani, relative to the proceedings of the French naval forces, on the coast of Mexico and in the Rio

387
de la Plata; and I am instructed to request that your Excellency will be pleased to inform me, for the satisfaction of her Majesty's government, whether, in stating that the French government had no intention of retaining permanent possession of the island of Martin Garcia, nor of altering the state of possession as between the Argentine republic and that of Monte Video, I have correctly reported the substance of your Excellency's assurances."
To this letter Count Mole returned the following answer:—
"Paris, March 11, 1839.—I have received the letter which you did me the honour to address to me on the 7th of this month. Your Excellency invites me to inform you whether you have correctly understood the purport of the assurances which I have given to you, in writing to your court that the Government of the King had no intention of retaining permanent possession of the island of Martin Garcia nor of altering the state of possession as between the Argentine Republic and that of Monte Video. I have no hesitation in here confirming the correctness of this interpretation of my words.
Nothing could have been more satisfactory than the terms of this engagement; yet France had handed the island over to the revolted subjects of Buenos Ayres, as a reward for that rebellion which France had herself fomented by her agents. This fact he took as one part of the proof that France proceeded by unjustifiable means to accomplish a justifiable object. France had also established a system of blockade, as against Buenos Ayres, that was quite contrary to the laws of nations. They had extended their blockade over the whole sea territory of Buenos Ayres. So much for the principle of the blockade; now for the manner in which it was enforced. A blockade, it would be admitted on all hands, ought at least to be impartial, all flags and ships whatever ought to come under its operation. This, however, was not the kind of blockade maintained by France. And what were the ships ex-empted? Not the flag of England? Not the flag of France. Not the United States flag, nor that of Austria or Sardinia, or Spain, or any maritime power, but the flag of those very insurgents whom France had herself incited to revolt, and whom she invited to continue that revolt by offering this free passage to their ships so long as it lasted. He looked at this as another violation of the right of blockade—another result of the alliance between those insurgents and a country of whom it was unworthy. The conduct of the French had
388
been a violation of the treaty of Buenos Ayres, and of those boundaries secured by Great Britain herself at the last treaty of peace between Buenos Ayres and Brazil. Great inconvenience would be produced if France were allowed, at her will and pleasure, to parcel out the boundaries of these small states. There was as much a balance of power in South America as in Europe, and it was a very unsafe principle to allow of the interference of any European state in a way that might endanger that balance of power. There was another matter to which he would allude, which did not bear immediately on the subject, but which nevertheless bore a curious reference to it. This revolt had not only destroyed the resources of the government of Buenos Ayres, but had also affected its constitution, and had reduced it, in fact, to a positive nullity. The constitution of Buenos Ayres was based on the principle of delegation, but France had abscinded many of the states from the parent country. The effect of this must be obvious—that the power of obtaining consent to any measure was gone; and yet there was France clamorous for a treaty, saying it must have a treaty of commerce, having by its own means destroyed the only power by which it could be granted. France had maintained a most expensive naval force at Buenos Ayres for upwards of sixteen months; and it could not be denied, that the professed object in doing so was to recover the payment of a debt of between 6,000 l. and 7,000 l. sterling. The evils produced by this blockade, however, had not been confined to the mere effect produced by its continuance, for the French squadron had seized a number of small British vessels, or at least vessels under the British flag, and with British authorities on board. They had sent them to Monte Video to be sold; and the lawful governor refusing to allow the sale to proceed, what did they do? They put down this conscientious governor, and set up another in his place, who allowed the vessels and their cargoes to be disposed of utterly regardless of justice. He was sure, however, that the Government of this country would not permit such proceedings to pass unnoticed, but that they would procure some reparation to be given at some time or another. No inquiry, it was to be observed, had been made as to the vessels being lawful prizes; but the fact of their being brought in as prizes

389
was deemed sufficient, and adjudication and sale followed. It would be easy for him, if he were disposed to enter into details, to exhibit the effect of these proceedings on the trade of this country in Buenos Ayres; but he would not detain their Lordships by proceeding in that manner, but would content himself with stating the result of the observations made by Sir Woodbine Parish. He had been able to complete his remarks up to the year 1837, and they showed, that a most important means of trade had been opened to the British manufacturer by the emancipation of Spanish America, and that the value of British trade there exceeded that of the trade of any other foreign country; and that Spain had not taken so large a quantity of British manufactured goods as was sent there. Such was Sir Woodbine Parish's opinion sixteen months ago, but the same state of things no longer existed. There was no doubt that the country was still able to carry on trade as extensively as before with England; but he most sincerely regretted, that its position prevented the continuance of the former system. Sir W. Parish bad not thought this state of things altogether so prejudicial to our interests, or so unjustifiable, when he thought, that it was likely to be determined through the medium of the Government; but he lamented sincerely, that he had found from a letter which he received from Mr. Backhouse in the month of May last, that there was no hope to be entertained of a speedy termination of the blockade being obtained through their instrumentality. Mr. Backhouse having acknowledged the receipt of a letter from him, dated on the 22nd of May, went on to say, that he was directed by Viscount Palmerston to communicate to him, that her Majesty's Government had not been informed, that it was the intention of the French Government to raise the blockade at Buenos Ayres, or to adjust the differences existing between that country and France by accepting the mediation of Great Britain. Sir W. Parish conceived, however, that her Majesty's Government might at once terminate the blockade by the employment of a sufficient naval force. Their Lordships would recollect how matters were settled at Mexico. There the belligerent parties might have gone on waging war to the present time but for the appearance—the tardy appearance, he admitted, but the successful ap-
390
pearance—of Commodor Douglas with an efficient naval force. The petitioners upon this point expressed themselves most appriately. They said they could not but declare their conviction, that the commerce of Great Britain stood in need of a greater protection, by means of naval force, than it now received; and that when it was considered how large a portion of the revenues of Great Britain were derived from its commercial transactions, they took the liberty of impressing upon their Lordships the necessity of giving an adequate and complete protection wherever it might be required. The petition bore the signatures of the houses of Messrs. Baring and Co., and of Messrs. Rothschild and others, who were not persons of small importance, but who were merchants who were acquainted with the state of trade, and who knew well, that the exports of manufactured goods to Buenos Ayres was greater than those to any other port in South America, and that the loss occasioned by the proceedings of the last sixteen months was almost incalculable. He knew nothing of the state of the naval force of this country on this part of the South American station, except from the letters which he had received from merchants and others interested in this question. The accounts conveyed to him might be correct or not, but they all concurred in representing, that the utmost extent of our naval force there from the commencement of this transaction was three sloops of war, which had never yet been seen together at any one time. Sometimes two had been seen, and sometimes one, but sometimes none at all; and at the very time at which a bombardment was threatened at Buenos Ayres, the only ship of war which was there had suddenly departed on a voyage from which she could not return for six weeks, leaving the whole of the English population unprotected in case of the French carrying out their intention. He did not mean to blame the noble Earl, the First Lord of the Admiralty. He was sure, that that noble Earl felt the most anxious desire, that the naval system of this country should be placed on a proper and respectable footing commensurate with its interests; but what he did blame was the miserable and stingy system which existed, which crippled and rendered inefficient for its proper service that great arm of the national power, and he could never be persuaded, and he was

391
sure the petitioners who addrest their Lordships would never be persuaded, so long as the existing state of things continued, that the naval force of the country was adequate to meet the emergencies and the contingencies which might spring up. He desired economy as much as any man, and he was one of those who thought that it would have been better that the enormous expense which had been lavished on the idle expedition to North America, had been given to the maintenance of our power in South America. We should then have something to show for our money, instead of having only one of the least readable reports which had been ever laid upon the Table of that House, and which had been produced, after having been first submitted to the consideration of private Friends as a return. It was a fact, that this country had called those States into political existence, and having done so, something more was due than the scanty support which had been given.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the noble Viscount had not in any way exaggerated the importance of this subject, or the amount or extent of the trade affected by the blockade at Buenos Ayres, in the speech which he had just addressed to the House. He believed the trade to be one of the most beneficial trades of this country. It was a trade consisting principally of exports of manufactured goods, and was, therefore, most beneficial to the country. He did not mean to say, that great sufferings had not been experienced; but it appeared to him that the trade, which in the accounts formerly received had been described as in a very flourishing state, was by no means so entirely depressed and broken down as the noble Viscount had stated. It was exceedingly probable that the effects of a long-continued blockade would be to produce such an effect. Their Lordships must be aware of the disadvantages attending blockades to all neutral powers, which must of necessity suffer, and whose interests must be affected by the carrying on of hostilities; but they knew that the right to blockade was not only exercised in war, but was often exercised previously to a war; and further, that it was a right in the exercise of which this country had not been sparing. They knew that England had instituted blockades of greater extent and magnitude than any other country which possessed power or dominion over
392
the seas, and that the British government had enforced them with the strictest severity. If so, they might at least be prepared to accede to others the right which they had themselves exerted, and submit to those inconveniences which, when it suited their interest or their honour, they had exercised so determinedly and so decidedly. He thought, that in considering this subject, that general principle of fairness and equity must of necessity be adopted. He had no hesitation, however, in saying that these blockades were great misfortunes. They caused the greatest sufferings—they ought not to be instituted on light grounds, and when instituted, they should be put an end to as speedily as possible; but at the same time, it was impossible that England should constitute herself an arbiter, and say that this blockade was not just, and had no ground or foundation, and therefore should be abstained from. To do so would be to commit an act of hostility towards one party or the other, and by that means make herself a principal in an affair in which she ought not in such a character to appear. The noble Lord had abstained from going into the case of Mexico, and also from going into the grounds of the dispute which had taken place between France and Buenos Ayres. It was very well known that the conduct of the States had been on several occasions such as could not be justified. This country certainly had great reason to complain of their conduct, which, however, he did not mean to press upon the attention of the House upon this occasion; but it was to the highest degree to be desired that there never had been sufficient reason for instituting this blockade; and it was also to be equally sincerely hoped that it would terminate as soon as possible. He had never pretended to justify the conduct of France, to which the noble Viscount had adverted, in the course which it had taken in respect of the internal disputes of these States; but at the same time, the House was perfectly aware, that it would not be prudent to press this topic either. With respect to that particular matter adverted to in this petition, namely, the extension of the blockade to the greater part of the coast of South America, of course, if it were not enforced with a sufficient armament, by the law of nations, it must be acknowledged that it must cease. With respect to the island of Martin Garcia, a

393
promise had been held out by the French government, that it was not their intention to retain that island, and he had no doubt that it would be strictly and bona fide fulfilled; but be was not prepared to give any explanation of the course which they intended to pursue beyond what was conveyed in the distinct promise which had been given, that they were not going to continue to occupy it. It was unquestionably the sincere desire of the Government that the existing differences between France and Buenos Ayres should cease and be settled, and that this blockade and all disputes should also terminate. There was unquestionably at ordinary times a sufficient force in these seas for the protection of the commerce of this country. He did not think that it was a very prudent observation which had been made by the noble Viscount, when he stated what he conceived to be the moving cause of the settlement of the affairs of Mexico. Considering the effect and the impression which that remark might produce, he did not think it prudent that he should have made it, or that he should have put the case in the way he did. In reference to the naval force of the country, however, he need only say, that if there were any necessity for an alteration in its amount, of course there would be no slowness in making it; but whatever might have been the conduct of former governments in France, there was every reason to expect from the present Government that there was a very great anxiety to terminate and settle all unfortunate disputes with all nations in those seas, without much further delay, and he had the strongest hopes that the desired result would soon be accomplished.
Lord Ashburtonshould like to know if this kind of blockade had previously been resorted to where no state of war existed? He had no recollection of its having been resorted to unless the blockading party was in an actual state of war with the country. That was not the case in this instance. So little had France respected the right of blockade in other nations, that the merchants who were complaining in the petition stated, that in the case of actual war between the two states of Chili and Peru, in which there were considerable armies of those countries acting against each other, France had denied the right of Chili to blockade the ports of Peru, with which she was actually at war.
394
What he feared was, that for want of a friendly communication between two Governments, that stood in the friendly relation in which the Government of this country now fortunately stood with France, this principle of blockade had been used for mere commercial purpose, without any distinct declaration of war. This had been the case at Senegal, on the coast of Africa, and was the case with Mexico and Buenos Ayres. Such conduct required watching and checking on the part of this country. No man could be more persuaded how desirable it was, that these two great countries should be on terms of good understanding and peace with each other than he was, but he was quite sure, that that peace and good understanding would be best preserved by not allowing any encroachments. These were encroachments. These were encroachments which, if suffered to continue with impunity, would at last force England into some breach of the peace with France. The differences between France and these new States of America had generally appeared to him to arise from a strong assertion of power on the part of some consul or commander of a post on the part of France, who had assumed to himself a power which the Government at home was not aware of. The Government of Buenos Ayres would not permit Frenchmen to be concerned in the trade of the country, at which France had taken umbrage, this was an act which every independent country had a right to maintain. We did not permit foreigners to establish retail shops in the city of London independent of the Government. The question was, whether these states of America, because they were feeble and weak, were to be what was commonly called, "bullied and threatened" because they attempted to support their own rights. This blockade of Buenos Ayres was not punishing that country alone, but was punishing this country, and all the countries that traded with it. He would press on the noble viscount to ascertain if it was customary to resort to a blockade with a country where a war was not declared?
Lord Lyndhurst: We have done it.
Viscount Melbourne: France is at war with Mexico, but not with Buenos Ayres.
The Earl of Aberdeenwished to mention a fact with regard to this country having exercised such a state of blockade without being in a state of war. Such a blockade was exercised by this country

395
two or three years ago against the state of Colombia, and was instigated for the purpose, as the French allege, of negotiation. It was a very cogent means, for in three or four weeks we obtained what we wanted to negotiate for.
Viscount Melbournesaid, we had seized vessels on the high seas without a declaration of war, which was a much stronger act than a blockade.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, this was a blockade without any declaration of war.
Petition laid on the table.

BILLS OF EXCHANGE (SECOND BILL).
The Marquess of Lansdowne The Marquess of Lansdowne moved, that the House go into Committee on the Bills of Exchange (No. 2) Bill. This bill was altered from the bill which that House had sent down to the other House of Parliament; certainly, not altered with the intention, nor with the effect of extending the provisions of that act, but rather with a view of simplifying the provisions of that act.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, it had perhaps been his own fault, that he had not been in the House to exhibit to their Lordships the grounds on which this bill had been brought forward. He was not sure whether he was right in attributing it to the recent proceedings on the part of the Bank of England? [The Marquess of Lansdowne: It would have been proposed without that.] However, that proceeding on the part of the Bank of England was, to a certain degree, connected with this measure. The effect of it would be, to allow a higher rate of interest on bills of exchange than was now allowable by the usury laws. He was not sure, whether any one in that House ever called the attention of the House to that proceeding on the part of the Bank, either in relation to the effects which it was likely to produce, or to the causes which had led the Bank of England to take that course. It certainly was a matter of the very greatest importance to the commercial world, and they would give him leave to say, that he was not quite sure whether their Lordships were all of them entirely disinterested persons in this transaction; he really could not say that all their Lordships had their landed estates clear from debt. And, undoubtedly, though the effect of this bill did not relate to those debts which affected land, nevertheless, any law whatsoever
396
which had a tendency either to raise the interest of money, or to legalize a higher interest for money, had ultimately the tendency of raising the interest of money, even to their Lordships; therefore, they were not quite disinterested persons. That was not the view of the question on which he had ventured to say a word on this occasion; because, in his opinion, it would be far better, both to lender and borrower, that they should not be bound by any of those laws which regulated the interest of money. But he wanted to know whether there was any person in that House that represented the Bank of England, and who, on its part, could state what were the grounds (there were one or two persons who had attended very much to the subject) and what had been the causes which had led the Bank of England to take this step, and what was the object they had in view in this undertaking. He should be very glad to have some explanation afforded to their Lordships, because he was sure it was of great interest to the commercial world, and it was exceedingly desirable that they should come at the real cause which had led the Bank of England to adopt this course. He had his own opinion about it, but that opinion he should not state.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, the motive was supposed to have been to advance the rate of interest. He was as little able as the noble Earl to answer for what the Bank of England had done. He conceived the Bank to have been very much mistaken in its view of this subject. If it were desired to go into the question of the bill on the present occasion, he should have to trouble their Lordships with some alterations. His noble Friend, who had now charge of the bill, seemed to speak of it still as a bill to carry more effectually into operation the original bill, which had come down to that House for facilitating the negotiation of bills of exchange and promissory notes. But the bill was totally changed. The bill not only asserted that promissory notes should be exempt from the laws of usury, but that the laws of usury should be totally done away with for all contracts. He was not aware that a more sweeping expression could be used to cover every loan. If their Lordships had to decide on this bill, it would not be as originally; to afford facility for the negotiation of bills of exchange, but they would have to

397
decide whether they were prepared to enact, that the laws regulating the interest of money, should be totally done away with, which was the object of the bill. He would draw the attention of their Lordships to the manner in which the principle had gradually grown upon them. The original proposition was put into the Bank charter, and it was to provide that bills of exchange and promissory notes, not having more than three months to run, might be negociated, without reference to the usury laws. About two years ago it was stated, that a further extension of that principle was necessary—that bills of exchange were in circulation of a longer date than three months, and it was a great inconvenience, that bills coming from India should not be negotiable; and a bill was brought in to make these bills pass at any interest. That bill was thought quite a sufficient stretch of this principle. Afterwards, his noble Friend (Lord Lansdowne) had introduced an extension of the principle to stock securities; and afterwards, on the third reading of the bill, he had extended the principle to goods and merchandise. The bill went to the other House, and it was there found to be a total violation of the Pawnbrokers' Act, and that by it they were laying the poor open to extortion and usury. But not content with these advances, by the present bill they extended that principle to contracts of every description. Opinions had been held, that money, like everything else, should be freely traded in. He confessed that he had certainly come to the conclusion, when he considered the artificial state of society, and the complicated state of engagements which existed, and the dangers which might arise from extortion in the loan of money, that this was one of those cases in which the general principle of throwing open an article to competition did not apply. There was a necessity of protecting those who were not wise enough to protect themselves; or who, if wise, were too much led away by their passions to protect themselves; and that degree of protection which the Legislature had thought it right to throw around society, he saw no necessity of doing away with. The noble Lord had said, that these kind of improvident transactions bad always taken place, but he (Lord Ashburton) could assure him, that the extension of the usury laws which had taken place, had enormously increased these transactions, Hitherto, however,
398
there had been difficulty and delay in obtaining money; but with the facilities they were about to give, a young man in a gambling-house might find a money-lender at his elbow, with pen and ink, ready at once to lend him money, and which might in some cases, be productive of the worst consequences. It appeared that the Bank of England, having too much paper out, thought that this proceeding would be a convenient mode of getting it in, but they forgot that the country banks, having a claim upon them for advances at the rate of three per cent., would call in those claims, for the purpose of lending money at six per cent. There were many other methods which the Bank might have taken to reduce the general circulation, if that were desirable, without going the length of alarming the community, and producing also great and cruel inconvenience, by forcing upon the less important classes of traders that high rate of interest which they were now obliged to pay. He feared, that if the bill were passed in its present shape, confusion might be introduced into the transactions connected with bills of exchange, and a door opened to frauds of various kinds.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that the present bill would really introduce no material change beyond what had been already made by the last.
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, what he wanted to know was, what had been the moving causes of the late proceedings and operations on the part of the Bank of England, and why that body had thought it necessary to take steps in which it must have some views to its own interests, and which might most seriously affect the monetary interests of the country? It was impossible but that there should be some explanation to be given of this, although their Lordships had not yet heard one, any more than, as he believed, the other House of Parliament had, and it seemed desirable that they should be no longer kept in the dark.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, it was impossible for him, or his noble Friend near him, to give a satisfactory answer to the questions of the noble Earl, because the proceedings referred to had been taken by the Bank, solely with reference to its own interests. He might add, too, that the connexion between the Bank of England, and this bill, did not arise out of that transaction, but the former bill being

399
about to expire, it had become expedient to consider whether it should be renewed or not in this measure.
House in Committee, through which the bill passed.
The House resumed—bill reported.

PRISONS (SCOTLAND.)
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.
The Earl of Mansfieldobserved, that he had not objected to the second reading, neither should he object to going into Committee on the bill though he reserved to himself the right of dissenting from some of the details of the measure, and he hoped that some of them would undergo material alteration.
House in Committee.
On the clause respecting the constitution of the Board being proposed,
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved, that a proviso be added, to the effect that inspectors of prisons should not be directors of the board.
The Earl of Aberdeenobjected to the amendment, as the bill did not provide that inspectors should necessarily be directors of the board.
Amendment negatived, the clause agreed to.
House resumed.—Bill reported.