Sitting of 27 April 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Sewers.—Read a third time:—Banking Copartnerships.
Petitions presented. By Colonel Conolly, and Mr. Sergeant Jackson, from Donegal, and Limerick, for Lord Stanley's Irish Registration Bill.—By Mr. Tancred, Mr. Easthope, Mr. A. Yates, Mr. Muntz, and several others, from Lei-

1153
cestershire, Nottingham, Essex, Birmingham, and various other places, against Church Rates.—By Mr. O'Connor, from Roscommon, for the Parliamentary Voters (Ireland) Bill, and against the Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord Eliot, from Falmouth, against the Removal of the Packet Station.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Mr. H. Vincent, for Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot.—By Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Barneby, Mr. C. Hamilton, and others, from Worcestershire, Boorstall, Chartley, Bucks, and other places, for Church Extension.—By Sir R. Bateson, and Colonel Conolly, from Londonderry, and Donegal, against Patronage in the Church of Scotland.

WEST-INDIAN MAILS.
My. Freshfieldrose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for a "Select committee on the port of departure and arrival of the West-India mails, to whom shall be referred the reports of the committee appointed by the Lords of the Admiralty to inquire as to the comparative advantages afforded by different ports in the channel for the West-India mail service." Until a recent period no ports but Falmouth had been thought of for this service; but lately Southampton and other ports had been set up in competition. He advocated the claims of the port of Falmouth over that of Dartmouth, and hoped that Dartmouth would not be the port chosen for this service, and take it from Falmouth, in order to save about twenty-four minutes time. He was anxious, however, to have a committee of inquiry to determine as to the relative merits of the rival ports. All naval men were surprised that Dartmouth should be selected as a port of departure. In making his motion the hon. Gentleman stated, that all he sought was a full, fair, and impartial inquiry, and he would rest satisfied with a select committee appointed by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, provided it were composed of intelligent men.
Sir C. Lemonseconded the motion. There appeared to be a determination in the Board of Admiralty to abide by the decision of the commissioners, whatever that decision might be. It struck him that the only ground to come before the House was, that there was either something defective in the evidence, or that certain matters lay without the field of the inquiry of the commissioners, and that the Government had taken the matter into their own hands.
Mr. F. H. Berkeleyrose to put in his claim on behalf of Bristol, the advantages of which as a station for the West-India packets, if not superior to any other, which he did not contend it was, certainly en-
1154
titled it to a hearing. It was well known, that Bristol possessed the chief part of the West-India commerce, at least as compared with any other port; and, as had been proved in the instance of the Great Western, could start steam-packets equal to any port of the kingdom.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that long before the contract was entered into for the conveyance of the West-India mails complaints were made to the Government of the inconvenience of Falmouth as a port of departure, and memorials were sent in, praying that the preference might be given to Dartmouth. Of course, if this matter were thrown open to competition, every port would put in its claim to He selected as the best adapted to the purpose. The Government, however, had felt it to be their duty not to regard local interests, but the general good, and to endeavour to make the system as perfect as possible. They felt, however, that they had no power to control the parties who had entered into the contract as to the place of departure, except in so far as the public convenience was concerned. That was the reply which he had invariably given to all the applications which had been made to him upon the subject. For his own part, he did not care whether the packets went from Portsmouth, or Devonport, or Falmouth; and so he had told the hon. Gentlemen who represented the last two places. The question was, which was the most convenient port? which was the best place for the departure of the mails? The Government had kept that question always in view; and he must say, that if he had entertained any idea of jobbing, he should certainly have jobbed in favour of Portsmouth. In order to arrive at the most satisfactory arrangement, a commission was appointed to investigate the matter. It was felt that the persons composing that commission ought to be unconnected with the several ports under consideration; and amongst others Sir James Gordon, who had been engaged in the eastern survey, and Mr. Lawrence, the secretary to the Post-office, were nominated. When it was publicly known of whom the commission consisted, from no one quarter or person did he hear a single objection to the gentlemen appointed, or to the course which was to be pursued. That commission collected a large mass of evidence, amongst which were allegations in favour of all the different ports, but

1155
they thought it best to collect the opinions of all parties upon this subject. Dartmouth, however, was the port recommended. He had thought that this was a point which he ought not to decide upon himself, and therefore his noble Friend, Lord Melbourne, was good enough to enter into the inquiry with him, and the result was, that the recommendation of the commission was adopted. He must oppose the motion.
Sir Hussey Viviansaid, it was not his intention to occupy the attention of the House at any length, but painful as it must be to him to differ from the noble Lord, and his other right hon. Friend, from, in fact, the Government, of which he was a member, on a question affecting the vital interests of those he had the honour to represent, he should be unworthy of the honour the electors of East Cornwall had done him, if he hesitated, when not only an injury but an injustice was about to be inflicted on them, and when, out of the proposed measure, no public advantage would arise, for if there were a public good to follow from the removal of the packets from the port of Falmouth, however individual or private interests might be affected, he would undertake to say, there was not a man in the county of Cornwall but would cheerfully bear it. He said he should be ashamed of himself if he hesitated and allowed any consideration for one instant, to interfere with the honest and faithful discharge of his duty to his constituents. When he applied the term injustice to the proposed measure, he must beg his Friends around him to understand, that he did not mean to attribute intentional injustice, either to the Government, or to the Commissioners—in respect to the Government he had no complaint to make. His opinion was, that they could not act otherwise than as they had done. A great change was to be carried out as to the manner in which the foreign mails were to be conveyed; it involved the question, whether some other port might not, with advantage, be substituted for that of Falmouth? The question had been raised by the contractors for the carriage of the mails. The Government appointed commissioners to examine and report their opinion. That opinion was in favour of Dartmouth, and the Government, very properly, were preparing to carry into effect measures formed on that opinion, believing it to
1156
have been formed after full consideration, and on just grounds, and he must say, that they had good reason for so doing. The commissioners, as may be seen by the first letter, amongst the voluminous papers which had been printed having, on the report being again, together with the representation of the different parties who objected to it, referred to them, adhered to their opinion. Let those who differed from the commissioners, those who thought that there should be some decided public benefit shewn, as certain of coming, from the removal of the packets, before they were removed from a port from which they had been despatched for nearly 200 years, and thousands of persons who were now dependant on the packet establishment for their daily bread, exposed to poverty and distress, let them assert that the commissioners were in error, and pray for further inquiry, before their recommendation was adopted. In fact there was an error, and we proposed to show it. And it was on this ground that he, for one, appealed to the House, and asked for a Committee: the commissioners had made their decision rest on a question of time. It was impossible to read their report, and not see this; it was then as to this question of a saving of time that he was at issue with them. He would not now trouble the House by going into the comparative merits of this or that port. He might, if he was disposed to take up the time of the House, say much on this part of the subject, but indeed it was not necessary that he should do so, so much having been already said, and so well, by the hon. Member for Falmouth, and his hon. Friend, the Member for West Cornwall. He would, therefore, refer to the question of time alone, and if he could show the House, as in a very few words, he hoped to be able to do, that the commissioners were mistaken in their calculation, he claimed to have established a case for further enquiry. The commissioners said that there was a saving of two hours by the embarkation of the mail from Dartmouth—from this, however, by their own admission in the first letter to which he had already referred, a deduction was to be made in consequence of their error in stating the distance from Exeter to Falmouth at 112 miles instead of 98. And here he could not help observing, that this admission was not made in the manner that he should have expected it would have been made. The Commissioners spake

1157
of another "available road"—available road indeed, from this expression, it really might have been supposed that they spoke of an available road; that it was some small bad road, over which a person might possibly travel on horseback—whereas it was the high road over which the mail coach had regularly passed since its first establishment. However the commissioners had admitted their error, and this at once abstracted an hour and a half from their saving of two hours, and now then he would further, on the authority of a letter he held in his hand from as good a seaman as ever went to sea (he would mention his name, it was Capt. Liddell, late of the Wellington East-Indiaman, an officer holding a commission as a lieutenant in the navy, and who, for many years past, had been engaged, as he had stated), he would at once, on his authority, demolish the remainder of the saving of time, and shew that so far from there being n saving of two hours by despatching the mails from Dartmouth, there was actually a loss of one hour, Capt. Liddel said,
"A direct course from Jamaica to the Start passes more than thirty miles to the north of the commissioners' "imaginary berth," and it is evident to every practical man, that to escape the north-east trade, a steamer would invariably take a more northerly route. But, assuredly, the natural question is, "What difference in distance is there between the West-Indies and Falmouth, and the West-Indies and Dartmouth?" Answer, fifty-six nautical, or sixty-five statute miles, in lieu of the forty-seven given by the commissioners ! It is, therefore, as demonstrable as any problem in Euclid, that instead of two hours being gained by going to Dartmouth, this strange error, added to the unaccountable mistake of one hour and forty-eight minutes in the mail-coach distance, leaves an actual balance of one hour in favour of Falmouth."
If, then, Capt. Liddel was right, and there could not be the least doubt that he was right, surely a report in which there were such palpable errors, it would be the height of injustice to carry into effect a change so seriously, so grievously injurious to the interests of Falmouth, and to the in. habitants of the county of Cornwall, and one, moreover, from which the interests of the public in general, instead of deriving a benefit, must be exposed to inconvenience. It was on these grounds then that he had taken the part he had done on this question. It was on the justice of the cause, and on the justice of the House, that
1158
he relied; when, in common with the other representatives for the county of Cornwall, he asked that further enquiry might be gone into before a Committee of this House. Before he sat down, he must, in reply to those who said, that a committee of the House of Commons was not the body before whom an enquiry of this sort should be made, observe, that all he, and those with whom he acted, required was, a full, fair, and impartial investigation. Whether it was made before a Committee of the House of Commons, or any other impartial and competent tribunal, it mattered not; at the same time he must say, he saw no reason whatever why a number of intelligent Gentlemen, composing a committee of the House of Commons, should not have before them the evidence of naval officers, and others qualified to offer their opinions on the subject, and be thus enabled to come to a decision on the subject.
Lord Ingestriewas in favour of inquiry, and thought the attention of the committee should be directed to the claims of Bristol, and the southern and western parts of Ireland.
Mr. Irvingsaid, it had been distinctly understood by the company, at the time when the contract was made, that they should have the choice of the port from, which the packet should start, and if that had not been so he could assure the House that the contract would not have been signed. He looked upon Southampton as the most convenient port for embarking both passengers and letters, and hoped that Government would adopt it for the latter. The letters would arrive more speedily if brought by the packets to Southampton, than if landed at Falmouth, and then conveyed to town.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he could not concur in the vote of the hon. Gentleman, though he did in his reasoning. The hon. Gentleman confined the wording his motion to the channel harbours. [Mr. Freshfield: I beg your pardon.] If the hon. Gentleman would include the Irish harbours in his inquiry, he should vote for the motion. There were some of the finest harbours in the world on the southwestern coast of Ireland, fitted, above all others, for South American and West-India packet stations. He might mention many of the Irish harbours, as Cork, Berehaven, and Valentia, the most western point in Europe. By a proper system of

1159
rail-roads, the distance would be made as nothing from thence to Dublin and London. For nine months in the year a south west wind blew up the channel. Even before steam navigation was in existence, he had known the voyage from Halifax to Valentia to be made in eight or nine days in heavy gales from the west certainly. At present, with the aid of steam, the passage between Halifax and Valentia need never occupy more than nine days. The claims of Ireland should be considered.
Lord Eliotbeing connected with the county of Cornwall, hoped the House would listen to the few words he had to say in reference loan observation that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of an additional sum of money being expended in consequence of Falmouth being a packet station. He saw by the report, that the opinion of the committee, of which the bon. Gentleman was chairman, was, that Dartmouth was a most unfit place for a station, and that Plymouth or Falmouth would be preferable to it. He considered that the commission had acted with fairness, but while he would not impugn their competency, he must say, that even on their own showing it was evident they had been led into error, and that their decision had been arrived at hastily. He would refer in proof of this to a place well known to naval men by the name of St. Just's pool, which was an admirable harbour, and by the adoption of which a saving of several miles would be effected. It being evident, then, that sufficient information had not been obtained, the House should be cautious how it took away from Falmouth an advantage which it had enjoyed for a period of 105 years, in order to effect an alleged saving of a few minutes. From what occurred so often with respect to the large steamers, and the difficulties they experienced, he considered mail-coach conveyance, where practicable, was preferable to even the first-class steam-packets.
Mr. Humegave great credit to the Government for the manner in which they had acted upon this subject. If further inquiry were necessary he would prefer a practical commission on the spot to a committee of that House. He concurred in the wishes of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dublin; but in conse-
1160
quence of the terms of the West India mail contract that could not take place for the present, or for ten years to come.
Viscount Duncanadvocated the plan of Southampton to be the port of departure. He had no doubt that the commissioners had acted according to the best of their judgment, but he owned it appeared to him to be a most inconvenient arrangement that the packets having sailed from Southampton, should be obliged to call at Dartmouth for the mail-bags. He would suggest that the bags should be put on board at Southampton, between which place and London the communication was now as direct and as rapid as the utmost facilities of railway transit could render it.
Colonel Sealeconsidered this not to be a mere local, but a national question. He should not object to put Dartmouth in comparison in point of fitness for the purpose of which it was recommended with any port in the country. The hon. and gallant Member, amidst cries of "Question," proceeded to argue on the superiority of Dartmouth harbour, which, though narrow in the extreme, was admirably safe and convenient, vessels of 2,000 tons having easy access thereto. He read a letter from lieutenant Engledue, of the Great Liverpool steam-ship, showing that Falmouth, on the contrary, was very deficient in depth of water, and that the pilots at the latter place had refused to take the Great Liverpool in, on the ground that there was not sufficient water. The Peninsular packets were unable to take their mails at Falmouth, but were obliged to keep a mile and a half off. The hon. Member read extracts from another letter addressed to himself, from a gentleman selected to give information before the committee, who stated, that he had showed the superiority of Falmouth over Plymouth and Southampton, but said not a word about Dartmouth, as that was unquestionably the best of the whole. When the lines of railroad were completed, Dartmouth would be much nearer than Falmouth. The hon. and gallant Member after apologising for departing from the question before the House, sat down amidst cries of "Divide."
The House divided; Ayes 54; Noes 50; Majority 4.

List of the AYES.

Antrobus, E.

Bailey, J. jun.

Archbold, R.

Basset, J.

1161

Berkeley, hon. H.

Muntz, G. F

Berkeley, hon. G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Bewes, T.

O'Connell, D.

Blackburne, I.

Palmer, C. F.

Bolling, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Bridgeman, H.

Praed, W. T.

Broadley, H.

Protheroe, E.

Brooke, Sir A.

Pryme, G.

Buller, C.

Rolleston, L.

Collier, J.

Rundle, J.

Craig, W. G.

Salwey, Colonel

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Duncan, Viscount

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Eliot, Lord

Stuart, Lord J.

Greig, D.

Trotter, J.

Grimsdith, T.

Turner, E.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Vivian, Major C.

Hawkins, J. H.

Vivian, J. H.

Heneage, G. W.

Vivian, J. E.

Hodgson, R.

Vivian, rt hn. Sir R. H.

Hutchins, E. J.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Ingestre, Viscount

Wodehouse, E.

Irving, J.

Wood, B.

Litton, E.

Lowther, J. H.

TELLERS.

Miles, P. W. S.

Freshfield, J. W.

Morris, D.

Lemon, Sir C.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Langdale, hon. C.

Adam, Admiral

Lister, E. C.

Baldwin, C. B.

Marsland, H.

Baring rt. hn. F. T.

Muskett, G. A.

Barnard, E. G.

Pease, J.

Blake, W. J.

Philips, M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Pigot, rt. hon. D.

Brodie, W. B.

Power, J.

Buck, L. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Bulwer, Sir L.

Seymour, Lord

Busfeild, W.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Dalmeny, Lord

Strickland, Sir G.

Divett, E.

Strutt, E.

Ellis, W.

Style, Sir C.

Ewart, W.

Thornely, T.

Gordon, R.

Warburton, H.

Greene, T.

White, A.

Harcourt, G. G.

Wilde, Sir T.

Heathcoat, J.

Williams, W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, Sir M.

Hodges, T. L.

Wood, G. W.

Howard, P. H.

Wyse, T.

Hume, J.

Yates, J. A.

Humphery, J.

TELLERS.

Hutton, R.

Parker, J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

O'Ferrall, M.

Committee to be nominated.
Sir Matthew Woodpresented a petition from the nobility, gentry, bankers, merchants, and other inhabitants of the metropolis and its environs, praying the House will adopt some means for opening Waterloo, Southwark, and Vauxhall bridges, free of tolls.—Laid on the Table.

NEW COURTS OF LAW.
The Solicitor-Generalrose for the purpose of submitting a motion, founded upon a petition which had been presented to the House at an early period of the Session, praying for au alteration of the site of the courts of law. The object of the motion, with which he should conclude was, to appoint a select committee, for the purpose of considering the expediency of removing the courts of justice from their present site to the neighbourhood of the inns of court. He knew no set of gentlemen in the kingdom less accustomed to associate together for the purpose of attaining any object than the solicitors. For many years they had submitted to great inconvenience, arising out of the present state of things, and their dislike of change induced them to forbear calling for an alteration, which public convenience and justice long since required; and nothing but a sense of the overpowering inconvenience to which they were now subjected could at last have caused them to petition the House on the subject. It could not be denied, that the attorneys of London were a class of persons the best informed, and the most likely lo form a correct opinion on the subject that could be found, for their duties rendered their attendance at the courts of justice constantly necessary. They must be aware of the inconvenience or want of accommodation they experienced, and how far the situation of the courts was calculated to afford facilities for removing the present impediments to the progress of the business of their clients. He had heard it said, that the solicitors called for an alteration for their own convenience; undoubtedly that was the case, but it should be recollected, that the convenience of the solicitors involved the advantage of the suitors. The petitioners truly represented that the present site of the courts of law was at a great distance from what they called the legal quarter of the town—that the great mass of professional men were engaged in the neighbourhood of the inns of court—that many barristers practised in all the courts, and that their chambers were in the inns of court—that constant communications were going on between solicitors and barristers, and that, therefore, from the present situation of the courts of law—many of them being separated from each other, whilst it was necessary for the bar and the solicitors to attend to all of them—attorneys were subjected to great in-

1163
convenience, and the interests of their clients to considerable prejudice. When his attention was first directed to the subject, he had an impression adverse to the change suggested by the solicitors; but he must confess, that the more he had considered the subject, and the more he had attended to the facts brought under his notice, the more strongly was he induced to entertain the opinion that the reasons which were urged against the solicitors' proposition only required to be stated at large, in order that their futility might be apparent. It could not be denied, that if the site of the courts were to be now, for the first time, chosen, no one would dream of placing them at the remote quarter of the town at which they stood—a mile and a half distant from what might be called the legal quarter. In ancient times the courts of law used to accompany the monarch, and the present site of the courts was selected on account of its proximity to the palace of the Sovereign. At that remote period little inconvenience would result from the situation selected, because the pleadings were oral; now they were prepared for them in chambers in the Inns of Court. Formerly, likewise, almost all suits were nearly alike—the matter in dispute, generally, being connected with land; now, however, the great mass of causes were of a totally different character. A complete revolution had taken place in the courts of law and equity; and yet the old accommodation had been permitted to remain. It was extraordinary, that the present courts were constructed with the knowledge that they would be inefficient. Sir J. Soane prepared two plans, and the one upon which the courts were built was preferred by the Government, because it was cheaper to execute. The architect was afraid that his reputation would suffer in consequence, and actually petitioned the House not to allow the plan to be carried into effect. Since they were built, it had been necessary to find accommodation for the Courts of Review and Bankruptcy, and the former was installed in what had been used for a bed room; whilst the latter held its sittings in a lumber room, from which the lumber was removed to the House of Commons, and was the cause of the conflagration which destroyed the Houses of Parliament. In addition to the petition to which he had already referred, another had been presented from
1164
the most respectable merchants and bankers in the metropolis, complaining of the great inconvenience to which they were subjected by being compelled to attend upon trials at Westminster. In fact, it was not pretended, that the present she of the courts was advantageous in any respect, except from its proximity to the judicial council, the House of Lords, and the committees of the House of Commons; but the number of persons who were benefitted in that respect was perfectly insignificant compared with the great mass who were subjected to inconvenience from the great distance of the courts from the legal quarter of the town. The removal of the courts from Westminster had been objected to on the ground of old associations. The courts, it was said, were mixed up with many old associations connected with Westminster-hall; and their contiguity to the Houses of Parliament, had tended to encourage the idea, that they were, in some degree, connected with them. Now, he must say, that the attorneys were as likely to pay proper deference to those feelings as other persons. Taking them as a body, the attornies were generally Conservative; they respected prescription, and no class of men were more disposed to cling to old forms and habits; yet they would not permit an indulgence in those feelings to interfere with the due administration of justice. The attorneys had submitted a plan to Mr. Barry for the erection of new courts, and it was found that the centre of Lincoln's-inn-fields would afford every facility for that purpose. A splendid building could be erected in that space, which would afford, in addition to all the courts, a place for the preservation of the records, rooms for counsel, for witnesses, and for consultation on the ground-floor, so that the bar would never have occasion to leave the building in passing from one court to another; and, on another floor, would be a room for the Masters in Chancery, &c. There would remain an area of 100 yards around the building to be planted with shrubs and trees. It was proposed that the expense of executing this work should be defrayed from the suitors' fund of the Court of Chancery, and from the fee fund of the common law courts, of which a surplus of 20,000 l. was annually paid into the consolidated fund. Thus the work would be executed without any addition to the public burdens. The

1165
hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving for the appointment of a committee to consider the expediency of erecting a building in the neighbourhood of the inns of courts for the sittings of the courts of law and equity, in lien of the present courts adjoining to Westminsterhall, with a view to the more speedy, convenient, and effectual administration of justice.
Mr. Humewas glad to perceive, that common sense had at last found its way among the lawyers. He expressed his entire approval of the project detailed by the Solicitor-general, and had himself proposed precisely the same thing in February 1836, but could then obtain no attention.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. R. GordonCOMPENSATION FOR SLAVES.Mr. R. Gordon moved for leave to bring in a bill to make further provision for facilitating and completing the distribution and payment of compensation for claims upon the abolition of slavery. The hon. Member said, that the commission appointed to decide upon these claims had discharged their duty very efficiently. They had decided upon 44,000 cases, of which 4,000 were litigated, and there had been only six appeals from their decisions, and in one case only had their decision been reversed. The commission had cost the country very little, and the lawyers had had nothing to do with it.
Motion agreed to. Bill brought in and read a first time.

IMPROVEMENTS OF THE METROPOLIS.
Mr. Alderman Woodpresented a petition signed by 42,000 persons, praying, that Waterloo, Vauxhall, and Southwark bridges might be thrown open to the public. The worthy alderman then moved for the appointment of a Select Commit tee, to take into consideration the several plans for the improvement of the metropolis, concerning which reports were made in this House in the years 1836, 1338, 1839, and 1840, together with any other plans for the same object which they may deem worthy of consideration; and also the petitions presented to this House for the purchase of the interests of the proprietors of Waterloo, Southwark and Vauxhall bridges, in order to their being immediately opened to the use of the public free from toil; and to report their
1166
opinion as to the expediency of adopting any of the said improvements, and also, as to the best means of carrying the same into effect. He stated, that it was in contemplation to form a new street from Southwark bridge to the Bank.
Motion agreed to.—Adjourned,

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Salisbury, from Merchants and Traders in Surrey, for the Abolition of the Tolls on the Metropolitan Bridges.

THE EARL OF ROSSE—CATHOLIC PRIESTS.
The Marquess of Westmeathsaid, that seeing the noble Marquess, the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, he wished to ask him a question. He had read in the usual channels of information a letter, purporting to be written by the noble Marquess to the noble Earl the Lord Lieutenant of the King's County in Ireland. Though that letter was not before their Lordships, it would really be affectation on his part to presume that it was not a genuine letter. But there were one or two expressions in it which he would not presume to be genuine until he beard them confirmed by the noble Mar-
1138
quess himself. The principal expression to which he alluded was treating a Roman Catholic priest, who was a party to the transaction to which the correspondence related, as a "Catholic rector." Now, the use of designations towards Catholic priests similar to those in the Established Church had been prohibited by the Catholic Relief Bill, He, therefore, was perfectly astonished, that the Protestant Minister of a really Protestant Sovereign should make use of such an expression in a letter written to a public officer. The question which he wished to ask the noble Marquess was, whether he had made use of the expression to which he had referred?
The Marquess of Normanbyreplied, that he had received a long letter from the Earl of Rosse, to which he had returned an answer. As for any expressions in them, as far as his own recollection served him, he thought he had used the term 'Catholic priest' when he referred to the gentleman in question; if, however, he had used the expression Catholic rector, it was an oversight of the moment, for if he had reflected, he should not have used it.

MR. BIDDULPH.
The Marquess of Normanbywished to avail himself of that opportunity to call the attention of the House to a statement made by a noble Earl a few nights ago, respecting the trial of certain persons for an attempt to assassinate Mr. Biddulph. There were one or two expressions referred to by the noble Earl, in reference to a letter which the noble Earl had read to the House from Mr. Biddulph, asserting, that Mr. Biddulph had not been consulted as to the panel of the jury, notwithstanding he had stated, on the authority of the Solicitor-general for Ireland, that Mr. Biddulph had approved of the jury list, and had not denied, that any persons should be challenged. The next day he had written to the Under-secretary for Ireland, to apply to the Solicitor-general, and the other counsel engaged in the prosecution, and to request them instantly to inform him as to the circumstances of the case, and more especially to call their attention to the letter of Mr. Biddulph. He had received answers to his letters from all the counsel, but one, engaged in this prosecution, and that one was absent from Dublin. He felt bound to read all these letters to their Lordships, in answer to the statement made in the letter of Mr. Bid-

1139
dulph. All these gentlemen coincided as to their conviction, that at the time of the trial, Mr. Biddulph was perfectly satisfied with the constitution of the jury; and one of these letters stated, that that gentleman had declared, that he would rather not have two of the persons on the jury whom he saw in court, and when he was asked the reason, he said, that they were strong politicians, but he had no doubt that they would find a verdict of guilty, if the evidence was clear. The noble Earl then proceeded to read the following letters. The first was from the Solicitor-general:—
"25th April, 1841.
"My Lord—I take the liberty of troubling your Lordship with a few lines on the subject of the late trial at Tullamore.
"I saw last night in the Report of the proceedings of the House of Lords, a statement, by the Earl of Charleville, of the contents of a letter, received by his Lordship from Mr. Biddulph. The precise language of that letter was not mentioned in the Report I saw, but it substantially was a denial of the correctness of my representations to your Lordship. If the matter rested between Mr. Biddulph and myself, I should, in consequence of that denial, feel bound to admit, that I had misunderstood what he had stated, though my own recollections on the subject are as positive as they could be. It is possible that one person may have fallen into a misconception, but it is not easy to suppose that many can have done so. When I had the honour of writing to your Lordship on a former occasion, I stated not only the result of my own recollection of what had occurred, but also the result of what the other counsel recollected on the subject.
"On that occasion I stated, that Mr. Clarke and Mr. Corballis were the only counsel in town. I take the liberty of enclosing to your Lordship, letters from each of those gentlemen.
"Mr. Berwick the other counsel for the Crown, on the trial, was not in town when I last wrote, but I have this morning requested him to state to me his recollections on the subject, and I take the liberty of enclosing his letter also.
"Mr. Berwick was the only Queen's counsel who was on the circuit at that time; he and Mr. Clarke are the personal friends of Mr. Biddulph, and what Mr. Berwick states did not occur in my hearing.
"I take the liberty of enclosing letters from Mr. Geale, and Mr. Seed, his principal assistant, as to their recollection of what occurred.
"On referring to the letter, which I took the liberty of addressing to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, and comparing the statements in it with those contained in the document I send, I trust your Lordship will be of opinion, that if I have misconceived the state-
1140
ments of Mr. Biddulph, five other gentlemen are guilty of a similar misconception.
"I have only to beg of your Lordship to do me the kindness of reading to the House of Lords my former letter, and those of the gentlemen herewith sent, and also to state, that I very respectfully court the fullest inquiry as to the conduct of the trial at Tullamore, and of my report of the facts that occurred there.
"I have the honour to be &c.
"RICHARD MOORE."
"The Marquess of Normanby."
24th April, 1841.
"Dear Solicitor-General,—In answer to your inquiry as to my recollection of the circumstances which occurred at Tullamore with relation to and at the time of striking the jury to try the prisoners in the case of Mr. Biddulph's prosecution, the following is as nearly as possible what my recollection serves me in stating to have taken place.
"Having, as you may recollect, on the day preceding the trial, arranged to indict the prisoners on the capital charge, and being most anxious, in consequence of the right of challenge to which the prisoners were entitled, that there should be as full an attendance as possible of jurors, so that there should be no possible objection to the formation of the jury, and Mr. Biddulph having, in communication with him, stated, that if there were a good attendance of the jurors on the grand panel, there would be an abundant number of excellent jurors, we took the precaution on the day before the trial, by application to the Chief Justice in open court, to have public notice given to and through the sub-sheriff, that the grand panel would be called over on the next morning on heavy fines, and that no fine once imposed should be taken off without very sufficient excuse shown to the court. The sub-sheriff was also, at your request, in open court, directed to circulate as widely as he could within the course of that day such intimation of the judge to any of the jurors who did not then appear to be in attendance.
"The following day, before the panel was called over, I requested of Mr. Biddulph to attend in court to assist with his local knowledge, to communicate his opinion as to the general attendance of jurors, and also any objection which might be fairly made to any individual juror. I also took care to see, that the gentlemen who belonged to the Crown-office were in attendance. Mr. Biddulph was, I think, beside me during the whole time the grand panel was calling over, and heard the names who answered. When the calling of the panel was completed, I begged of him to tell me what he thought of the attendance, informing him that the prisoners had a right to challenge forty peremptorily, and stating, that if from the attendance of jurors he apprehended, that objectionable jurors would be placed on the jury, the Crown had the power

1141
of putting but one on trial, which would re-duct the number of challenges for the prisoner to twenty. He told me there was a most abundant and respectable attendance, and that sixty at least might be struck off, and there would still remain an excellent jury. I recollect then saying to him, to bear in mind that his opinion was to be formed upon the number of names of those who had answered, and not from the names that had been called merely: and I asked him what he thought of those who had so answered and appeared: He said, that we need not be in the least afraid of putting both prisoners on trial, for that if sixty of those who first answered were struck off, there would be still sufficient to form an excellent jury. The sheriff then signed the panel. The attendances were upwards of 120. The clerk of the Crown then proceeded to call the jury. I then begged of Mr. Biddulph, and I think also of Mr. Brown, the stipendiary magistrate, to suggest to the Crown solicitor, as each juror was called to be sworn, any objection which they knew to such juror. Mr. Biddulph, as far as I can recollect, went and took his place under Mr. Geale, and after the jury were sworn, he returned to his place beside me, and stated, that he considered the jury to be a very fair jury; that there were but two who he would rather were not there, I asked him what his objection was to them, and he stated to me, as I best recollect that they were strong politicians; but he added, that if there was a good case laid before them in evidence, he had no doubt they would find an honest verdict. With this I felt fully satisfied, and certainly for the first two days of the trial I heard no objection made to any of the jury.
I remain, &c.,
"WALTER BERWICK."
"The Solicitor-general."
"My dear Solicitor-general—With the utmost surprise I observe by the report of the proceedings in the House of Lords, that Mr. Biddulph has written a letter to Lord Charleville denying that he ever approved of the jury sworn in his case. It has always been painful to me to differ in opinion with a gentleman on a matter of fact, but I owe it to what I believe to be the truth, to say, that my recollection is very different, Mr. Biddulph remained close to Mr. Clarke; while the panel was called over he was at some distance from me; when the jury was on the point of being sworn he was invited to come over to where the Crown solicitor Hood, in order to assist from his local knowledge in objecting to any improper person being put on the jury. After five or six jurors had been sworn, a juror whose name I do not know, being called to the book, Mr. Biddulph said to me I do not like that man. I replied that except he assigned a reason, his merely not liking him was not a sufficient objection, and he made no further objection to him. I communicated to you what Mr. Biddulph had
1142
said, and you having agreed with me the juror was sworn. Though I was close to Mr. Biddulph till the jury was sworn, he made no further objection, but, in answer lo a question put to him by you, expressed himself satisfied that the jury would do their duty, and during the three days of trial, to my knowledge, he never expressed a contrary opinion. This is my recollection of the facts of this case."
"I remain,
(Signed) "J. R. CORBALLIS."
"April 25, 1841.
"My dear Solicitor-general—Having a perfect recollection of what took place at tie time of the swearing of the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case (who sat next to me when the panel was calling over), I can safely say, that when it was ended he expressed his satisfaction not only with the number that attended, but the persons composing it, and in my presence and yours, declared that from sixty to eighty might be taken off it, and a good jury still remain to try the case; and this he said in reply to a question of yours, to ascertain whether you could with prudence put both the prisoners on their trial, so as to give them the privilege of forty challenges; he left where he was then sitting by me, to be near the Crown solicitor whilst the jury was swearing, and though the distance was but short, I did not hear him make any objection to any of them; after they were sworn he returned to his seat, when I asked him (as was natural), what he thought of the jury, when he assured me there could not be a better, and that he was convinced they would do their duty; in the course of the trial, which you know lasted such a length of time, I had frequent interviews with Mr. Biddulph, and he never expressed the slightest dissatisfaction with the jury; and from the very close intimacy and friendship which has always subsisted between him and me, I think had he entertained any doubt as to their propriety he would have mentioned it to me. I have only to add, that shortly after my return from circuit, I left town for a few days, and during my absence Mr. Biddulph came from the country, and dined with my family, and said he told me at Tullarmore he approved of the jury after they were sworn, and considered they would act honestly.
"I am, &c.,
(Signed) "W. D. CLAREE."
"April 25, 1841.
"Dear Sir—With reference to Mr. Geale's letter to you of the 20th ult., relative to the circumstances under which the jury was selected to try the persons charged with shooting Mr. Biddulph, and to Lord Charleville's statement with respect to a letter which he had received from that gentleman, in -which he stated that he had not approved of the 'panel,'—I beg to state, in compliance with your desire, that I should communicate my

1143
recollection of the facts, that I perfectly remember asking Mr. Biddulph, after the jury had been sworn, if he was satisfied with them, and he replied, 'that he was perfectly so,' adding 'that he thought it a very fair jury.' In this I cannot be mistaken, as Mr. Biddulph not only stated the same thing in my hearing to Mr. Edward Geale and other persons who were present; but I believe to yourself likewise, and also to Mr. Geale, who has already mentioned the circumstance in the letter before alluded to. I likewise perfectly well remember Mr. Biddulph having stated, when 116 or 127 jurors had answered their names from the panel, that there was quite sufficient to give the prisoners challenges to the amount of 60 or 80, and have a good jury afterwards.
"I have, &c.,
"S. SEED.
"The Solicitor-General, &c., &c., &c."
"April 25, 1841.
"Dear Sir—I have already given you a statement of the circumstances under which the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case were selected, which I can only repeat, and in addition to that now given by Mr. Seed, have to state that my son Edward, who is at present at Athlone, is aware of the same facts, and will fully corroborate Mr. Seed's statement.
"I will get him to write to you when he arrives in town.
"I am, &c.
(Signed) "PIERS GEALE.
"The Solicitor-General, &c., &c., &c."
In this case, the noble Marquess proceeded to say, that the matter did not rest on the balance of evidence, but was at once proved by the fact that Mr. Smith, the clerk of the Crown, told Mr. Biddulph that if he objected to the panel of the jury, he would, on the part of the Crown, put the prisoners on their trials separately, so as to diminish the challenges one-half. He could not sit down without reminding their Lordships that all the inconvenience had arisen from the circumstance of the noble Earl having brought forward a motion on a subject which was still before a court of justice. This had led to the greatest embarrassment, and, if such a course was persisted in, must be productive of much evil.
The Earl of Charlevillesaid, that if the noble Marquess had thought it consistent with his duty to have given him information of his intention to bring the subject forward to-night, he should have been better prepared than he was at that moment to address their Lordships. But the noble Marquess had thought proper to impugn his motives, and therefore he trusted
1144
to the sense of the justice of the House to have an opportunity allowed him of answering the noble Marquess. It would be in their recollection that he stated when he brought forward his motion that in this country, in cases of murder or violent assault, the next of kin (in cases where death had ensued) was allowed to employ his own solicitor and counsel, but this was not the practice in Ireland. All that he asked was, that in Ireland the next of kin should be allowed to prosecute. He did not bring his motion forward on the single case of Mr. Biddulph—he brought it forward on the general principle, and for that general principle he relied on the evidence given by the witnesses before the committee on the state of crime in Ireland, including the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench and all the Crown solicitors. He alluded to four cases—to the case of Mr. Biddulph, to the case of Mr. Powell, in Armagh, to the case of Samuel Gray, in Monaghan, and to the case of a man named Macleod, in Londonderry. He never expressed any opinion of his own as to the conduct of the jury in the course which they had thought proper to pursue. What he said was, that he objected to them previous to their being sworn as jurors. He stated, that three Ribbonmen, one a county delegate, one a county committee man, and another a parish master, had been introduced on the jury in the case of Mr. Biddulph. The noble Marquess had not ventured to deny that statement, and he was sure the noble Marquess would have done so before this had it been in his power. He was not answerable for any discrepancy between the statement of the Solicitor-general and any other person, In justice, however, to Mr. Biddulph, he trusted he might be permitted to read again that Gentleman's letter. Mr. Biddulph stated—
"That he had read with much attention the statement of the noble Earl, and the answer of the Marquis of Normanby, and the latter was by no means correct, let it emanate from what quarter it might. He had objected to a person on the jury, but he was told that the ground of his objection was not substantial, because he only acted on rumour. He had never expressed any opinion that the jury was a fair and impartial one, for he felt that they would never agree; but he said, that a better jury could not be formed out of the persons who remained, those whom he considered fair and impartial being exhausted—thus leaving him without an alternative,"

1145
Having read this letter he trusted that the House would acquit him of having made any statement without authority. He had yesterday received from Ireland the account of a murder committed in the day time, almost within sight of the excellent and venerable ex-Judge Moore. He had also received a letter from the county of Limerick which would show their Lordships the peaceful state of that county. The letter stated, that a murder had just been committed, that there had been within a few days two attacks upon the police, whose lives were endangered by the violence of the mob who assailed them, and that, in fact, life and property were not safe for a single night. He had also received a letter from the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, which his Lordship desired that he should read to the House. The letter was as follows;—
"My Lord,—In your Lordship's speech on your motion just before the recess respecting crime in Ireland, you were represented to have said that you considered the correspondence between yourself and me to be of a private nature, and that some of the letters were marked as such. I felt, at the time, that this statement was quite at variance with my own impression of the fact, but not having the letters by me in England, where I then was, I did not feel warranted in opposing my recollection to the more accurate sources of information which I believed were in your Lordship's reach. Having, immediately on my return here, referred to your Lordship's original letters to me, as well as to the copies of my answers, I do not find any of them marked 'private,' and in the absence of any such mark I do not consider that there was anything in the general nature of the correspondence to debar your Lordship or myself from treating the letters as documents of an official character. Had I thought otherwise, no advantage which I could have gained to the Government or to myself would have tempted me to sanction a public reference to them without a previous application to your Lordship for your Lordship's leave to do so; and I trust your Lordship will do me the justice to read this letter to the House of Lords, in order to correct the erroneous impression which the expression attributed to you has been calculated to produce respecting my conduct in this case."
His own impression was, that the first letter he received from Lord Ebrington was marked in the corner of the envelope "private." He had another reason for thinking this letter private, for in certain pipers for which he had moved, and which had been granted by their Lordships, this one had been referred to by the noble Mar-
1146
quess as of a private character. He regretted that these letters had been ma e public, for in one of them which he had intended for the private perusal of the Lord lieutenant, he had used the expression of those "evidently guilty men." The noble Marquess had, on the occasion of a late debate, stated to their Lordships, that he (the Earl of Charleville) "had insulted his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen," but in writing to Lord Rosse, he had referred "to the great tribute which Lord Charleville had paid to the address of the Roman Catholic clergymen to the people." So the noble Marquess was his foe to his face and his friend behind his back. Having been held forth as the calumniator of the Roman Catholic people, he had felt bound to make these remarks.
The Earl of Wicklowwished to bring the House back to the sole question before it, which was the exculpation of the noble Marquess for the statements he had formerly made. Alter the letters which had been read, he felt bound to say, that the noble Marquess was fully justified in making those statements with respect to the case of Mr. Biddulph on the information he had received, and was now fully justified in entertaining the same opinion of them as that which he had formerly expressed.
The Marquess of Normanbymust beg to defend himself from the charge of a want of courtesy, for he had that morning written to the noble Earl giving him notice of his intention to make the statement. He would not follow the noble Earl through the various topics introduced by him in his speech, but he must say, that noble Earl appeared to be well prepared with every document necessary for a long address. He would only now remark that he could not acquiesce in the statement that there were three Ribbon-men on the jury in Mr. Biddulph's case. The noble Lord had complained of the publication of the letter to the Earl of Rosse, but it was moved for and ordered to be produced on a motion made at the request of the noble Earl himself. So he trusted, that the Earl of Rosse, would know on whose shoulders the blame, if any, ought properly to lie. He regretted that the noble Earl had adopted the very inconvenient course of raising exciting topics of discussion and debate on every opportunity which afforded itself, however unsuited or ill timed.
The Earl of Charlevillewould only say one word in answer to the remarks of the noble Marquess. He had stated, that he had given him notice of his intention to bring forward this subject, but, in reality, the note which the noble Marquess had sent to his house that morning contained no such information. It merely stated, that he intended to communicate something to the House, and gave him no idea of the subject respecting which the statement was to be made. [The Marquess of Normanby: You had better read the note.] Very well. The note was as follows:—
"Lord Normanby presents his compliments to Lord Charleville, and begs to inform him that it is his intention, at the sitting of the House this evening, to make a communication, at which Lord Charleville may like to be present."
Now, from that note what idea could he possibly form of the subject on which the noble Marquess intended to address their Lordships? Might he not naturally think that that communication referred to some proceedings which occurred last evening in another place.
The Marquess of Westmeathwould not allow the present opportunity to pass by without expressing his entire approbation of the course pursued by his noble Friend, with respect to the matter which he had originally brought before their notice, and his strong condemnation of the inconsistent erroneous, and uncertain conduct of the noble Marquess, who on every occasion concealed his ignorance and want of information by an affected air of conscious rectitude and triumph.
Subject at an end.

WEST-INDIA MAILS.
The Earl of Falmouthrose, according to notice, to present petitions from the boroughs and populous places of Cornwall, on the subject of the removal of the West-India packet stations from Falmouth to Dartmouth. In so doings their Lordships would forgive him if he briefly referred to the history of this business. The importance of having the best station for the delivery and reception of the West-India mails, had attracted the attention of the Lords of the Admiralty to the subject, and they had appointed a Committee to consider the comparative advantages of the different ports for the objects which they had in view. This committee made a report, in which it was recommended to the Lords of the Admiralty that Fal-
1148
mouth should no longer be continued the station for the West-India mails, and that Dartmouth should be used in its stead. In consequence of this report of the committee a meeting was held in the county of Cornwall, and a more populous or more respectable meeting was never assembled. The gentlemen then present, though landsmen, for the most part, were, from the frequent discussions on the subject, well acquainted with the question. They well knew, from practical experience, that Falmouth was by far the most convenient port for the West-India packets. In 1810 they had been for a time removed to Plymouth, but they shortly afterwards were brought back again, in consequence of the superiority of Falmouth 5 and in 1822, when a similar excitement prevailed, he had communicated with the noble Viscount (Melville) then at the head of the Admiralty, and he distinctly told him that there was no intention to remove the packets from Falmouth, and for this reason, that all nautical men knew the superior elegibility of that port. The introduction of railways did not alter the question, because there was no railway to Dartmouth more than there was to Falmouth. If it had been intended to remove the packets to Southampton, neither he, nor as he had reason to believe, the present petitioners would have objected to the experiment being tried, but no advantage of that kind could be claimed for Dartmouth. With regard to the report by which this change had been recommended, the committee from which it proceeded was composed of three gentlemen, as to whose competency he had nothing to object, although he might think, perhaps, that more than one naval man, whatever might be his knowledge and experience, ought to have been called in; but their report must stand on its own merits, and, if not good in itself, the names who recommended it availed nothing. The qualifications, or requirements as they were called, which this report stated to be necessary for a station for the packets, were known by all nautical men to be possessed by Falmouth in an extraordinary degree. It was not a naval port—a point deemed of much importance by the committee—and in every respect it had those requisites which they thought desirable. Well, having stated what qualifications were necessary, the committee without having added, that Falmouth possessed them not, came to this logical conclusion, "For these reasons we recommend Dartmouth." They had been

1149
appointed to consider the comparative advantages of the different ports, and yet they distinctly stated, that they would express no opinion as to the comparative advantages of the various ports. Thus, in fact, declining to do that which was one of the chief objects of their employment. But they had pointed out the superiority of Dartmouth to Falmouth on the ground of saving two hours in the time at which letters would reach London; and would their Lordships believe it! in order to make out this saving they had actually overstated, to the amount of sixteen miles, the distance from Falmouth to Exeter, which, according to the ordinary mail time, would take one hour and a half in travelling. Thus, according to their own showing, there would be but little gain even on this individual point, and that, too, in a long and varying passage both by sea and land. Was it, then, to be wondered at, that the whole county had with one voice cried out against such a report? This had been the case without distinction of sect or party, and they had forced its re-consideration upon the Government. But how was it re-considered? Why, by being sent back to the gentlemen from whom it had emanated, and they had only repeated their declaration that Dartmouth was the best port. They had then shifted their ground altogether, and had said that they had other reasons besides the alleged saving of time. It might be so. But what were they? That was all he—that was all the petitioners—wished to know. Why was a port which had been the packet station for a century and a half to be changed without any reasons being assigned? Why was a county which threw up a million and a half annually in mineral wealth, with a population of 300,000, to be so treated? For his own share in the business, he was influenced by no undue motives. He had not an acre of ground within many miles of Falmouth. The county had been aggrieved, but he urged this question on the consideration of Government and their Lordships not as a county matter. It was a matter deeply affecting the commercial interests of the country at large. The noble Earl then presented petitions from Truro, Falmouth, Bodmin, Penryn, St. Ives, and other places in the county of Cornwall, praying that some sufficient grounds should.be assigned previously to the removal of the West-India packet station from Falmouth to Dartmouth.
Viscount Melbourne: Though this sub-
1150
ject only comes before the House on the presentation of some petitions, I will take the opportunity of briefly stating the grounds on which we have determined to act according to the recommendations of the report furnished to us on the comparative advantages of the different, ports. I fully believe, that the subject has excited the deepest, interest, in the county of Cornwall, and I also fully believe, though the noble Earl who has brought it forward has shared in that interest, that he has been influenced by feelings of no personal nature, and that he has looked upon the question as nothing more than merely a county question, I can assure the noble Earl that, we have no desire to injure the county of Cornwall, and I cannot think that the contemplated change could produce a serious injury to that county. That change does not involve the removal of the packets from Falmouth as the port of departure. With that we have nothing to do. The company who have contracted to carry our letters have expressed their determination to depart from Southampton. That is no concern of ours. All that we have decided is the port at which the mails should be put on board. Now, if we consent to the prayer of the petitioners and to the wish of the noble Earl, and go again into the question of the comparative eligibility of each port, it does not necessarily follow that our decision would then be in favour of Falmouth. There are other places to compete with it. There is Southampton, possessing, as it certainly does, many advantages, and the noble Earl says, that he himself, would not be inclined to oppose the selection of that port. The Lords of the Admiralty, when this question came before them, appointed three gentlemen, perfectly competent from nautical skill and practical experience to form an opinion, to fix upon that port which appeared to them to possess in most respects the various requisites for the object in view. Well, how does the matter now stand? These gentlemen deeply and deliberately consider the subject, and after such consideration they give their decision. The noble Earl finds fault with their report because they have not gone through the various ports, and stated the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each, but they declare distinctly that in every respect Dartmouth is the best. What more could fairly be expected of them? Having taken the

1151
opinion of those gentlemen, universally admitted to be well qualified to arrive at a sound and correct conclusion, would it be right if we determine not to follow the advice which they have given us? The noble Earl and the petitioners, whose case he has so zealously advocated, only ask for inquiry, but the company which has undertaken the contract is desirous of making its arrangements as speedily as possible, and ought not now to be exposed to interruption and disturbance by fresh inquiry and renewed investigation. I believe, myself, that Dartmouth is the best port for the purpose, but, if it be not, the small benefit gained by another decision in this point of view would be, in my opinion, more than compensated for by the evil and inconvenience to which any further change must necessarily give rise.
The Earl of Minto, not having a local knowledge of the various ports, and consequently not being fully acquainted with the comparative advantages and disadvantages of each of them, could not express any direct opinion on the subject under debate, but he was at the same time desirous that the question should be rightly understood, and should stand on its fair footing. The question, then, was, not as to the port from which the packets should depart, but at which the mails should be put on board of such packets. This had nothing to do with the question of retaining Falmouth as a Government packet station. No matter where the company might fix their place of departure, the Government packets would continue to sail from Falmouth, or whatever other port the Admiralty might think best suited for that purpose.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that the course of the Government in having, after submitting this question to gentlemen competent to decide it, determined to adhere to their decision, was perfectly fair. Still he would venture to say, that there was not a person connected with that line of communication who was not surprised at the decision which had been pronounced, although by competent persons doubtless. However, he could not concur with his noble Friend in thinking that Falmouth was a very desirable port, or that it was very accessible for communication; nor did he think Dartmouth was more desirable. It was to be observed, that the company still persisted in taking Southampton as the port of departure; and certainly there were
1152
recommendations about that port, such as its nearness—being accessible in three hours from London—which in time of war could not be compensated by any advantage that could accrue from going to the far end of Cornwall. Though he thought their Lordships could not interfere with the steps taken by Government in this case, and though their adoption of the decision of their commissioners was, in his opinion, perfectly fair, yet he could not but concur with his noble Friend, that the decision itself was rather singular.
Viscount Melvillesaid, he was as much surprised as his noble Friend to hear that Dartmouth had been selected, though the Government were perfectly right in following the decision of the gentlemen who had been referred to.
The Earl of Falmouthsaid, in reply, that if Dartmouth was merely to be a place of call, Falmouth would answer much better even for that purpose; and he had reason to believe, that it would be preferred by the contractors. He believed that in fact the company had objected to allow these vessels to call at Dartmouth. The noble Earl concluded by moving for a copy of the report of the commission appointed to inquire as to the port best fitted to be a port of departure for the West-India mail-packets; and also for copies of the correspondence which had taken place on the subject between the said commission and the parties interested.
Petitions to lie on the Table.
Motion agreed to.

DRAINAGE BILL.
The Marquess of Normanbystated, that he had been requested by several noble Lords to put off to a future evening the Borough Improvements and Drainage of Towns Bills, which stood fixed for that evening, in order that some further time might be given for the consideration of the clauses which had reference to Scotland. He should therefore move that the further consideration of these bills be postponed till Friday.
Bills postponed.—Adjourned.