presented to the House, by the command of the Prince Regent, the Treaty between his Britannic Majesty and his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, for preventing their subjects from engaging in any traffic in slaves. There were, the noble lord observed, only two or three points in which the provisions of this treaty differed from those of the treaties concluded upon the same subject with the kings of Spain and Portugal, and these alterations were calculated in no degree to interfere with the beneficial operation of the treaty. The first point of alteration was, to exempt the European seas; that is, that the reciprocal right of search should not extend to the Mediterranean, the North Seas, or the Channel. This exemption was the more proper, as it could not be apprehended, that the Slave trade would ever be carried on within these seas. The next alteration was the consequence of an objection pretty generally expressed against the establishment of the principle of an equal right of search, among nations who were very unequal in naval force. In order to obviate this objection, it was stipulated, that the number of ships authorized to search, should be limited to twelve on each side, and that each of the contracting parties should give notice to the other, what are the ships so authorized. These arrangements would, he hoped, meet the approbation of the House, especially considering the important accession of the government of the Netherlands to the general association for promoting the abolition of the Slave trade.

concurred with the noble lord in congratulating the House upon the accession of such a power as the government of the Netherlands to the great pur- pose alluded to. The concessions made to obtain that accession he did not regret, because he was fully assured that the Slave trade was so likely to be short lived, that the exemption of the Mediterranean from the operation of the right of search was a matter of no consequence.

The following is a Copy of the said Treaty:

TREATY between his Britannic Majesty and his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, for preventing their subjects from engaging in any traffic in Slaves. Signed at the Hague, May 4th, 1818.

In the name of the Most Holy Trinity:—His majesty the king of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and his majesty the king of the Netherlands, animated with a mutual desire to adopt the most effectual measures for putting a stop to the carrying on of the slave-trade by their respective subjects, and for preventing their respective flags from being made use of as a protection to this nefarious traffic, by the people of" other countries who may engage therein; their said majesties have accordingly resolved to proceed to the arrangement of a convention for the attainment of their objects, and have therefore named as plenipotentiaries, ad hoc,

His majesty the king of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the right hon. Richard earl of Clancarty, viscount Dunlo, baron Kilconnel, baron Trench of Garbally, in the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, one of his majesty's most hon. privy council in Great Britain and also in Ireland, member of the committee of the first for the affairs of commerce and colonies, colonel of the regiment of militia of the county of Galway, knight Grand Cross of the most hon. order of the Bath, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of his said majesty to his majesty the king of the Netherlands, grand duke of Luxemburg; and his majesty the king of the Netherlands, Anne, William Charles baron de Nagell d'Ampsen, member of the body of Nobles of the province of Guelderland, knight Grand Cross of the order of the Belgic Lion and of that of Charles the Third, chamberlain and minister of state, holding the department of Foreign Affairs; and Cornelius Felix van Maanen, commander of the order of the Belgic Lion, and minister of state, holding the department of Justice; who, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following Articles:

ART. 1.—The laws of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland rendering it already highly penal for the subjects of his Britannic Majesty to carry on, or to be in any way engaged in trade in slaves, his majesty the king of the Netherlands, referring to the 8th Article of the Convention entered into with his Britannic Majesty on the 13th August 1814, engages in pursuance thereof, and within eight months from the ratification of these presents, or sooner, if possible, to prohibit all his subjects, in the most effectual manner, and especially by penal law the most formal, to take any part whatever in the trade of slaves; and in the event of the measures already taken by the British government, and to be taken by that of the Netherlands, being found ineffectual or insufficient, the high contracting parties mutually engage to adopt such further measures, whether by legal provision or otherwise, as may from time to time appear to be best calculated, in the most effectual manner, to prevent all their respective subjects from taking any share whatever in this nefarious traffic.

ART. 2.—The two high contracting parties, for the more complete attainment of the object of preventing all traffic in slaves, on the part of their respective subjects, mutually consent that the ships of their royal navies, which shall be provided with special instructions for this purpose, as herein-after mentioned, may visit such merchant vessels of the two nations, as may be suspected, upon reasonable grounds, of having slaves on board for an illicit traffic; and in the event only of their finding such slaves on board, may detain and bring away such vessels, in order that they may be brought to trial before the tribunals established for this purpose, as shall hereinafter be specified.

ART. 3.—In the intention of explaining the mode of execution of the preceding Article it is agreed; 1st, That such reciprocal right of visit and detention shall not be exercised within the Mediterranean sea, or within the seas in Europe lying without the Straits of Gibraltar, and which lie to the northward of the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude, and also within, and to the eastward of the meridian of longitude twenty degrees west of Greenwich. 2d. That the names of the several vessels furnished with such instructions, the force of each, and the names of their several commanders shall be, from time to time, immediately upon their issue, communicated by the power issuing the same to the other high contracting party. 3rd. That the number of ships of each of the royal navies authorized to make such visit as aforesaid, shall not exceed the number of twelve, belonging to either of the high contracting parties, without the special consent of the other high contracting party being first had and obtained. 4th. That if at any time it should be deemed expedient that any ship of the royal navy of either of the two high contracting parties authorized to make such visit as aforesaid, should proceed to visit any merchant ship or ships under the flag, and proceeding under the convoy of any vessel or vessels of the royal navy of the other high contracting party, that the commanding officer of the ship duly au- thorized and instructed to make such visit, shall proceed to effect the same in communication with the commanding officer of the convoy, who, it is hereby agreed, shall give every facility to such visit, and to the eventual detainer of the merchant ship or ships so visited, and in all things assist to the utmost of his power in the due execution of the present convention, according to the true intent and meaning thereof. 5th. It is further mutually agreed, that the commanders of the ships of the two royal navies, who shall be employed on this service, shall adhere strictly to the exact tenor of the instructions which they shall receive for this purpose.

ART. 4.—As the two preceding Articles are entirely reciprocal, the two high contracting parties engage mutually to make good any losses which their respective subjects may incur unjustly, by the arbitrary and illegal detention of their vessels; it being understood that this indemnity shall invariably be borne by the government whose cruizer shall have been guilty of the arbitrary detention; and that the visit and detention of ships specified in this Article shall only be effected by those British or Netherland vessels which may form part of the two royal navies, and by those only of such vessels which are provided with the special instructions annexed to the present treaty, in pursuance of the provisions thereof.

ART. 5.—No British or Netherland cruizer shall detain any ship whatever not having slaves actually on board; and in order to render lawful the detention of any ship, whether British or Netherland, the slaves found on board such vessel must have been brought there for the express purpose of the traffic.

ART. 6—All ships of the royal navies of the two nations, which shall hereafter be destined to prevent the traffic in slaves, shall be furnished by their respective governments with a copy of the instructions annexed to the present treaty, and which shall be considered as an integral part thereof. These instructions shall be written in the Dutch and English languages, and signed for the vessels of each of the two powers, by the minister of their respective marine. The two high contracting parties reserve the faculty of altering the said instructions, in whole or in part, according to circumstances; it being, however, well understood, that the said alterations cannot take place but by the common agreement, and by the consent of the two high contracting parties.

ART. 7.—In order to bring to adjudication, with the least delay and inconvenience, the vessels which may be detained for having been engaged in a traffic of slaves, according to the tenor of the fifth Article of this treaty, there shall be established, within the space of a year at furthest from the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty, two mixed courts of justice, formed of an equal number of individuals of the two nations, named for this purpose by their respective sovereigns. These courts shall reside—one in a possession belonging to his Britannic Majesty, the other within the territories of his majesty the king of the Netherlands; and the two governments, at the period of the exchange of the ratifications of the present treaty, shall declare, each for its own dominions, in what places the courts shall respectively reside. Each of the two high contracting parties reserving to itself the right of changing, at its pleasure, the place of residence of the court held within its own dominions; provided, however, that one of the two courts shall always be held upon the coast of Africa, and the other in one of the colonial possessions of his majesty the king of the Netherlands.—These courts shall judge the causes submitted to them according to the terms of the present treaty, without appeal, and according to the regulations and instructions annexed to the present treaty, of which they shall be considered as an integral part.

ART. 8.—In case the commanding officer of any of the ships of the royal navies of Great Britain, and of the Netherlands, commissioned under the second Article of this treaty, shall deviate in any respect from the dispositions of the said treaty, and shall not be enabled to justify himself, either by the tenor of the said treaty, or of the instructions annexed to it; the government which shall conceive itself to be wronged by such conduct, shall be entitled to demand reparation, and in such case the government, to which the captor may belong, binds itself to cause inquiry to be made into the subject of the complaint, and to inflict upon the captor, if he be found to have deserved it, a punishment proportioned to the transgression which may have been committed.

ART. 9.—The acts or instruments annexed to this treaty, and which form an integral part thereof, are as follows: A. Instructions for the ships of the royal navies of both nations, destined to prevent the traffic in slaves. B. Regulation for the mixed courts of justice, which are to hold their sittings on the coast of Africa, and in one of the colonial possessions of his majesty the king of the Netherlands.

ART. 10.—The present treaty, consisting of ten articles, shall be ratified, and the ratifications exchanged within the space of one month from this date; or sooner, if possible. In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and thereunto affixed the seal of their arms.—Done at the Hague, this 4th day of May, 1818.

(Signed) CLANCARTY. (L. S.)

A. W. C. DE NAGELL. (L. S.)

VAN MAANEN. (L. S.)

ANNEXES.

A.—Instructions for the Ships of the British and Netherland Royal Navies, employed to prevent the Traffic in Slaves.

ART. 1.—Every ship of the royal British or Netherland navy, which, furnished with these instructions, shall, in conformity with the second Article of the Treaty of this date, have a right to visit the merchant ships of either of the two powers actually engaged, or suspected to be engaged in the Slave-trade, may, except in the seas exempted by the third Article of the said Treaty, proceed to such visit, and should any slaves be found on board, brought there for the express purposes of the traffic, the commander of the said ship of the royal navy may detain them, and having detained them, he is to bring them as soon as possible for judgment, before that of the two mixed courts of justice, appointed by the seventh Article of the Treaty of this date, which shall be the nearest, or which the commander of the capturing ship shall, upon his own responsibility, think he can soonest reach from the spot where the ship shall have been detained. Ships, on board of which no slaves shall be found, intended for purposes of traffic, shall not be detained on any account or pretence whatever. Negro servants or sailors that may be found on board the said vessels cannot in any case be deemed a sufficient cause for detention.

ART. 2.—Whenever a ship of the royal navy, so commissioned, shall meet a merchantman liable to be searched, it shall be done in the mildest manner, and with every attention which is due between allied and friendly nations; and in no case shall the search be made by an officer holding a rank inferior to that of lieutenant in the navies of Great Britain and of the Netherlands.

ART. 3.—The ships of the royal navies so commissioned, which may detain any merchant ship, in pursuance of the tenor of the present instructions, shall leave on board all the cargo, as well as the master, and a part at least of the crew of the above-mentioned ship: the captor shall draw up in writing an authentic declaration, which shall exhibit the state in which he found the detained ship, and the changes which may have taken place in it. He shall deliver to the master of the detained ship, a signed certificate of the papers seized on board the said vessel, as well as of the number of slaves found on board at the moment of detention. The negroes shall not be disembarked till after the vessels which contain them shall be arrived at the place where the legality of the capture is to be tried by one of the two mixed courts, in order that in the event of their not being adjudged legal prize, the loss of the proprietors may be more easily repaired. If, however, urgent motives, deduced from the length of the voyage, the state of health of the negroes, or other causes, required that they should be disembarked entirely, or in party, before the vessel could arrive at the place of residence of one of the said courts, the commander of the capturing ship may take on himself the responsibility of such disembarkation, provided that the necessity be stated in a certificate in proper form.

B.—Regulations for the Mixed Courts of Justice, which are to reside on the Coast of Africa, and in a Colonial Possession of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands.

ART. 1.—The mixed courts of justice, to be established by the Treaty of this date, upon the coast of Africa and in a colonial possession of his majesty the king of the Netherlands, are appointed to decide upon the legality of the detention of such vessels as the cruizers of both nations shall detain in pursuance of this same treaty. The above-mentioned courts shall judge definitively and without appeal, according to the present treaty. The proceeding shall take place as summarily as possible; the courts are required to decide (as far as they shall find it practicable), within the space of twenty days, to be dated from that on which every detained vessel shall have been brought into the port where they shall reside;—First, upon the legality of the capture;—Secondly, in the cases in which the captured vessel shall have been liberated, as to the indemnification which the said vessel is to receive. And it is hereby provided, that in all cases the final sentence shall not be delayed on account of the absence of witnesses, or for want of other proofs, beyond the period of two months, except upon the application of any of the parties interested, when, upon, their giving satisfactory security to charge themselves with the expense and risks of the delay, the courts may at their discretion grant an additional delay not exceeding four months.

ART. 2.—Each of the above-mentioned mixed courts, which are to reside on the coast of Africa, and in a colonial possession of his majesty the king of the Netherlands, shall be composed in the following manner:—The two high contracting parties shall each of them name a judge and an arbitrator, who shall be authorized to hear and to decide without appeal all cases of capture of vessels which, in pursuance of the stipulations of the treaty of this date, shall be brought before them. All the essential parts of the proceedings carried on before these mixed courts shall be written down in the legal language of the country in which the court may reside. The judges and the arbitrators shall make oath before the principal magistrate of the place in which the courts may reside, to judge fairly and faithfully, to have no preference either for the claimants or the captors, and to act in all their decisions, in pursuance of the stipulations of the treaty of this date. There shall be attached to each court a secretary or registrar, appointed by the sovereign of the country in which the court may reside, who shall register all its acts, and who, previous to his taking charge of his post, shall make oath before the court to conduct himself with respect for their authority, and to act with fidelity in all the affairs which may belong to his charge.

ART. 3.—The form of the process shall be as follows: The judges of the two nations shall, in the first place, proceed to the examination of the papers of the vessels, and to receive the depositions of the captain and of two or three at least of the principal individuals on board of the detained vessel, as well as the declaration on oath of the captor, should it appear necessary, in order to be able to judge and to pronounce whether the said vessel has been justly detained or not, according to the stipulations of the present treaty, and in order that according to this judgment it may be condemned or liberated. And in the event of the two judges not agreeing in the sentence they ought to pronounce, whether as to the legality of the detention, or the indemnification to be allowed, or any other question which might result from the stipulations of the present treaty, they shall draw by lot the name of one of the two arbitrators, who, after having considered the documents of the process, shall consult with the above-mentioned judges on the case in question, and the final sentence shall be pronounced conformably to the opinion of the majority of the above-mentioned judges, and of the above-mentioned arbitrator.

ART. 4.—In the authenticated declaration, which the captor shall make before the court, as well as in the certificate of the papers seized, which shall be delivered to the captain of the captured vessel, at the time of the detention, the above-mentioned captor shall be bound to declare his name, the name of his vessel, as well as the latitude and longitude of the place where the detention shall have taken place, and the number of slaves found on board of the ship at the time of the detention.

ART. 5.—AS soon as sentence shall have been pronounced, the detained vessel, if liberated, and the cargo, in the state in which it shall then be found, shall be restored to the master, or the person who represents him, who may, before the same court, claim a valuation of the damages, which they may have a right to demand: the captor himself, and, in his default, his government, shall remain responsible for the above-mentioned damages. The two high contracting parties bind themselves to pay, within the term of a year from the date of the sentence, the Costs and damages which may be granted by the above-named court, it being understood that these costs and damages shall be at the expense of the power of which the captor shall be a subject.

ART. 6.—In case of the Condemnation of a vessel, she shall be declared lawful prize, as well as her cargo, of whatever description it may be, with the exception of the slaves who may be on board as objects of commerce; and the said vessel, as well as her cargo, shall be sold by public sale, for the profit of the two governments; and as to the slaves, they shall receive from the mixed court a certificate of emancipation, and shall be delivered over to the government on whose territory the court which shall have so judged them shall be established, to be employed as servants or free labourers. Each of the two governments binds itself to guarantee the liberty of such portion of these individuals as shall be respectively consigned to it.

ART. 7.—The mixed courts shall also take cognizance, and decide according to the third article of this regulation, on all claims for compensation, on account of losses occasioned to vessels detained under suspicion of having been engaged in the Slave trade, but which shall not have been condemned as legal prize by the said courts; and in all cases wherein restitution shall be decreed, the court shall award to the claimant or claimants, his or their lawful attorney or attornies, for his or their use, a just and complete indemnification for all costs of suit, and for all losses and damages which the claimant or claimants may have actually sustained by such capture and detention; that is to say, first, in case of total loss, the claimant or claimants shall be indemnified: A For the ship, her tackle, appareil and stores. B. For all freights due and payable. C. For the value of the cargo of merchandize, if any; deducting for all charges and expenses payable upon the sale of such cargoes, including commission of sale. D. For all other regular charges, in such cases of total loss; and, secondly, in all other cases not of total loss, the claimant or claimants shall be indemnified: A. For all special damages and expenses occasioned to the ship by the detention, and for loss of freight, when due or payable. B. A demurrage when due, according to the schedule annexed to the present article. C. For any deterioration of cargo. D. An allowance of five per cent on the amount of the capital employed in the purchase of cargo, for the period of delay occasioned by the detention; and E. For all premium of insurance on additional risks.—The claimant or claimants shall in all cases be entitled to interest, at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum awarded, until paid by the government to which the capturing ship belongs: the whole amount of such indemnifications being calculated in the money of the country to which the captured ship belongs: and to be liquidated at the exchange current at the time of the award.—The two high contracting parties, wishing however to avoid, as much as possible, every species of fraud in the execution of the treaty of this date, have agreed, that if it should be proved, in a manner evident to the conviction of the judges of the two nations, and without having recourse to the decision of an arbitrator, that the captor has been led into error by a voluntary and reprehensible fault on the part of the captain of the detained ship; in that case only, the detained ship shall not have the right of receiving, during the days of her detention, the demurrage stipulated by the present article.

ART. 8.—Neither the judges nor the arbitrators, nor the secretary of the mixed court, shall be permitted to demand, or receive from any of the parties concerned in the sentences which they shall pronounce, any emolument, under any pretext whatsoever, for the performance of the duties which are imposed upon them by the present regulation.

ART 9.—The two high contracting parties have agreed that in the event of the death or legal impeachment of one or more of the judges or arbitrators composing the above-mentioned mixed courts, their posts shall be supplied, ad interim, in the following manner:—On the part of the British government, the vacancies shall be filled successively in the court, which shall sit within the possessions of his Britannic majesty, by the governor or lieutenant-governor resident in that colony; by the principle magistrate of the same, and by the secretary; and in that which shall sit within the possessions of his majesty the king of the Netherlands, it is agreed that, in case of the death of the British judge or arbitrator there, the surviving individuals of the said court shall proceed equally to the judgment of such ships as may be brought before them, and to the execution of their sentence.—On the part of the Netherlands, the vacancies shall be supplied, in the possessions of his majesty the king of the Netherlands, successively by the governor or lieutenant governor, the principal magistrate and secretary of government; and upon the coast of Africa, in case of the death of any Netherland judge or arbitrator, the surviving members of the court shall proceed to judgment in the same manner as above specified for the court resident, in the possession of his majesty the king of the Netherlands, in the event of the death of the British judge or arbitrator.—The high contracting parties have further agreed, that the governor or lieutenant governor of the settlement, wherein either of the mixed courts shall sit, in the event of a vacancy arising, either of the judge or arbitrator of the other high contracting party, shall forthwith give notice of the same to the governor or lieutenant governor of the nearest settlement of such high contracting party, in order that the loss may be supplied at the earliest possible period; and each of the high contract- ing parties agrees to supply definitively, as soon as possible, the vacancies that may arise in the above-mentioned courts, from death or any other cause whatever.

The Treaty was ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.

, on presenting a Petition from Mr. Correa, stated, that he was one of the two Spaniards who were so improperly surrendered to the Spanish government by the governor of Gibraltar, in 1814, in consequence of a communication from the British consul at Cadiz. The companion of Mr. Correa had the good fortune to escape, but Mr. Correa himself was brought to trial by the Spanish authorities. The case was however brought into discussion in that House by a distinguished individual, now no more (Mr. Whitbread), and in consequence of the interposition of his majesty's government, which followed that discussion, Mr. Correa was liberated by the government of Spain, and sent to Gibraltar, from whence he came to this country. But the present complaint of Mr. Correa, and which he petitioned the House to take into its consideration, was this, that upon recently applying to the Spanish consul for a passport to return to Spain, in consequence of ill health and inability to subsist in this country, his application was rejected, on the ground that having been claimed by the British government, he had no title to Spanish protection. The petitioner spoke with great mildness and moderation of those from whom he had experienced such extraordinary treatment, and he appealed to the justice and liberality of parliament for the means of subsistence during his stay in this country.

did not mean to oppose the motion, that the petition should lie on the table, although it prayed for pecuniary aid without having the consent of the Crown. He rose only to observe, that upon the liberation of the petitioner from the sentence of the Spanish authorities by which he was tried, in consequence of the interposition of the British government, he was remitted back to Gibraltar, being thus placed in the situation in which he was before his surrender by the governor of that fortress. Upon intelligence being received of the return of the petitioner to Gibraltar, orders were sent out from the proper officer that he should be provided with a passage for England, but he was distinctly told that government could make he provision for his subsistence in this country. The fact was, that the arrest and surrender of the petitioner at Gibraltar was for him rather a fortunate circumstance; for he was on his way at the time to the Canary Islands, of which he was a native, and in which he would have been subject to the dominion of the Spanish government. Had he then reached those islands, instead of being arrested at Gibraltar, he was likely to be in a very different situation from that in which he now found himself, in consequence of the interposition of the British government. As to the refusal of the Spanish consul to give the petitioner a passport, it was impossible for the government of England to interfere in such a case, or to dictate to the Spanish government what conduct it should pursue towards its own subjects. The petitioner was as much at liberty as any other man to leave this country; and if the Spanish or any other government thought proper to refuse him permission to enter into its territories, the government of England could afford him no redress in such a case.

said, he had no desire on the present occasion to revive any animosities or warmth of debate, or to cast any reflection either on the dead or the living, as connected with the treatment of M. de Correa. The noble lord had hinted at the previous political conduct of this gentleman, but had almost at the same time disconnected it from the present question. The real point was—had not the individual suffered a great grievance through the means of an officer of this country, and was he not entitled to the general relief he prayed? The nature of this gentleman's arrest was such, that the government of the country felt themselves bound in honour and duty to demand his release; he was accordingly released, and ultimately found refuge in this country. He now felt it necessary to go abroad for his health, and on application to the Spanish ambassador for a passport, as a subject of his Catholic Majesty, he is told, not that he is disentitled to it for his conduct to his own sovereign, be that what it may, but because England had felt it necessary to make great efforts in his favour on a former occasion: that was saying, in plain terms, "You shall not have a passport—you shall be divested of your national character as a Spaniard, which entitles you to claim one, because England has endeavoured to atone to you for the wrongs which the error of one of her officers caused." The unfortunate gentleman was therefore to become the subject of no state—to be an eternal exile, and to forfeit the privilege of a Spaniard—if, indeed, any privilege belonged to one—merely because England had attempted to do him justice, for the wrongs and sufferings which he had suffered at the hands of one of her officers. Such conduct on the part of the Spanish government, was unfriendly towards an ally, and not calculated to uphold amicable relations, and the individual who suffered by it, had a good right to claim redress from the government which had placed him in his present predicament.

begged to state, that what had been done in error on the part of this country had been remedied, and Correa was placed in a better state than he had been before. He had been tried and condemned by a Spanish tribunal, but the sentence had not been executed in consequence of his having been sent back to Gibraltar. He was at liberty to leave the country without a passport, and a Spanish passport could only have the effect of recommending him to other states. Had it not been for what had taken place on the part of this country, he would, at the present moment, have been immured in a Spanish prison. The inconvenience from which he suffered arose from the view that had been taken of the subject by his own government.

observed, that the ground of the refusal of the passport on the part of the Spanish government, had not been noticed by the noble lord. That ground was, that, in consequence of Correa having been claimed by the British government, he could not be considered as under Spanish protection.

said, that the release of Correa from prison, had been the only act of interference on the part of the government of this country.

wished to ask the noble lord whether any efforts had been made to effect the restoration of those unhappy persons to liberty, who had fought the battles of Ferdinand, and were now confined in loathsome dungeons, almost in sight of a British garrison? He should abstain from using any severe epithets against that monarch, as they were so unpleasant to certain ears; but he wished to know whether any remonstrances had been made, and with what effect, to what, out of compliment, he would call the liberal and enlightened policy of the grateful Ferdinand.

answered, that such representations had been made to as great an extent as was prudent towards the individuals themselves. But the ill-judged efforts and language of the hon. and learned gentleman might rather be expected to retard than obtain the object in view.

replied, that it was no fault of his if he had uttered what might be deemed bitter sarcasm. The odious nature of the case justified any language that might have been used.

expressed his conscientious belief, that unless the observations which the noble lord condemned had been made in that House, no effort would have proceeded from his majesty's government in behalf of the unfortunate individuals in question.

said, it was quite unusual to bring up any petition praying for pecuniary relief without the previous consent of the Crown. In this petition the word money certainly was not mentioned, yet it came so near to a prayer for pecuniary aid, that he begged to call the attention of the House to the difficulty of admitting such a precedent.

The Petition was then read. On the question that it do lie on the table,

objected to its being received, on the ground that the prayer directly implied pecuniary relief, which could not be given without the consent of the Crown.

was not astonished at what the right hon. gentleman had just said. He knew very well it was impossible for any body in opposition to his majesty's government or their allies, to obtain redress. It had long been clear, that the ungrateful Ferdinand had the power of persecuting at home those who had preserved for him his Crown, and it was now evident he could hand them over for farther persecution to his majesty's ministers. The petitioner claimed relief for the sufferings he had endured through the unjustifiable interference of a British officer, and now, through an inaccuracy in the wording of his petition, he was to be shut out from redress. It was clear that a man who fled from despotism could find no friend in any of his majesty's ministers. This parliament was, very hap- pily for the public, on the eve of being dissolved, and he sincerely hoped that the next would refuse to enact a standing order of this kind, which gave to the Crown a power to refuse redress to a suffering individual.

The Petition was then withdrawn.

, adverting to the circumstances which he had mentioned on Saturday, respecting the commissioners of the Land tax, said, he held in his hand an important document, dated the 23d of May, and signed and sealed by two respectable commissioners of the land tax in Westmorland. It appeared, that, instead of holding their first meeting as the act of parliament directed, on or before the 13th of April, they had delayed (from what motives he was not competent to judge) holding it until the 23d of May, when they issued an order, requiring that the assessments should not be made before the 27th of June. By this delay no voter could have his assessment corrected by the statutable means pointed out by act of parliament, in time to enable him to redeem his land tax. The names of the two commissioners were Christopher Wilson and John Hudson—the one a gentleman residing in the neighbourhood of Kendal, the other the vicar of that place. He by no means intended to impute improper objects to either of those two individuals, particularly to Mr. Hudson, who, it was very probable, had been practised upon by others. Nor, indeed, did he so with respect to Mr. Wilson: however, it was his duty to state, that he had been informed by respectable persons whose veracity, he believed, was unquestionable, that Mr. Wilson was the chairman of the principal election committee in that part of the county of Westmorland, for that party whose interests were manifestly to be benefited by a delay in the assessments, and that Mr. Hudson was a member of the same committee. This, certainly was rather an awkward coincidence, and led the mind to fancy that some connexion existed between the two circumstances. Nevertheless, as they were very respectable persons, he had no proposition to make to the House on the subject. He only hoped, that as the transaction had been noticed in the House, and as a decided opinion had been expressed as to its impropriety, the gentleman in question would not persist in such conduct, but would confine themselves to the provisions of the statute, without assuming a discretion highly detrimental to one of the parties interested, and calculated to disfranchise a large body of qualified voters in the country. He was far from suspecting that the noble lord opposite or his colleague countenanced any such proceeding. He acquitted them of doing so, because he believed them incapable of such an act, and because it was a very weak act, and would eventually do more harm than good to the party from which it proceeded. He attributed it to the over zeal of those inferior agents whose exertions seldom did much benefit to those in whose cause they were displayed. If, however, he found that the conduct which he had thus exposed was persevered in, he should be under the painful necessity of bringing it under the distinct consideration of the House.

observed, that the application which had been made by several persons in the county of Westmorland to be assessed to the land tax was perfectly novel. He believed it was the only instance to be found in the kingdom of individuals soliciting to be taxed. With respect to the delay that had taken place in requiring the returns of the assessments, that was occasioned by the difficulty which the commissioners found in digesting the numerous acts respecting the land tax, and applying them to the district in question. He would confidently state that the commissioners of the land tax in Westmorland had exerted themselves with the greatest vigilance and activity. The noble lord also defended the conduct of Mr. Johnson, who was as respectable a solicitor as any in the county and on whom the hon. and learned gentleman had on Saturday made an unjustifiable attack. He could see in Mr. Johnson's application to the board of taxes, no infringement whatever of the privileges of that House.

said, he had not censured Mr. Johnson. On the contrary, he had declared that Mr. Johnson in what he had done, was only labouring in his vocation as an election agent. His observations were directed against the tax office, and his opinion was, that it exhibited an indecent appearance to see an election agent corresponding under that name with the board of taxes.

con- tended, that the Tax office had done no more than their duty.

observed, that there were two points to be considered. With respect to the first, he could not agree with the noble lord that it was very novel or extraordinary for applications to be made to be assessed to the land tax. When the act was passed for allowing the redemption of the land tax, a special clause was introduced in it, giving freeholders the power in question, thereby qualifying themselves for voters. It was the bounden duty of the commissioners to afford all possible facilities on this subject. Any intentional delay in doing so would be highly criminal, and if brought before the House and established, it would be the duty of the House to punish it with severity. Whether such had been the case in the present instance he knew not; that would be for the consideration of an election committee above stairs, should the question ever be brought before them. As to the other point, he confessed he did not see it in the light in which it was viewed by the hon. and learned gentleman. Whether Mr. Johnson was an election agent or not, he was entitled to the information for which he applied, although perhaps he might have been mistaken as to the body to which the application was made; and as to the Tax office, he agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that they had done nothing but their duty.

observed, that the land tax commissioners had been more vigilant and active in Westmorland, than in any other part of the kingdom; and he was persuaded, that if their conduct were investigated, it would be found, that they had done their duty.

hoped, that what had occurred would induce the next parliament to feel the necessity of some legislative enactment on the subject.

Here the conversation dropped.

, in moving the second reading of this bill, thought it right to open shortly the object of the bill. He would, therefore, simply explain the provisions of the measure, without entering into any argument upon them. The bill divided itself into two branches. The first was, to ensure the more facile execution of the trust confided in her majesty, on the policy and propriety of which he conceived no difference of opinion could exist. The enactment that her majesty should have the additional aid of four other counsellors would, he was persuaded, under the circumstances of the case, be considered as affording her majesty only such facilities and accommodation as were indispensable. Experience had shown the necessity of such a provision. Some of the distinguished characters at present composing the queen's council were engaged in other public duties, and serious inconveniencies had repeatedly arisen from that circumstance; and in the event of the state of the queen's health rendering it necessary that her majesty should reside at a distance from Windsor, necessity, and a due attention to her majesty's feelings, prescribed that one or more of the council should be resident there. He apprehended, therefore, that as the additional commissioners were appointed by name in the bill, and, as any vacancies that might occur were to be filled up by her majesty, there could be no objection to this branch of the bill With respect to the other branch of the measure, he was aware that more difficulties might be started in the way of its adoption, although it was, in his opinion, impossible not to be convinced that had the point which it involved attracted more minutely the attention of the legislature when the bill originally passed, it would have been considered wise and prudent to have adopted it. It did not alter or infringe any of the regulations of the former act, respecting the contingency of the demise of the Regent or the Crown. The House must feel that in either of those cases the suspension of the executive government, in connexion with other circumstances, would require the immediate assembling of parliament, with whatever inconvenience it might be attended. It was a principle of the constitution, that the demise of the Crown should be immediately followed by the assembling of parliament. Although obtained at the inconvenience of annulling elections in progress—even on the eve of the day on which the writs were returnable—yet the constitution prescribed, that the least possible interval should occur before the assembling of parliament; and where no parliament existed, that the old parliament should reassemble for six months. In that most important contingency contemplated by the present bill, the demise of the queen, although that would be attended with difficulties not to be wholly overlooked, yet they were not of such an urgent nature as to impose the necessity of an immediate assembling of parliament. The whole question, as detailed in the bill before the House, related to the time at which parliament in such an event should assemble. If a new election were in progress, it would certainly be highly inexpedient that the whole effect of it should be lost by such a contingency; and the bill therefore provided, not that the old parliament should in that case re-assemble, but that the new parliament should assemble within sixty days of the contingency contemplated. When the contests of various kinds that occurred during the debates on the original Regency act were considered, it would not appear surprising, that a point of this nature should escape attention. But the notice of parliament having now been directed to the subject, it did not appear to him, that there was any possible inconvenience in the way of adopting the present proposition. He would therefore move the second reading of the bill.

said, that with respect to the first object of the bill, if her majesty wished for the aid of four more counsellors, there could be no possible objection to granting them. Without, however, meaning the slightest disrespect to the noble individuals nominated in the bill, he must say that he thought rather too much of a party feeling of exclusion had been exhibited in their selection. If this subject had been discussed a fortnight ago, he should have felt some delicacy in speaking of that part of the bill which related to the possible demise of the queen. The happy restoration of her majesty's health had, however, removed any difficulty of that nature. It appeared to him extraordinary, that no provision was made in the bill to vest the care of his majesty's person, in the event of the demise of the queen, in some branch of the royal family. Surely it would be more proper that that should be the case during the sixty days which might intervene before the meeting of parliament, than that it should devolve to lords of the bedchamber and others. Arguing on the assumption, that the state of the queen's health might render necessary her residence at a distance from Windsor, would it not be desirable that some person should be placed by the law in her majesty's situation, to have the aid of the council? For let it be remembered, that the law never recognized the council as entrusted with the care of the king's person. The law gave to the queen that custody, and gave the council to her as her advisers. As her majesty's health might render a distant residence desirable, why not appoint one of the royal family to take her situation? The plain and obvious meaning of the bill was, to enable ministers to dissolve parliament without inconvenience. There could be no actual inconvenience arising from the absence of the members of the council. The archbishop of Canterbury resided near London: the master of the horse, in consequence of his office, was necessarily about his majesty's person: lord Winchelsea had the superintendence of the establishment at Windsor. The House might depend upon it that there would have been no bill of this kind, had not ministers thought it a good time to dissolve parliament. It was that which suggested the provision, that in the event of the queen's demise the old parliament should not be brought back; for those who recollected how many hours were occupied in the discussion of the original measure, could not believe that the provision which the present enactment went to alter was the result of mistake. It would, perhaps, be permitted him to speak of the possibility of the king's or of the regent's demise. Suppose, in that event, the new parliament was within a day of the return of the writs—as the law stood, no discretion was given on the subject; the writs must be annulled, and the old parliament recalled, with this special absurdity, that it might not be possible to assemble the old parliament so speedily as the new, since several days must be allowed in the proclamation for the one, and the other might, perhaps, be assembled immediately. Was not this evil susceptible of some remedy? There was another point on which he wished to say something. While the inconveniencies which might arise from the death of the queen, were viewed with great apprehension, against those which would result from the death of the regent—when there would be no king, no executive government—not any provision whatever had been made. He should be glad to know how the magistrates of the country were prepared to act under such an event? Some would, no doubt, take upon themselves the responsibility of assuming authority; but others, from want of nerve, or from other considerations, would decline embarking in that which would certainly be for the time illegal. Here, then, was the House discussing the Regency bill, and leaving out that most important consideration—what was to be done in the event of the regent's demise? Could there be any doubt that in that event the duke of York would be appointed regent, by parliament? Where would be the inconvenience of making that appointment in the bill? If this were a point liable to be disputed, at that late period of the session, it would be inexpedient to introduce it, but it evidently was not so. Why, then, could not parliament exercise that function now, which, sooner or later, it might be called upon to exercise? Another point remained to be touched upon. Not a word was said in the bill respecting the Windsor establishment. Were he disposed to be very hostile to his majesty's government, or were he disposed at this important moment to court popularity, he might expatiate at considerable length on the unnecessary expenditure of that establishment. He might reply to the question, "Would you destroy his majesty's comfort?" that his majesty's comfort did not depend on the show or splendor which that establishment was calculated to maintain. He would, however, content himself with observing, that the queen's accommodation might be consulted (which, in the present state of her majesty's health, it was very desirable to do), and yet that a considerable saving might be effected in that establishment.—He had thrown out these hints for the consideration of the House. At this late period of the session, it was not his intention to move any specific proposition, conscious, as he was, that it would not be practicable to attract the attention of the House to it. The chief points on which he had thought it necessary to dwell, were the propriety of naming some of the royal family as members of the council, and the expediency of providing against the great inconvenience of our being left without an executive government by the contingency of the regent's demise.

observed, that the bill before the House merely went to alter parts of the Regency act, and by no means to revise the whole. With regard to the principle on which, on the demise of the Crown, parliament was called upon to assemble, it was a rooted principle of the constitution. To attempt an alteration of it was a task which ought not to be entered upon without serious consideration, and without much more argument than a bill of the limited nature of that before the House required. The sense of the House had last session been very strongly expressed against any such change. He admitted, that in the unfortunate event alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, the Windsor establishment might become the subject of consideration; but he was persuaded the delicacy of the right hon. gentleman, and of every other man in the House, would revolt from discussing, at present, the ulterior saving that might result from such an event. On the whole, the bill was calculated to meet the exact circumstance under consideration. It was no shame to former parliaments that that circumstance remained unattended to by them. A thousand similar occurrences took place in private life. Every man ought to make his will; yet how often was such a precaution delayed until prompted by some sudden warning? The provision in the present bill ought certainly to have been introduced in the Regency act; but the necessity did not occur to the framers of that act. The necessity had now occurred, and it ought to be acted upon. With respect to the names of the four additional counsellors, they had been generally chosen on the same principle as formerly; namely, that such persons should be selected, as there was reason to believe the sovereign would have especially approved, had he been to determine on their appointment.

remarked, that when the original act was passed, it was important that the power of re-assembling parliament should be given, because then the recovery of the king was extremely probable, but, in the present state of his majesty's health, all hope of that kind must be abandoned. So with the Windsor establishment, not a single subject of his majesty ever looked to it as affording the means of reducing the public expenditure, while there was the least prospect of his majesty's recovery; but now it certainly was a subject that ought, in that point of view, to be taken into consideration.

said, that the principle of the constitution was, that parliament was the king's parliament, and therefore that it expired with the king. By a particular statute of king William, it was provided that it should revive for six months, but that there should be no power to continue it for a longer period. With respect to the introduction into the council of members of the royal family, although, per- haps it was not a matter of any great consequence, it would certainly be more decorous, and show more respect for that family, so to introduce them; and thus, in the event of her majesty's death, his majesty would still enjoy the protection and care of individuals of his own family.

The bill was then read a second time.

said, it would be in the recollection of the House, that a few weeks back, he had presented a Petition from a gentleman of ancient family^* in the island of Cephalonia, one of the Ionian islands the inhabitants of which were, by the arrangements at Vienna, placed under the protection of this country. The House would, he hoped, do him the justice to believe him, when he assured them, that hardly any task was more disagreeable to him, than to put himself in the situation of a public accuser, and particularly an accuser of a gentleman who filled a high situation in his majesty's service, and who was not here to answer for himself. But when he considered, that it was not only the duty of the House to throw itself open to petitions, but that no member had a right to refuse to present a petition complaining of oppression, when a sufficient case was made out to lead him to believe that the allegations in it were well founded, he considered it his imperious duty to come forward with the present accusation. Though a member might not be bound to enter into a minute investigation respecting the statements in any petition which might be put into his hands, yet, in this case, he had taken great pains to satisfy himself respecting the foundation for the charge, and after examining very voluminous documents, he was satisfied that a primâ facie case was made out by count Cladan, the individual to whom he had alluded, for the interference of government to afford him redress; and in case government should choose not to come forward voluntarily to afford this redress, for parliament, to compel government, to do justice to him. The petition might be said to divide itself into two parts. The one comprehending the complaint of count Cladan, with respect to the injustice and ill-treatment which he had himself suffered. The other part related to the wrongs and injustice suffered by the inhabitants of the Ionian islands, to whom we were bound to afford protection. With respect to the first part, regarding what was personal to the count himself, he had been unfortunately engaged in a law suit. Lieutenant general Campbell, the individual against whom this accusation was brought by the court thought fit to interfere in this law-suit, by issuing a decree to the tribunal before which it was brought, ordering it not to act in this case according to the known, written, and acknowledged laws of the country. By this decree, he ordered the tribunal not to act according to the law, but to give such a judgment as was palatable to himself. Lieutenant general Campbell thought fit to issue this decree calling for such a decision, and to say that there should be no appeal from it. It was true that according to law, the tribunal was final, but lieutenant general Campbell had no right to interfere by issuing any such decree, and this assumption on his part was a gross and violent abuse of authority; for as military commander, and civil commissioner, he had no more right to interfere with any of the courts of justice of the people of the Ionian islands, than the hon. gentleman opposite had to interfere with the courts of King's-bench or Chancery. The count came over here in 1815. At that period lieutenant general Campbell was in this country. The count had made his complaint month after month to his majesty's government. He had received from the office to which the hon. gentleman opposite belonged, many civil letters, but it was his duty to state, that though the count's applications had been civilly noticed, there were no impediments which could possibly be thrown in the way of justice, which had not been thrown in the way of count Cladan. It had been said that the count might seek his redress in our courts of justice. He did not pretend to be lawyer enough to give a decided opinion on the subject; but he believed the only case which bore any analogy to the present was, the action brought by a native of Minorca against general Mostyn, in 1772.^* The decision in that case turned on Minorca being a possession of Great Britain at the time the transactions, the subject of the prosecution took place, and on the native of Minorca being at that time the king's sub- ject to whom he owed allegiance. But he believed this gentleman, count Cladan, could not enter any of our courts of law, as the Ionian islands were not possessions of Great Britain, but merely placed under our protection. But supposing even our courts of law to be open, the expense was forgotten. Who was to bring over the hundred and odd witnesses which would be necessary to substantiate the charges against general Campbell? Any man who knew how criminal justice was carried on in this country must know, that, to obtain redress in such a case, was beyond the means of almost any private individual. How could it be supposed that an unfortunate exile could stand the expense of bringing over to this country hundreds of persons, and maintaining them here during all the delays of a trial? It was evident, therefore, that from the very expense alone this individual could expect no redress from any of our courts. In the case of general Mostyn, who had been guilty of the most arbitrary acts of imprisonment, the proceedings lasted three years. The sum of damages obtained was three thousand guineas. But any man who knew the expense at which these proceedings had been carried on, and the numerous witnesses which were necessary, knew that the damages were inadequate to defray that expense. There could be no question, that to obtain redress against so powerful an individual as general Campbell, for acts committed in the Ionian islands, and which required a number of witnesses from these distant parts, was beyond the means of any private fortune in those islands.—With respect to the other part of the petition, the acts which general Campbell had committed in his situation of lieutenant governor, against the people of the Ionian islands, he had received such assurance of the truth of them, not from this noble gentleman alone, but from another quarter, that he did not see how he could disbelieve them. He had the testimony of a person now in this town, a person of high rank and character, who was in the Ionian islands at the period when many of the atrocities were committed. This person, who was well known to many gentlemen of that House, was ready to bear testimony to several acts of abuse, calling loudly for vengeance and justice—he meant acts of corporal punishment, inflicted on the natives without any trial, at the sole will and pleasure of general Campbell. Before the Ionian islands came under our protection, he was assured that corporal punishment was unknown there—that there was no such thing heard of as a man's being dragged from his house and flogged at the halberd. What he was now about to state was not on the authority of count Cladan, but on that other person to whom he had alluded, who saw a person who had embezzled, it was said, some spirituous liquors, without any trial, tied to a mule and bastinadoed through the town three times, till he was in such a shocking state that it was with difficulty he could be conveyed to an hospital. It might be said, perhaps, why not try governor Campbell at Corfu? But no tribunal there had power to issue a summons in such a case. It was the duty of his majesty's government to institute an inquiry into this case. He defied them if they opened their ears—if they were accessible to the language of complaint as well as the language of panegyric—not to know as well as he did that the conduct of general Campbell in the Ionian islands had been the subject of great and reiterated complaint. While in Corfu, in Zante, in Cephalonia, and elsewhere, he had conducted himself in the most tyrannical manner; and he had left in the recollection of the inhabitants of those islands an impression most unfavourable to the British name. It had been said by Dr. Clark, that during the time these islands were under the protection of Russia, the sound of the bastinado was heard from morning to night; but he had been informed by persons well acquainted with these islands, that this charge against the Russians was unfounded. There was one charge against general Campbell of a most serious nature, that of issuing false money. What must be the indignation of every person in that House, when he saw the written evidence in proof of these acts of violence and robbery? The fact was, that there could be no denial of this. He would ask those members who had seen the decree by which this charge was subtantiated, if it could possibly be got rid of? Was not this a matter to be inquired into? Were the House to resist all inquiry, whether the facts were certain or not? It was also well known that general Campbell was in the practice of sending people, without trial, to the island of St. Maur, the climate of which was most unhealthy and pestilential. He had banished persons to that island at his sole will and pleasure. He not only took it on himself to banish persons without trial, but to inflict fines on them, and there was hardly a gazette published, in which it was not stated that some person or other had been so fined. And yet, notwithstanding all the instances of abuse of power which he had stated, he understood that the hon. gentleman opposite meant to oppose the motion for papers, with which he should conclude.—But to return to the subject. There was one paper among those he should move for, which appeared to him of the most important nature. He understood there was among the papers delivered to the hon. gentleman, a copy of the very decree to which he had last alluded. One very strong act of oppression was stated to have been committed by general Campbell. A man was sentenced to be hanged, and against the sentence he had appealed. Between the time allowed by the law for hearing the appeal, general Campbell had ordered the sentence to be carried into execution. Was that fact, he would ask, true, or was it not? He said it was true; and if it was true, did it not call aloud for inquiry? He could assure the hon. gentleman, that if he thought he could satisfy the public without consenting to the production of papers, he was very much mistaken. He had no acquaintance with the person by whom this accusation was brought forward, and he had no acquaintance with general Campbell. He could not be supposed to be actuated by any wish to injure that officer. His object in bringing forward the charge was, to endeavour to rescue the character of the country from one of the greatest roproaches which could be cast on it—the shutting their ears against the complaints of those who were subjected to our power, though not represented here; but who were only on that account the more entitled to our protecting care. He was sure that hardly any measure could be more fatal to our reputation and to our interests, than a demonstration on the part of the government, seconded and backed by that House, to refuse all inquiry into the abuses of those appointed to offices of high trust and authority in our distant possessions. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving, "That there be laid before the House a Copy of all Correspondence that has taken place between his Majesty's Secre- tary of State for the Colonial Department and count Cladan relative to the Conduct of lieutenant general Campbell."

^* See p. 329 of the present volume.

^* For the case of Fabrigas v. Mostyn, see Howell's state Trials, vol. 20, p. 82

said, that the hon, gentleman would recollect what he had stated, when the subject was first brought forward by him, namely, that he was giving the weight of his authority to an accusation of the gravest nature, against an officer who was greatly respected by all who knew him. He thought then as he thought now, that from the manner in which the hon. gentleman had brought forward these charges, which rested only on the authority of the person professing to be injured by lieutenant general Campbell, he was giving all the weight of his authority to them. He had then stated, that it was but fair to general Campbell, and the party by whom he was accused, that they should be brought before a legal tribunal. When the charge was first brought forward, he was unacquainted with general Campbell; he had only heard of him as an officer who had highly distinguished himself in the service of his country. He had since then seen general Campbell and when he saw him, general Campbell was under great irritation, not that count Cladan had thought proper to bring forward charges against him, but that weight was given to the accusation by the manner in which it had been brought forward by the hon. gentleman; for be it remembered, that that accusation to which the hon. gentleman had given the weight of his authority, was one which, if proved, would not only be declaring him unfit to hold any situation under government, but even to show his face in society. The hon. gentleman had said that he was anxious that justice should be done in this case, and therefore he had brought it before the tribunal of the House. But under what circumstances had he brought it forward. He had waited till the termination of the session, when it was impossible that the charges should be inquired into, while they would insinuate themselves into the public mind in the interval between this and a future session. Many of the most material of the papers for which the hon. gentleman had moved had been transmitted by government to the Ionian islands. It could not be expected of him that he should be nicely conversant with the law in the case, but he believed if general Campbell had acted in the way in which he was charged by count Cladan to have acted, there were tribunals in this coun- try in which general Campbell could be called to account. He knew of one case which had occurred since he filled his present situation, in which the courts here received the cause, and did justice to the aggrieved party. The hon. gentleman had the advantage over him of having all the circumstances of this case fresh in his recollection; but the hon. gentleman knew that many of the documents had been sent to the Ionian islands; and if he were to enter on the question with the defective information which he possessed, he could not satisfy the House, and he might be injuring the cause of general Campbell. The hon. gentleman, in as far as he had expressed his belief of count Cladan's statement, had to that extent injured general Campbell. But though the hon. gentleman had given a credence to count Cladan, he was not disposed to give it to Dr. Clark, on the subject of Russia. He trusted the House would never forget that these charges rested on the assertion of an individual who came here three years ago with the professed object of obtaining redress against general Campbell, and that he had never yet taken any legal steps towards obtaining such redress. Because he knew this, and because he knew that there were tribunals regularly constituted, before which count Cladan could bring general Campbell, he was under the necessity of stating, that he disbelieved the statements in the petition. General Campbell had been thirty seven years in the service of his country, and during all that time, he had behaved in the most distinguished manner. He did not wish to pronounce any opinion with respect to count Cladan; but this he could state, that, in the opinion of all those persons whom he had consulted on the subject of this accusation, since the subject was last before the House, count Cladan did not stand on the same ground as general Campbell did, with respect to the credit and estimation to which he was entitled. He concluded with giving his negative to the motion.

said, that when his hon. friend had first brought forward his charges against general Campbell, whether he considered the situation filled by that gallant officer, or judged of him from the personal acquaintance which he had with him, his impression was, that the charges could not be substantiated. But he was bound to say that his hon. friend had made a complete primâ facie case which called for inquiry. This inquiry ought to be gone into, whether they considered the statement of his hon. friend, or the defence of the hon. gentleman opposite. For what did that defence amount to? Why this—that after the lapse of three months, he could not enter into the niceties of the law on the subject, and was not yet able to enter into the charges now brought forward;—that is, that he yet knew nothing of the law, and that he had not taken the trouble to investigate the facts. He was surprised to find that the papers moved for by his hon. friend, were to be refused, when he considered the effect which such a refusal would have on the inhabitants of all those settlements which were in the same situation as the Ionian islands. The hon. gentleman had talked much of the irritation of general Campbell at the manner in which the charges had been entertained. What was the impartial tribunal proposed by the hon. gentleman in this case? Before the hon. gentleman gave any opinion in such a case, he ought to have inquired into this subject. He spoke in the presence of gentlemen who might be better acquainted with the subject than he was. In the Minorca case the person who came before our tribunals had been a subject of England; but count Cladan was not a subject of England; for the inhabitants of the Ionian islands were not now, and never had been, subjects of England, they being only under its protection. By the constitution of the Ionian islands, no appeal could lie from their courts to this country. Any individual complaining of acts of oppression and abuse committed by a person holding the high situation of representative of the English government abroad, had a right to come before the House of Commons, and the House of Commons ought in such a case to be a just tribunal, at all times open to the natives of those countries subject to our sway, and placed under our protection. The House of Commons ought to be open to such complaints, even though another tribunal should be open. He really considered this question as one of the utmost importance, when he considered how many countries were now added to the dominion of Great Britain.

said, that though there ought to be a sincere feeling in all our colonies, that the people would find protection in this country and obtain redress for their grievances, he yet must protest against the principle, that this House was to afford them redress, in the first instance, and that it was not to the ordinary tribunals of the law that they were to look. If this monstrous doctrine were to be allowed, it would lead to expectations which could never be satisfied, and to the inducing persons to bring forward calumnies against individuals which it would be impossible to refute. Even if this case were eminently suited for being brought before the House, as it was impossible for the House now to interfere with any effect, the bringing it forward at this late period of the session was only enabling the hon. member to make exparte statements, to the prejudice of a gentleman who was not present. His hon. friend could not know enough of the case to undertake the protection of the character of that officer. He was disposed to believe that the hon. member was actuated by a desire of doing good, but in a case like the present he could only at this time become the instrument of vilifying a respectable character, and of doing mischief. On these grounds he protested against the principle which was growing up in this country, of bringing every case before that House.

agreed with the noble lord, that nothing could be more improper than to bring under the consideration of that House cases which might be readily decided before a competent tribunal in the colony or place where they arose. But from what he understood of the present question, the officer to whose conduct it referred, had taken upon himself the authority of revising judicial decrees, and of interfering with the ordinary administration of the law. He had thus set himself above the reach of those tribunals before which the matters in dispute were originally cognizable. He thought the character of general Campbell deeply interested in repelling the charges preferred against him.

, from having seen general Campbell in the exercise of his military duty, thought it impossible he could ever have acted in the manner in which he was stated to have acted.

was of opinion that it was a dangerous practice to bring forward in that House the cases of persons in an inferior station of society, but he must protest against the extension of this principle to questions affecting the government and well-being of our foreign possessions. In proportion as they were enlarged, and the number of officers appointed to administer their affairs was increased, it became necessary that the inquisitorial powers of parliament should be extended, and rendered commensurate with the almost sovereign authority which was sometimes delegated to those officers. General Campbell had exercised a supreme authority, and it was no answer in such a case to a person who complained that he had been aggrieved, to refer him to the ordinary course of justice.

thought it his duty to protest against the doctrine advanced by the noble lord, which he considered as imposing an unconstitutional restraint upon the freedom and discretion of every member. Here was a case stated, in which the right of appeal (a right always allowed in a neighbouring country) to a second court, after a judgment of death had been invaded, and the appellant executed. Could it be said that this was an allegation which did not call loudly for inquiry? When he first heard the charges mentioned, he certainly had not felt disposed to admit their truth, having always entertained the highest opinion of general Campbell's honour and humanity. He must at the same time state, that he was not satisfied with the declaration of the hon. member opposite, that he was ignorant of the facts, and that it was now too late to attempt to inquire into them.

could not believe it possible that general Campbell had been guilty of the charges preferred against him.

, in reply, said, he conscientiously believed the greatest part of the charges were true, not on the authority of count Cladan, but on that of an English gentleman of rank, who had held a high situation in the Ionian islands. Whenever an abuse was charged against any individual in that House, there were always gentlemen ready with their panegyric of the accused. This was an Old Bailey trick. There were always persons at the Old Bailey ready to bear the highest testimony to all criminals—they would have trusted them with untold gold—but they were often hanged notwithstanding these warm panegyrics. General Campbell had again and again been closeted with lord Bathurst, and he believed the reason why the hon. gentleman told nothing of what must have transpired on these occasions, was because he did not choose to tell. Surely such charges as those which had been brought forward deserved investigation. He knew more than he had stated, and before another session passed, he would endeavour not only to justify count Cladan, but, injustice to those subjects of ours and to the character of England, bring this subject before the House. The language of the noble lord might do very well at the place to which he was going, but these charges of his would not deter him from doing what he considered his duty. They were not friends to general Campbell, who refused investigation in this case. The hon. gentleman had had a whole month for investigation—he had had general Campbell at his elbow—he ought to have extracted answers from him, if he did not voluntarily make them. The general had since gone abroad, but if his answers had been satisfactory, the hon. gentleman would have come down to the House with a triumphant case, for the purpose of lowering him (Mr. B.) in the estimation of the public, as a person destitute of prudence.

, in explanation, said, that when general Campbell called on him, he informed him he had made arrangements to go to Paris, and had asked him (Mr. G.) whether he ought to stay in this country. He had given it as his opinion, that there was no necessity for his remaining in this country; and that he had only to be in readiness to return when his presence was wanted. It was not the case, therefore, that general Campbell had fled from the accusation.

The House divided: Ayes, 8; Noes, 46.