, in presenting a Petition which he stated to be numerously signed by the merchants, manufacturers, and traders of Bristol, against the Insolvent Debtors act, took occasion to state his objections to this law. The oppression of the Poor laws upon the lower order of traders, was not, he was assured, by any means so much complained of, as the grievances resulting from the operation of this law. There was no doubt, that the principle of the law existing previous to the enactment of the law alluded to by the petitioners was extremely objectionable, inasmuch as it enabled creditors to confine debtors according to their will. But then it was to be recollected, that the operation of this principle was mitigated by occasional insolvent acts. With the statement of a worthy alderman (Waithman) on a former evening, as to the consequences of the law complained of by the petitioners, he had every reason to concur, and he hoped, that as those consequences were so universally complained of, his majesty's government would feel the propriety of taking up the subject. It was, indeed, strongly desired by all men in trade, that this objectionable law should be allowed to expire: and upon that event the House might proceed to consider what amendments might be made in the old law of the land, with a view to the due security of the honest creditor, and the relief of the unfortunate debtor.

thought the House must feel itself bound to take up this subject from the strong and universal objection prevailing, especially among the trading community, against the law alluded to by the petitioners. Even the smaller tradesmen, who were themselves liable to be under the necessity of an appeal to this law, expressed their objection to its principle, while the generality of those, who had taken the benefit of it, were found actually to laugh at a law, which, instead of obliging them to make any appeal to the mercy of their creditors, enabled them to set those creditors at defiance. This law had, in fact, the effect of encouraging debtors to embark in desperate enterprizes; for instead of proposing any composition, or giving up their property to their creditors, when they were on the point of insolvency, as was the case in many instances prior to the enactment of this law, debtors now too generally determined to take another plunge, consoling themselves with the idea, that whatever the event, they could "take the benefit of the act," as the phrase was. There was, he understood, some feeling of reverence for this law, in consequence of the support, which it received from sir Samuel Romilly, who was deservedly the object of universal respect and regard. But with all due deference to the character of sir Samuel, it was to be remembered, that he was the advocate of every humane proposition. Indeed, that good man seemed rather to have a leaning or prejudice on the side of humanity; for "E'en his failings leaned to virtue's side." But with every consideration that humanity might urge in favour of the debtor, some attention was surely due to the first claims of the creditor. That attention did not appear in the law under discussion, and therefore he concurred in the propriety of the complaint prevailing against it. That law was, indeed, so universally objected to, that he was assured no bill founded upon the same bases, would give any satisfaction to the trading community. He was one of the committee who inquired into the consequences of this law in a former session, and he had no hesitation in saying, that he would, in common with, he believed, all the trading part of the public, much rather prefer the abolition of the system of imprisonment for debt altogether, than the continuance of this law.

said, that he should reserve for another opportunity the full delivery of his sentiments upon this subject. He rose on this occasion to corroborate the statement of the two gentlemen who had just addressed the House, namely, that the feeling was strong and universal against the existence of the law alluded to. That feeling was indeed quite just; for it was notorious that this law gave birth to an extravagant spirit of adventure and gambling, and encouraged practices utterly inconsistent with the just principles of trade. In order that every information should be laid before the House that could serve to guide its judgment, and to meet the observation made on a former evening as to the effects of the law existing previous to the present act, he stated his intention to move, after the present motion was disposed of, for a return of the names of all persons committed for debt within the last twenty years, distinguishing those who had compromised with their creditors, and also those who had been released by the existing or any previous Insolvent act.

rose to state what he deemed a sufficient reason to call for the repeal or amendment of the existing law. By this law it was held out that creditors should have a claim upon any property acquired by the insolvent after his liberation, but yet it was determined in a recent case, by the president of the insolvent court, that the law did not enable him to issue any process for the recovery of money in the hands of the Bank of England. Thus the promise held out by this law was perfectly delusive.

animadverted upon the manner in which a grave question of great importance was thus forced into discussion. There was, indeed, every reason to complain of the mode in which this subject was treated by those who concurred with the present petitioners. Their cry was for a total repeal of the existing law, without proposing any substitute whatever—without even suggesting any remedy for that which was the oldest evil in the former law of the country. That the old law was an evil not only inconsistent with justice, but revolting to humanity, was, indeed, testified by every respectable commentator upon our law, as well as by every politician, philanthropist and philosopher who had written or spoken upon the subject. It was in consequence of this general and just impression that a learned lord, who had been lord chancellor of Ireland, and who held the highest rank in his profession, proposed the enactment of the present law. That this law had produced great good could not be consistently denied; but yet, that no defects belonged to it he was not prepared to assert. But it was remarkable, that upon referring the petitions presented to the House last session against this law to the consideration of a committee, the petitioners themselves were found to be ignorant of the nature and character of the law of which they so clamorously complained, and possibly such would appear to be pretty much the case upon any inquiry that might be instituted with regard to similar petitions hereafter. He trusted, however, that the House would know how to appreciate the statements of those gentlemen who spoke of general alarm as to the existing law, without mentioning, or even hinting, what system they would prefer; for he presumed that no considerate being would recommend the revival of that unprincipled, unjust, inhuman system, which preceded the law of which those petitioners so angrily complained. In admitting the defects of the present law, the hon. and learned gentleman expressed his satisfaction to learn, that his learned friend, the attorney-general, had turned his attention to the subject, and that he who was so competent, had it in contemplation to propose an improvement of the system. Adverting to the language of the worthy alderman (Waithman), he declared himself astonished to hear from him an opinion, that the present law, by giving facility to the release of debtors, gave an extraordinary facility for the attainment of credit; for, judging according to obvious probability, a consequence directly the reverse was to be expected; for tradesmen, finding that debtors could obtain their release with so much facility, would naturally be more cautious about granting credit. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded with deprecating the clamour that had been excited against this much calumniated law, and particularly the consequences which must result from reverting to the old and universally reprobated system, which that law so very justly superseded.

denied that he had said that the facility with which debtors could obtain their release would serve to give additional facility to credit; for he knew that the very contrary must be the result—and that formed one of his strongest objections to the existing law. Every man acquainted with trade must know the value of credit. How many of the most eminent merchants were originally clerks, and how could they have raised themselves if it were not for the credit they obtained? This law was, however, not only injurious to credit, but destructive of the whole morality of trade. He vindicated the humanity of men in trade, when honest but unfortunate debtors appealed to their mercy. He disclaimed any intention to encourage improvident credit, but it was notoriously impossible to carry on trade without credit, and his main objection to this law was, that it encouraged debtors to engage in wild enterprize and improvident speculation—to go on, indeed, in spending, until no property remained to satisfy their creditors. Hence, it appeared, that debtors for seven or eight millions of money had been discharged by the insolvent court, without giving more than one farthing in the pound to their creditors. On those grounds he complained of the law under consideration, for which, however, he did not feel himself bound to propose any substitute, as the hon. and

‡

learned gentleman required; but still he would be ready to give any assistance in his power in framing such a measure, as should at once secure relief to the unfortunate debtor, and give due protection to the property of the honest trader.

wished for the indulgence of the House while he offered a very few words in favour of the unfortunate debtor. Notwithstanding all the bitter invectives which had been dealt out against this description of men, he should think it his duty to support the measure whenever it came before the House. The pressure of the times had rendered such a bill requisite and salutary, and if the united wisdom of parliament had sanctioned it, all the clamours which were industriously excited against it would not avail. It was a bill of relief from the implacable avarice and unrelenting rapacity of some creditors, who would never be contented but by the total ruin of their unfortunate victim. He approved, as much as any man, of the efforts of honest industry; but if a person, from the spirit of adventure and laudable ambition, became unfortunate, was it fair that he should be stigmatised and driven as an outcast from society? The bill afforded that commendable relief which with some gentlemen constituted this topic of reproach. The worthy alderman, in order to render the measure unpopular, had repeated his favourite remark, that between eight and nine millions of property had been sacrificed by the operations of the bill, without producing one farthing of dividend in the pound. With all due deference to the worthy alderman's ideas of the morality of trade, he was convinced the public had derived great good from its operations, even admitting the truth of the Worthy alderman's calculation. It had been the means of relieving many very honest, although unfortunate individuals, and had restored them to society. But he would ask the hon. alderman, if he believed that more of the property alluded to would have been recovered, had the present bill never been passed? The grand morality of trade, according to the hon. member's doctrine, was ready money and no credit. Although he had found it incumbent upon him to say thus much in favour of the unfortunate debtor, he was, however, by no means friendly to the dishonest adventurer. The present law Was in fact, very much misunderstood, especially through the clamour excited against it, in London, Bristol, and other places, where men of limited views undertook to judge of the subject. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Alderman Waithman then moved for the names of all those who had been imprisoned, and afterwards taken the benefit of any insolvent act, from the 31st Dec. 1797, to the 31st Dec. 1818. He, however, withdrew his motion, with an intention to bring it forward again on Some future day.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move, "That a Committee be appointed to take into consideration the act passed in the last session, for the regulation of Grand Juries in Ireland, and the state of the present law regulating the office of constable in Ireland, and to report their observations thereupon to the House." As he understood that no opposition was to be offered to his motion, he should trouble the House with but few observations. He should go into the committee with every disposition to preserve the principle of the act, and was only desirous of amending its details as much as might be done. He wished the power of grand juries, with respect to appointing eight constables for each barony were altered, that number being too large for some, and insufficient for others.

said, that one of the most glaring defects of the grand jury system was, the inequality of the surveys, and thought that if the inquiry did not comprehend that topic, it would be inadequate.

would not give any opposition to the appointment of the committee, after the explanation the hon. member had made of his object, and that he was desirous of preserving the essential principle of the last act. Of the value of that principle, little doubt could exist. Few could question the utility of a rigorous investigation of all applications to a grand jury for grants of money, and the examination of them by the magistrates at quarter sessions, where the parties were on oath. He was willing, however, to join in any effort for amending the minor provisions, as the principle was to be adhered to.

could not see that any necessity existed for the introduction of such a measure as that just proposed by the right hon. baronet. Defects, no doubt existed in the bill of the last session; but they were defects only existing in the machinery, and not in the principle. The next assizes, he thought, was likely to afford a fair opportunity for the trial of its merits and defects; but, certainly, one-half the jobs that had hitherto existed in Ireland, arose in consequence of the want of some bill containing a principle which would imperatively require that all public disbursements of county money should be publicly accounted for in open court. Such a principle was to be found in the bill of the last session; and, with all its other defects, he could not but think it superior to any previously existing law for the regulation of grand juries. The hon. gentleman in conclusion stated that he should oppose the intended measure of the vice treasurer of Ireland.

commenced by stating his acquiescence in the appointment of a committee. The principle of the bill of last session, he understood, they did not mean to touch: and he was only therefore sorry at what had fallen from the right hon. baronet below him. If any hostility were intended against the principle of that bill, he should oppose the appointment of a committee, because, except for the purpose of improving its details and rendering its machinery more practically operative, he saw no other necessity for the appointment. His right hon. friend below him had, more elaborately than usual, related to the House, the ruin and destruction that would inevitably fall in Ireland, if any delay took place in empowering grand juries to levy money in their old and usual way. But such a picture he could not help thinking overcharged. He had also told them, that the act of last session was never put into operation, and yet he complained of its defects before-it had been tried. That defects existed in it was not denied; but why not allow some time for a rational trial of those defects? The public roads in Ireland were repaired at so enormous an expense, in some places as 100l. per mile; and the right hon. baronet must be perfectly well aware, that the mischiefs likely to be produced by a short delay in the operation of the last act were not at all, in point of fact, as he had thought proper to describe them. Rumours had been circulated throughout Ireland that the act of the last session would be suspended or repealed; considerable anxiety was therefore the natural result, especially on the part of those who had already acted upon that bill, and hoped the most happy consequences from its amended continuance. These rumours it behoved the House to settle, and not suffer the public fermentation to continue any longer on the subject. The right hon. baronet had told the House, that the bill of the last session had never yet been acted on, while, no later than that very morning, he had received letters from various parts of Ireland, mentioning the reverse, and not only the reverse, but the fact of its being acted upon with considerable advantage. One of his correspondents was a noble lord, high in office in the king's county, who used his best endeavours with his brother magistrates to give the law a trial and whose prejudices once conquered, induced them to join most zealously with the noble lord in pushing the act into useful operation. An interested party had raised a clamour against the bill, because it required publicity to the accounts for the disbursements of public money, and afforded no screen to the improper conduct of a portion of the magistracy, who should never have been allowed to hold so important a situation. The poorer people in Ireland, the farmers and landholders hailed the act as a great and unexpected blessing. The old law they only knew in the inflictions of the tax; while the new law enabled them not only to ascertain precisely their quantum of taxation, but the purposes for which it was applied. His right hon. friend had then no right to characterise the act of the last session, as hasty, imperfect and impracticable. Some arrangements were no doubt necessary as to the qualification of those magistrates who should attend at quarter sessions; but that, together with other details, were better fitted for the consideration of a committee, than the members who were then assembled. The magistracy of Ireland had been often complained of; and he regretted to say, that in times, when domestic discord affected the public peace, it became necessary to appoint a description of persons to the magistracy, who, in better times, would not have been appointed to such a dignity. One of the worst evils afflicting Ireland existed in the appointment of. subordinate persons to the magisterial office, and he could not too often repeat his regret, that a reform had not been long since attempted in many who still held the commission of the peace. Partiality, and worse, too often characterised their conduct; and if the grand jury bill of last session made certain qualifications necessary in those persons, who were to become the judges and administrators of public justice, he thought that such a fact could not be brought in charge against those persons, who felt the existing evil, and wished, if possible to have it remedied. In the happier law of England there was a resident proprietary to protect the poor and sit on the bench in the administration of justice; but those were blessings almost wholly unknown to Ireland. Justice was dignified by the presence of upright magistrates; and dignity obtained increased respect, when honesty and property were found to be the presidents in every court to which the poor were in the habit of looking for relief. The hon. gentleman concluded by observing, that no great reformation was ever yet obtained, without something like a proportionate price being paid for it. The House, he trusted, would give the act of the last session a fair trial; and wait until experience should suggest improvements, before they destined it to inactivity or repeal. Above all things, he conjured the members to discourage every hope of the abandonment of the principles of that act. His object would be, while he admitted many of its defects, to render it as effectual as possible; never, however, losing sight of those principles that had been approved by all.

explained. In the session before last, when this measure was proposed by his right hon. friend, he had given it all the opposition in his power. When it had been brought forward again last session, he certainly did go into the select committee; but as he had attended the committee for only an hour and a half, he did not think himself responsible for the act of last year.

did not intend to offer any opposition to the motion. His sentiments accorded with those of the right hon. gentleman who had spoken last. He wished the House to recollect, that the committee had considered only the general principles of the law; but there were many practical points which those who were immediately concerned were best qualified to judge of. He would suggest to the hon. mover, whether he had not occasioned an obstacle to his own object, by omitting the words "with reference to the more effectual execution of the same." If the right hon. baronet persisted in his intention of bringing in a bill, such as he had mentioned, he should think it his duty to give it all the opposition in his power.

said, he was anxious to go into a committee. He did not oppose the principle of the bill; he only wished to get rid of its defects. He did not wish to see any public works presented for before a strict investigation was had into the absolute necessity of such works. His right hon. friend had said, that he had received many letters from Ireland, stating the great public benefits that resulted from the bill. He, too, had received letters from that country, and these letters stated the direct contrary. It appeared to him that the people of Ireland had much reason to complain of the measure. What was their situation since the bill had passed into a law? When that bill was passing through the House, their hopes were raised—they heard of the many advantages it would give to the country; but he was sorry to say that those hopes were blasted, and that instead of deriving advantages from the bill, they found it a lame and inefficient measure. It was introduced into the House avowedly for the purpose of remedying the deficiencies of the grand jury laws: it was intended to purify the administration of those laws, and was cried up as a measure, of such vast importance, that the Speaker at the bar of the House of Lords had eulogized it as a measure highly beneficial to the country. Now, he would ask, what were the advantages that were felt from the operation of the law—how did it work with the country? The first proceeding of the succeeding session was a motion for its suspension. He would say, notwithstanding the many severe observations that had been made, that the old system had been one under which the country had derived many and great advantages. On a former occasion, he had stated that the bill would be found, inadequate. That it was so, was clearly established by the forcible but temperate petitions from Londonderry and Mayo, signed as they were by a great many most respectable gentlemen of those counties; and he would not hesitate to state, notwithstanding the aspersions that had been thrown upon them, that, taking the magistrates in Ireland as a body, there were not to be found men who entertained more honest and conscientious opinions.

said, that he did not find that there was any opposition to the appointment of a committee. In that committee, he hoped to see the principle of the bill strictly preserved; for he would not hesitate to express his decided conviction, that if the principle of the law were abandoned, it would work irreparable injury to Ireland. He had heard the system which this bill had subverted praised in the House; but he did not hesitate to say, that that system was pregnant with much mischief, and that it operated to the injury of Ireland. He thought it was rather hard, before the measure had had a fair trial, to suggest difficulties that had not occurred, and to anticipate effects that had not followed it. It had, indeed, been stated, that some difficulties had occurred in some counties. In answer to this, he could assert, that in many other counties no difficulties whatever lay in the way of the bill, and that it operated beneficially for the public interests. The House should bear in mind, that the bill was introduced on no ordinary grounds: it had been recommended by the necessity of the case: the plan was submitted to the consideration of a committee of the House, and no committee that had ever sat upon a public question had bestowed more pains or more attention or were more anxious to come to a fair, practical, and wise decision. The measure proposed by the right hon. baronet was a temporary bill, to suspend the operation of the present act. It was not difficult for the House to see the mischief that such a measure would create. In the first place, those who had placed faith upon the security of the law, would now be obliged to turn back to the old odious system. He could not contemplate such a measure without alarm, and he was not a little surprised to see that the ministers of the crown had given no opinion whatever; the more particularly as it must be fresh in the minds of many members in the House, that in the last parliament he had distinctly stated the great extent of the evils which grew out of the old system, and ministers as distinctly stated, that some steps should be adopted to remove them. He conceived that ministers were hound to support the present law, sanctioned as it was by the labours of a committee; called for as it had been by the circumstances of the country; and introduced as it was by persons connected with the administration. He would deplore the recurrence to the old system as a great public misfortune: it would give encouragement to those who had profited by it, and it would blast those hopes that Ireland entertained of the benefits to be derived from the existing law.

said, that although the notice which he had given comprehended the arrangements which had lately been entered into with respect to the Slave trade, as well as to the Claims of British Subjects on the French government, the motion with which he should conclude related only to one branch of the papers on the table. As he thought he had collected from gentlemen opposite, that they were not ready to enter into the discussion of the other branch of the motion of which he gave notice, and as he was always happy to oblige the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) whenever he could with convenience to the public service, he should not now say one word on any subject but that of the British claims, unless he was called on by the House. If any information should be wished for by any hon. member respecting any of the measures connected with the papers on the table, he should be happy to give it to him. He intended now merely to ask for leave to bring in a bill, with a view to carry into complete execution the engagements entered into with the French government for the indemnification of British subjects having claims on that government.—The noble lord then proceeded to state the circumstances which led to the recent convention with France with respect to those claims. In 1815, the French government undertook to liquidate the claims of British subjects on them, at a time when there was not so great a charge on the funds of that country. A capital sum of between 50 and 60 millions of French livres had been paid by the French government into the hands of the commissioners appointed by the respective governments, towards the liquidation of these claims. The commissioners appointed to examine and settle the claims had liquidated them to a considerable extent, and made considerable payments, between the time of their appointment and April 1818. The French government had agreed to place three millions and a half of livres of rentes, equal to about 70 millions of capital, at the disposal of the commissioners, to be applied by them in liquidation of the claims; and, as he had already stated, between 50 and 60 millions had been paid over by that government to the commissioners, to be applied by them towards the liquidation of those claims of which they approved. The commissioners had, in the discharge of their duty, examined and decided on a number of claims; but there were, in April last, a considerable number of unexamined claims. He did not allude particularly to British claims alone, but to the claims of subjects of all the other powers of Europe. It was calculated that it would require, to meet these claims, from 30 to 40 millions sterling. This sum would have been necessary to meet what were considered to be well established claims; but it was evident that, supposing the commissioners to proceed with the utmost diligence, they could not get through these claims before the lapse of a very long period. It was impossible to say how many years might elapse before they could examine into the claims of the subjects of all the different powers of Europe. If they were to form a judgment of the time that would be taken in going through all of them, by the time which had been occupied in those which they had already examined, it was evident that several years must elapse before they could get through the examination of the British claims. Under these circumstances it had appeared to the British government, as well as to other governments, acting as guardians of their own subjects, that it would be of extreme importance to the interests of all parties, as well as for the general interest of Europe, if this interminable liquidation, which was going on at Paris, were transferred to the different governments; and that a sum were paid them at once in full of all demands on France, to be distributed by each, government among the claimants who were its own subjects. It was wished to settle the open account which would be going on several years before winding up the transactions between the allied governments and France, and to obtain a definite sum at once, not only for the claims of the different governments, but also for those of private creditors. The House must be aware, that there could not well be a more complicated question than that which was then trying between the French government and the different claims, as these claims rested on principles so very different from each other. The affair was, however, brought to a conclusion sooner than could reasonably have been expected; and he had not heard of one objection against the arrangement, either from any of the governments or any of the private parties. He was, at the same time, bound to state, that it would have been difficult to have brought these complicated questions so soon to a settlement, had not an individual, in whom all Europe reposed the utmost confidence (the duke of Wellington), undertaken the settlement of the business. That individual did take the complete transaction out of the hands of the different governments; he was invited by the French government and the others to mediate between the French government and the different claimants on it, and to adjust the conflicting interests. After making himself master of this intricate subject, and examining into the nature of the claims, and judging of the probable amount to which they would extend, after undergoing the necessary purification, he pronounced an opinion in the business, agreeably to which the French government and their claimants came to a general settlement. It was settled that the French government should pay a sum of from 12 to 15 millions sterling, in addition to the 700 millions of livres which it had to discharge to the; different governments. It was thought that it was much better to settle this complicated affair at once, than to endanger the repose of Europe by leaving it open. A specific sum was therefore agreed on to be given by France to each government, for the purpose of being applied in extinction of the claims of its own subjects on France; so that instead of any litigation between the government of France and the subjects of different countries, the whole might be an affair of arrangement between each government and its own subjects. In execution of this principle we had two separate conventions. One of them was a convention with respect to the claims of British subjects arising out of the treaty of commerce in 1786, the treaty of Amiens, and the stipulations of the treaty of 1814. There was another, which we had in common with other powers, with respect to the claims of individuals in those countries, which had formerly belonged to or been in the possession of France. In this way, the inhabitants of St. Lucie, the Mauritius, and the Ionian islands, had come under the protection of this country. He had stated that three millions and a half of rentes, equal to 70 millions of capital, were to be transferred to the commissioners by the French government, as a deposit that should be reinforced when necessary for meeting any demands that should be examined and established. Between 50 and 60 millions of these 70 millions had been applied in liquidation of settled claims. This was the result of the matter, when the business came to be the subject of negotiation. The result of the negotiation was, that the French government should reinforce this sum of 70 millions of capital with three millions and a half of rentes in addition, making in all a capital of 140 millions, rather more than six millions sterling, to be paid by the French government, in satisfaction of all the claims of British creditors.—He now came forward to parliament, calling upon it to enable government to make the distribution of this sum. It was fair to put all the British claimants on an equal footing. But, from the compromise which had taken place, this sum might not go to the full extent of the claims; and therefore the remaining claimants might not ultimately be on an equal footing with those who had had their claims settled. However, as the object of the negotiation was, to arrive at as much as could be got, and as no more could be got, it was proper to secure to the remaining claimants an equality of payment. The sum received would be distributed on the principle followed with respect to the sum received for the American loyalists, and the Carnatic creditors. By the provisions of the bill, as rapidly as the claims were examined and settled, a dividend would be paid to the parties on their claims, and, on the final adjustment, the remaining sum would be divided equally among them.—He had two observations to make on the subject of those claims. In 1815, the House had approved of a sacrifice, on the part of the public, of their claims on the French government, for the sake of their private claims. It was covenanted in the convention of 1815, that so soon as the French government liquidated the claims of British creditors, they should be released from any claims this government might have on them on this account, respecting the maintenance of prisoners of war between the two countries, on which there was a presumable balance due to this country. In this convention, the claims of the government were sacrificed to those private claims, because it was felt, that the subject of prisoners was one which was mixed up with so many different principles, that it was one of most difficult adjustment. It was questionable, whether the Hanoverians, and other foreign soldiers in our pay, were to be considered as British troops, a subject which it would have been extremely difficult to adjudge. The British claims on France for prisoners of war was so immense, and the account of the transaction so involved by the difficulty of determining whether the subjects of different nations who fought in the cause of France, and were captured by us, were to be considered as French prisoners, that it was thought better to adopt one uniform principle for settling the point in dispute, than to enter into the details of particular cases. The principle of the treaty of 1814 was therefore adopted, which accepted as an indemnity for the sums due by the French government to the government of this country, the payment of debts due by the French government to the subjects of Great Britain. In this manner, about 6,000,000l. sterling had been secured to British private claimants, which they would not otherwise have obtained from the French government; for, with regard to the success of those individuals in prosecuting their claims on a foreign government which had disallowed them without the aid or countenance of their own, there could be little doubt. Now, when he was on this subject, he could not let the opportunity slip, without endeavouring to impress on the minds of the House the difference between the circumstances of those whose claims this convention was intended to satisfy, and those who now should voluntarily embark their money in foreign funds: and the different conduct which the government would feel itself compelled to observe, if that property should be endangered. He was bound to warn the public, that the present relief was granted to the claimants on the French government, because they had incurred their losses on the faith of conventions between the two nations; and that no similar support would be afforded to those who voluntarily lent their money to a foreign government at their own risk, and with their own views of profit. In this latter case, persons ought to know that they had he other security for repayment than the good faith and ability of the country to which they made the loan; and that this government would neither stake its credit, or endanger its tranquillity, for the purpose of procuring them indemnity should they find that they hazarded their property on an insufficient guarantee. They should only look to the honesty and solvency of the state that borrowed, and not to the power or to the generosity of their own country for their expected returns. The claims now liquidated by the commissioners, and proposed to be settled by the bill which he proposed to introduce, depended for their validity on the articles of the treaty of Commerce with France, made in 1786. That treaty stipulated the interposition of the British government for debts due by the French government to the subjects of this country. In 1793 a great mass of British property was confiscated by the then government of France, which property, of course, was covered by the convention of 1786. At the peace of Amiens, in 1802, the principle of the original treaty was confirmed. Thus, the foundation of the claim was laid in the treaty of 1786, and consolidated by that of 1802. At the peace of Paris in 1814, the same principle was recognized, as it was thought but just to countenance those by national interference, who risked their property on the national faith. The details of the settlement had proceeded but a small way at the return of Buonaparte, in 1815, though the principle had been admitted the year before. On the second restoration of the Bourbons, the subject was again resumed, and the settlement of the claims put into such a train, that in April, 1818, the commissioners were enabled to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion, and to present the present result. We had thus obtained for the subjects of this country an adjudication of certain definite claims, in lieu of uncertain inde- finite demands of this government on that of France. The noble lord concluded by moving "That leave be given to bring in a bill to enable certain Commissioners fully to carry into effect several Conventions for liquidating claims of British subjects and others, against the government of France."

gave credit to the noble lord for his exertions in bringing this business to so satisfactory a conclusion. Nobody could have conducted himself with more zeal and ability than the noble lord had done. It was owing to the judicious mode adopted of settling these claims, that each individual interested, instead of having to deal with the French government, had to apply to British authority. With regard to any interest he (Mr. T.) had in this transaction, he was perfectly satisfied; but there was a certain class of claimants who did not stand in the same favourable situation, and whose case therefore, he wished to be considered. He alluded to those who had not given in notice of their claims in time to be examined, and who were, therefore, precluded from the benefits of the convention. If he were asked, whether he thought that these individuals had a legal title to redress, he would say no: but he would recommend their case to a favourable consideration, provided any surplus remained after defraying liquidated claims. He knew one case of this description which involved great hardship. A claim had been ordered by a creditor of this country to be made within the specified time, but, through gross neglect or forgetfulness, the agent had not presented it. It would be cruel, therefore, that this individual should suffer the loss of a just right, from the carelessness of another in advancing his demand. He begged, therefore, to know if the noble lord would allow the application of any surplus for the relief of cases like this. There was another subject connected with the conventions on the table, on which he wished to put a question. By these conventions we had instalments of contributions for five years, while our troops had only continued in France three; and he wished to know how the sum thus placed in the hands of government was disposed of.

said, he went along with the right hon. gentleman in thinking, that if there should be any surplus, those claimants to whom he had alluded should be added to the others, and that a reversionary interest should be secured to them. With respect to the latter question, he would state how the matter stood. The House were aware that only three years were completed of the period of the occupation. It would be doing injustice to the French government were he not to state, that if it had not come forward with the utmost fairness and candour, it would not have been possible to have settled so many complicated questions with the French government as necessarily arose between it and the allies, on the withdrawing of the armies from France. The House were aware of the alteration of the arrangement which had taken place. It was agreed to pay in nine months the whole sums which, by the treaty, would have become due in two years. In consideration of accelerating the payment of these sums, an allowance of discount was made for prompt payment. On consulting with that intelligent person, Mr. Baring, the period of nine months was agreed on, and an arrangement to that effect was entered into with the French government. But very soon after, from the effect produced in the money market by this arrangement, a modification of it was found necessary. AH the governments felt a common interest in the transaction, and the arrangements had been adopted by common consent. The treaty of November fixed the nine months for the payment of the contributions;—the arrangement of December prolonged that term to two years and three months; but at the end of the two years the allied governments were to put the securities in circulation, so that the term of the payment was brought to the end of the five years during which the occupation of France was originally to have continued. As the allied governments had agreed to relax the period of payment, the French government had cheerfully agreed to pay interest at the rate of 5 per cent; so that, while the French government had been accommodated, no sacrifice of value had been made. The application of the sum to which this country would be entitled, had been already often discussed. That sum, it had been already stated, would be found adequate to cover the extraordinary expenses of the army of occupation (over and above the sum allowed for its maintenance by the French government), and also to pay to the government of the Ne- therlands two millions, to which they were entitled by a convention. With respect to the payment of the contributions in question, the sums which had become due had been made good.

said, he understood perfectly well the explanation of the noble lord. Of the sums to be paid to this country by France, and now in the course of payment, two millions were to be applied, not to the purposes of this country, but to build for tificationsintheNetherlands. So that when France granted what was called an indemnity to this country, it was in effect an indemnity to Holland. He thanked the noble lord for being thus explicit; he did not wish to prolong the conversation, but it would be for him to consider whether he should submit any proposition to the House on the subject.

expressed his surprise at the shortness of the right hon. gentleman's memory, as this was by no means the first time that the convention between the Netherlands and this country had been brought under the view of the House. If the right hon. gentleman would turn to the treaties laid before the House in 1815, he would find the convention with the Netherlands, which he had alluded to; and he would find also that the sum was not paid to the Netherlands without an equivalent, as very considerable colonial cessions had been made to us by that kingdom. The government of the Netherlands had also engaged to expend a sum equal to that which we had ceded, in strengthening the fortresses of its frontier. It had then also been explained, that the contribution paid by France, would defray not only this charge, but also the additional expenses of the army of occupation, which arose from this circumstance, that the sums allowed for the maintenance of the army of occupation, was calculated on the standard of the expense of a German army. The expense of a British army being much greater, the sum allowed for the maintenance of it became deficient, and that deficiency was to be supplied out of the contribution. The right hon. gentleman at the time had contended, that the occupation of France, even taking into account the contribution, would be a loss to this country; and now after three years he complained that the indemnity was not a source of gain.

said, he had formerly contended, that if the occupation of France had continued daring the five years, the indemnity, as it was called, would have been barely sufficient for the support of the army. But as to the payment to be made out of this indemnity to the Netherlands, he had been ignorant of it till a question was put on the subject by Mr. Warre in the last parliament, when indeed the noble lord had told them what he had now repeated; on which he (Mr. T.) had remarked, that the colonies for which we were to pay two millions were the dearest colonies that had ever been purchased.

re-asserted, that the payment to be made to the Netherlands was distinctly pointed out in the treaty which had been three years ago approved of by parliament.

called the attention of the noble lord to the case of those individuals whose claims, by the treachery or neglect of their French agents, had not been sent in to the commissioners at Paris. He trusted they would not be precluded from obtaining justice.

said, that great credit was due to those who had displayed so much skill and industry in obtaining justice for the claimants on the French government. He agreed in the principle which had been laid down by the noble lord, that the House should be anxious not to form a precedent which might induce persons to vest money in foreign funds, in the hope, that in the event of war, their claims would be protected by this country. But there was another set of claims to which the same general principle was not applicable. He meant those of a commercial nature. The two cases were entirely different—in the one, the individuals vesting their money in the foreign funds, were engaged in transactions which were solely advantageous to themselves; in the other, the individuals, while consulting their own interest, were pursuing what was acknowledged to be the general interest of the community. He thought it also an unquestionable duty of the government to protect the interest of any individuals, or body of individuals, who had sacrificed themselves in its defence. In this situation the American loyalists stood, who, he had always been of opinion, should not be neglected.

said, he had been applied to by several of those commercial claimants who had been alluded to, and whose interests he thought had not been so well protected by the treaty as those of the tundholders, who were less entitled to protection. According to the terms of the treaty, it was necessary for those individuals, whose property had been sequestered in France in 1793 to prove, not only that their property had been so sequestered, but that it had been carried to the profit account of the French government; and secondly, that it had been so seized because the owners were British subjects. In the case of the fundholders this was easy of proof, but the commercial claimants were in very different circum stances. The acts of violence by which they suffered were various. Sometimes French merchants had been called upon to deliver up the property of British subjects to be exchanged for assignats, which, in the progress of depreciation, had become of no value. In other instances, the merchants who had British property had paid these depreciated assignats into the treasury in liquidation of the claims of the British subjects. Again as to the motives—it was difficult to prove, in that time of confusion, what were the motives which caused the seizure of any particular parcel of property. In some instances, commercial houses which held British property were put on the list of emigrants—a familiar mode of spoliation during what was emphatically called the reign of terror; the whole of that property thus becoming the property of the republic. Yet should it be said in such an instance that the claimant could have no redress, unless his property was seized expressly on the ground that it was the property of a British subject? It was evident, from the cases which he had enumerated, how many of the claims of those commercial claimants who were, on the principles which had been laid down, best entitled to consideration, would be defeated. He hoped his noble friend would take these cases into consideration, and at least, if the claimants were excluded by the strict letter of the treaty, yet if there was any surplus after the distribution, that they should be remembered. It so happened, that it would have been better for these individuals if there had been no treaty, and they had been left to prosecute their claims against their creditors in the ordinary way.

stated that cases of hardship such as had been described by the right hon. gentleman had also come to his knowledge. In instances in which the property of British merchants had been given in to the French government under pain of death, and exchanged for assignats, while the maximum law was in force, the commissioners had decided, that the transaction by which the British merchant was stripped of his fortune, was to be considered as a contract. The merchants thus plundered, had, it was to be remembered, relied on the faith of the former treaty, which stipulated, that, in case of war, merchants should have a space of time allowed them to withdraw or dispose of their property.

hoped the money which was to be received from France would be not only fairly, but economically applied. He said this, because, in the case of the claims on America, the money received was allowed to lie for a long time idle in the Bank. He wished to know also how the commissioners were to be paid. The commissioners on the American claims received a salary of 1,50l. a year, but such a mode of payment formed an inducement for them to protract the business.

said, that the sum was now in French rentes, the interest of which was accumulating, and care would be taken, as any portion was transferred to this country, that it should be vested in securities bearing interest. As to the commissioners, they would be paid out of the fund itself, as the claimants had readily consented to set apart one or two per cent to defray the expenses of the commission. With respect to the case mentioned by his right hon. friend, he had to observe, that the distribution of the money paid under the convention, was to be decided by the terms of that convention; the proper course for parliament to pursue was, to constitute a judicature, to which the business might be committed. The parliament itself, he thought, would act unwisely, to usurp the business of adjudication, as there were no places less fit for the decision on particular claims than the Houses of Parliament. That duty, he had no doubt, would be well performed by the commission, which it was to be observed, though well provided with legal ability, had never acted in difficult cases, without the advice of the law officers of the Crown. As to the cases of the commercial claimants, he allowed there was a difficulty, and it was one in which the public, as well as the claimants were interested. Not only had we claims on the French, but French subjects had claims on this country. During the war we had also sequestered the property of French subjects, not into the treasury, but in the hands of their agents, and a question had arisen whether the loss to the foreigners, in the case of the bankruptcy of the agents, should be made good by the government. The losses sustained by British subjects had often arisen, not from the direct violence, but from the incidental consequences of the measures of the French government; the sequestration which had taken place in 1793, had been repealed in 1794 or 5; and at that time the French debtors had paid the property of the British creditors into court (if he might so express it) in depreciated assignats. It became a question, how far the French government was answerable, not only for the direct, but the collateral consequences of its acts, on the dealings between its subjects and foreigners. These and other difficulties, he thought, would be most properly left to the judicature appointed to act under the convention.

explained, that the case he had alluded to was that of British subjects resident in France.

observed, that when the noble lord had laid the late treaties on the table, he had stated, that it was not his intention to bring them under the special consideration of the House; but that he was ready to afford every information respecting them. He should avail himself of this offer to put a short question, not with the design of renewing discussions as to a retrospective course of policy from which it was known he had always so strongly dissented, but with the object of removing the apprehensions which existed in this country, that notwithstanding we had withdrawn our army from the continent, we retained a political connexion of an unconstitutional nature; and of proving to the world that we were no longer disposed to invade those rights in others, which in our own case we should defend against all the world. In the declaration of the five Powers, dated Aix-la Chapelle, 15 Nov. 1818, were these words—" The object of this union is as simple as it is great and salutary. It does not tend to any new political combinations, to any change in the relations sanctioned by existing treaties. Calm and consistent in its proceedings, it has no other object than the maintenance of peace. "If the period had ended here, it would have been intelligible; but it went on to say—" And the guarantee of those transactions on which the peace was founded and consolidated." He wished to know what were the transactions here guaranteed?

replied, that the transactions were simply those treaties which had been approved and ratified by parliament—there were no others.

had no objection to the motion, and admitted the importance of the subject. He also admitted that the delay which had taken place was sufficient to excite a presumption of negligence on the part of government. But the House must be aware that there were many difficulties to impede the execution of conventions of this kind. Hitherto, no instructions had been issued under these conventions to our cruisers to capture ships engaged in the Slave trade, and the reason was, that there was no tribunal before which such prizes could be brought, and it would be contrary to the laws of nations to make such captures before a tribunal was appointed. The first object therefore was, to constitute the tribunal by appointing the commissioners, for already there was a very considerable squadron fitted out and ready to sail for the coast of Africa, for the purpose of putting down the Slave trade under these conventions. That squadron only waited for the appointment of the commissioners who were to accompany them. The noble lord then detailed the difficulties which had been experienced in procuring persons qualified to act as commissioners who would accept that office. It was now, however, probable that proper persons would be appointed to act as commissioners, and as the squadron was completely fitted out, all the measures for carrying the conventions into effect, would be completed.

said, that the utmost diligence had been employed; but the fact was, that no civilian could be found, who would accept the office. Application had then been made to several common lawyers, but none could be induced to undertake these duties. At last, it had been deemed expedient to nominate some attornies, who, though generally speaking not endowed with all the knowledge which persons of higher rank in the profession had, were yet, upon examination by sir W. Scott, deemed competent to execute the office of commissioners in this case.

did not think that any extraordinary exertions had been made to fill up the appointments. If the civil law bar furnished no candidates for these offices, at least there might have been many found among the junior members of the common law. Of the Sierra Leone appointment he knew nothing personally, but he could say positively of his own knowledge that many civilians would have gladly accepted the Brazil's commission; one he knew who was perfectly qualified by a sixteen years standing in the profession, and who had not been able to succeed in his application for it. Nor was there any objection to the Havannah station except the smallness of the salary which was 1,500l. a year, with a retiring pension of 700l.; and a gentleman he knew would have taken it had the income been 2,000l. with a pension of 1,000l. on retirement; a sum not too large for persons who, having been regularly trained to a scientific profession, embarked in an arduous pursuit of this kind.

, in explanation, said he had given the fullest instructions before he went abroad, and as soon as the act was in force; but he really had not thought of having commissioners, ready cut and dry, before the act was passed.

trusted that the most vigorous efforts would be made by ministers in, furtherance of the act already passed for the abolition of the infamous traffic in slaves. It was a lamentable fact, that at no period had the Slave trade prevailed with more disgusting eagerness than at present, and he was authorized in saying that not only Spanish and Portuguese, and American, but British merchants, were covertly engaged in it.

did not mean to impute delay to the noble lord opposite; but he could not help thinking, that less alacrity was shown in filling up those situations, than there would hate been had they been in their-nature more desirable. He could not, however, resist the temptation he felt to remind the House, that the delay of every day and every hour, was a source of dreadful misery to thousands of our fellow creatures.

remarked, that the circumstance of an offer of 1,500l. a year, with retiring pension of 700l. having been made by ministers to persons accepting, the office of commissioners, was a sufficient refutation of the assertion made by, the hon. member for Bramber, that the same alacrity was not manifested by his majesty's government in filling up these situations, as they had done in filling up other places.

assured the hon. member that he had not used the expression with the intention of conveying reproach to the members of his majesty's government.

did not despair of seeing, in a very few years, a total extinction of this odious traffic. When he considered how many years had been necessary, even in this enlightened country, to make the parliament ripe for the abolition, and that even at last, in 1807, after twenty years of discussion, it required all the efforts of almost every member in that House, who had any title to the character of an orator, or a statesman, to carry the act through the legislature, he could not be surprised that other countries, with less information, on the subject, should not do in a few months what it has cost England so many years to do. He was pleased, however, to see that the sovereigns of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, entertained the most enlightened. views on this matter, because in governments like theirs, much depended on the will of the sovereign. He trusted too, that the prejudices which, according to the memorial of the duke of Richelieu, still existed in France on this subject would all give way before time and reason. And here he thought it his duty to express his through approbation, of the, zeal, sincerity, perseverance, and ability with which the noble lord opposite had conducted the negotiations on this subject at Aix-la-Chapelle, With such earnestness on the part of our government and such liberal views on the part of the-principal continental powers, be did not, despair of the final consummation of his hopes. A great principle declaratory of the abominable nature of the traffic, had already been universally proclaimed; all that remained was, to denounce the violation of that principle as, illegal. All would be right when the slave-trader should be not merely held up to detestation as an inhuman violator of the law of nature, but threatened with extermination as a piratical transgressor of the laws of man,

observed, that the course of the discussion made it evident, that the chief, if not the only difficulty in filling up the appointments arose from the insalubrity, or rather pestilential mortality of the climate of Sierra Leone. Havannah was only slightly objected to, on account of the salary; the Brazils was said to be anxiously sought after; but Sierra Leone with its superior inducement of 3,000l. a year, and a pension of 1,500l. after seven years service, could not tempt one applicant; and no wonder: for that settlement had been justly called the grave of Europeans, Any man who read the despatch of sir James Yeo would see at once the grounds of that rational panic which prevailed in this country on the subject of that frightful climate. Why could not some more healthy spot, on the Gold Coast for instance, he chosen for the seat of the commission. Besides toe insalubrity of the climate, Sierra Leone was open to another objection, as the seat of judicature on captured slave ships. It was. necessary now for almost every captor, with its captured ship, to, beat up to, wind-ward during a six-weeks voyage, which frequently produced a loss-of one tenth, of the crew

observed, that when the treaty referred to was made, it was impossible to carry it, into effect until it was ratified by parliament. After the ratification of it by parliament, there was considerable, difficulty to obtain persons properly qualified; and if it was at any time important to carry the law, into proper effect, it was peculiarly so at the out- set. It had been said, that common law officers might have been applied to; in fact, they were applied to, but had as little taste for the situation of commissioners as gentlemen of the Admiralty court. He could say, that no delay had taken place on the part of government, in endeavouring to obtain proper persons to fill the situation of commissioners. Although no man held the Slave trade in greater detestation than he did, or would be more ready to punish those who carried it on, yet he must say, that some gentlemen, not in that House, had from their zeal to suppress it violated all law.

could not agree in thinking that the government had not the power of entering into a consideration of the proper persons to act as commissioners before the treaty was ratified by parliament. The House had been told of the difficulty which occasioned the delay in appointing a commissioner for Sierre Leone; but the delay in appointing one for the Brazils had not been accounted for. He should feel satisfied if the effect of the motion would be to expedite the appointments even now.

informed, the hon. gentleman that the motion would not produce such an effect, because the business was already in progress, and every possible means had been taken to forward it.