rose to present a Petition from Thomas and Caroline Deacle, of Marwell, Hants. The gallant Member said, that it would be in the recollection of the House, that he had, on a former occasion, brought the petitioners' case before the House, when he moved for copies of the proceedings in two trials, in one of which the petitioners were defendants, and in the other of which they were the plaintiffs, and Mr. Bingham Baring and others were defendants. On that occasion he stated distinctly, that he had no knowledge whatever of the case, except what he had gathered from statements in the public papers. He also declared, that he was totally unacquainted with any of the parties, and had studiously avoided having any intercourse with them, in order that his mind might not be biassed by ex parte statements. It was his opinion, that the circumstances of the case, as they were detailed in the public papers, were sufficiently grave to demand inquiry, not so much with respect to the interests of individuals, as because they involved a serious question respecting the liberty of the subject, and magisterial authority. It certainly appeared to him, that the interest of the individuals concerned, as well as of the magistracy throughout the country, required that the documents which he moved for should have been granted, and he was not prepared for the course which the debate took on that occasion. Though he had avoided ex parte statements, other members were not so abstinent, and ex parte statements were made from the documents which he moved for, and the greater part of the discussion was criminatory of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. The petitioners now came forward to represent, that they had suffered serious injury from the statements which were made in the House on that occasion, and they had consequently requested him to bring before the House the petition which he now held in his hand, for the purpose of affording them an opportunity of vindicating their characters. When he brought forward his motion, he was told that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle had made co-defendants with Mr. Bingham Baring all the persons who could have given evidence in his favour. But he found, upon inquiry, that there were five persons, including a gentleman named Jervis and, three constables, who witnessed the whole transaction, who were not included in the indictment, and who might, therefore, have been called as witnesses by Mr. Bingham Baring, if he had thought proper to call them. In the course of the debate, testimony was given in favour of Mr. Baring's character, but he thought, that such testimony, when opposed to facts which had been proved twice over in a Court of Justice, was not very satisfactory. If the papers which he moved for had been granted, and he had found that they made out a case against Mr. Baring, he had intended to have moved an Address to the Crown, to remove him from the Commission of the Peace. The House was fully in possession of all the circumstances connected with the arrest of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, and the subsequent trial of the former. He did not think it was candid on the part of the prosecutors, to stop the trial against Mrs. Deacle, when they found that they had no case against her. They ought to have allowed the trial to have proceeded, and thus have offered her and her husband an opportunity of vindicating their characters. The House was also aware, that Mr. and Mrs. Deacle brought their action for false imprisonment against Mr. Bingham Baring, and obtained a verdict. This action was tried by a Special Jury, composed of gentlemen of some station in the county in which Mr. Baring's family possessed great influence on account of their high character and wealth. Such a Jury would not be unwilling to look with favour upon any circumstances in extenuation of Mr. Bingham Baring's conduct; nevertheless, they returned a verdict against him, with damages, though they were small. The Judge who presided on the occasion, told the Jury, that nothing had appeared which could implicate the character of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle. He (Colonel Evans) did not impute to Mr. Bingham Baring more than that he had exhibited great want of temper. When he moved for the papers, the discussion took a course which left the characters of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle under imputation, and he had been the means, unintentionally, of doing them an injury. The hon. and learned member for Newark appeared attribute conduct of the most opprobrious nature to Mr. Deacle, and coupled his name with that of a man named Boyce, who had been convicted of felony. The hon. and learned Member had since told him, that he had been quite misunderstood; that he had no intention of throwing any aspersion on the character of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, and that he had only put a hypothetical case. He (Colonel Evans) and others, who were not accustomed to the refinements which were familiar to the gentlemen of the law, had supposed that the hon. Member meant the House to believe, that Mr. Deacle had been guilty of all that was imputed to him. The petition which he was about to present to the House, detailed some circumstances with which he was previously unacquainted, of a very grave character. The petitioners stated, that during their imprisonment, letters sent to them were destroyed by the gaoler, though one of them contained an offer of legal assistance. The petitioners also represented, that, on the trial in which Mr. Deacle was defendant, a witness, named Collins, on his cross-examination, could not deny, that he had said, that he knew nothing against Mr. Deacle, and, upon being asked, whether he did not believe, that he would have been prosecuted himself if he had not promised to give evidence against Mr. Deacle, he said, that he believed he should have been prosecuted, if he had not made such a promise; that another of the witnesses, of the name of Barnes, a carpenter, upon his cross-examination, stated that, during the trials under the Special Commission, he being in the dock, and about to put upon his trial, the Gaoler, Beckett, called him out, and took him into a room where there were Walter Long, a Magistrate, and another person, whom he believed to be Mr. Bingham Baring, who told him, that he should not be put upon his trial, if he would come and swear against Deacle. It appeared to him to be necessary to the credit and honour of Mr. Bingham Baring, that these allegations should receive some explanation. The petitioners likewise adverted to statements contained in publications, purporting to be reports of speeches made in the House of Commons by Mr. Francis Baring and Mr. Serjeant Wilde, and declared, that those statements were false, and entirely destitute of foundation, and they expressed their readiness, with the permission of the House, to substantiate that declaration.

here called the hon. Member to order, and remarked to him, that this petition did, in fact, comment on proceedings in that House, and denied, as false and malicious, allegations, which, upon the faith of the public channels of information, the petitioners took for granted had been made in that House, and which they considered defamatory of their character. Under these circumstances, he did not conceive the House could receive the petition; and he considered, that the hon. Member was pursuing a line of argument which could only end in one of two things—in the House's rejecting the petition, or else establishing a new precedent, by receiving it.

could not agree with Mr. Speaker, and said, whatever technical objections might be urged against the petition, still it contained a statement of facts, which, in his opinion, ought to be laid before the House for inquiry and investigation.

said, that he had not drawn any inference of his own, but left the suggestion which he had thrown out, to the decision of the House. His object in interrupting the gallant Officer was, lest the gallant Officer, in stating certain matters contained in the petition, the accuracy of which, perhaps, the petitioners could not bear out, should raise a difficulty in the way of receiving the petition.

again observed, that the petition contained other matter, namely, a statement of facts, which ought to be received.

said, the best way, perhaps, would be, as proper notice on the subject had been given to the gallant Officer, to allow him to proceed, and to wait till the petition was brought up, when the House could decide whether it fell within the line which he had pointed out.

said, he had read over the petition, and his first impression was, that it was free from any technical objection.

wished the petition to be received and laid on the Table.

said, the petitioners did not presume to say, that the language attributed to hon. Members had actually been used by them—they only stated, that it had been so represented. Under all the circumstances of the case, he would not trespass further on the attention of the House. He begged leave, however, to make one observation with respect to the part which the Press had taken on this occasion. In his opinion, if there were any case in which the conduct of the Press was not culpable, this was the emphatic case; and he would say, much as he respected both Houses of Parliament, that they would be inefficient for the correction of abuses, without the aid of the Press.

had taken the opportunity of stating, on a former occasion, the circumstances of this case; and though there were many things in this petition that might seem to call for a further statement, yet, considering the time he had already taken up on the subject, he felt a delicacy in further encroaching on the public time upon the present occasion. Still, however, he trusted the House would bear with him, for a few moments, while he noticed one or two of the particulars stated in this petition. He did not intend to repeat the statement he had formerly made. When he made it, he did so partly in contradiction of the allegations that had been advanced respecting his own conduct and the conduct of his cousin, on the occasion referred to, and partly with a view of making the House acquainted with circumstances which had not previously appeared before the public. With regard to the present petition, he was prepared to meet it with a full contradiction. He had already made his statement of the circumstances to the House, and there was no contradiction of his statement, contained in any part of that petition, that would induce him to withdraw one assertion that he had then made. The statement now made by the petitioners was contrary to all those put forth in evidence at the trial, and sworn to as true there. There was hardly one point in which the two statements concurred with each other—there was but one in which he and the petitioners agreed together, and that was, in the declaration that the evidence given at the trial was a false account of the circumstances that had taken place. It was said, at first, that Mrs. Deacle came forward in the room and gave her hand to be handcuffed; it was now said, that he (Mr. Francis Baring) had dragged her forward to be handcuffed. At first it was said, that his cousin had shown a gun, and had used it to intimidate; now it was stated, that a pistol and dagger were employed, and the gun was sunk! He wished that the two statements could be published side by side, and paragraph by paragraph. The plantiffs statement, as it was now made, and as it was then made by his witnesses, did not at all agree together, and of course no credit whatever was given to either. There was one point to which he wished particularly to call the attention of the House. It was this:—It was originally stated, that his cousin, Mr. Bingham Baring had carried Mrs. Deacle to the cart. That statement had then been denied, and he had said, that he was the person who had carried her to the cart. It now turned out, even on the petitioners, own statement, that it was not Mr. Bingham Baring, but he, who had carried the lady to the cart. When he had ventured to state that in the House, all the persons who took a different view of the matter said, that that was a matter which could not be mistaken. Now at the time that the witnesses swore Mr. Bingham Baring carried Mrs. Deacle to the cart, Mr. and Mrs. Deacle were both in Court: they had the means of knowing whether the statement was true or not, yet they heard it made, allowed it to go to the Jury, and to be commented upon by the Judge, and never once pretended to express even a doubt of the correctness of the statement. Their Counsel, could not have known the fact, because he was sure that no honourable professional man would have calmly stood by whilst a representation, of the falsehood of which he was cognizant, was sworn to. Mr. Bingham Baring denied, most distinctly, that he had carried Mrs. Deacle, and declared, that she had been removed by another person. To that denial the Attorney for the prosecution wrote an answer. Did he there state, that this part of the charge against Mr. Bingham Baring was incorrect? No such thing; he, on the contrary, re-asserted the calumny, and argued as if there were no truth whatsoever in the solemn statement of Mr. Bingham Baring. He himself had also made a statement, which Mr. Deacle attempted to answer; but he did not venture to say, that his assertions were incorrect. With respect to that statement in the petition, where it was represented that Mr. Bingham Baring was present when Barnes, the carpenter, was told, that he should not be put upon his trial if he gave evidence against Deacle, he could meet it with the most flat and unqualified contradiction. As to the allegation that these prosecutions were all instituted by the Messrs. Baring, and were carried on by their Attornies, Messrs. Woodham and Seagrim, it was totally without foundation. The attornies who had conducted the cause on behalf of his cousin, were the Clerks of the Peace, for the county, who had in that character prosecuted all the parties at the suit of the Crown. They were not the attornies either for his father or his uncle, and they had only been employed in that instance at the recommendation of the attornies for the family because they were thought to know all the facts of the case. He himself left Hampshire a few days after the transactions occurred, and he knew nothing about the matter till he saw the notices of action. He was confident he need not offer any apology to the House for urging a few topics in his defence, when he was put, as it were, on his trial. It was too much that he should bow in silence when his character was calumniated and traduced, and the Government called upon to strike his name out of the Commission of the Peace. He was sorry that the public Press had been dragged into the discussion by the hon. and gallant Member, as he, whatever he might have thought, had never let a word escape him on the subject. He must say, however, that the allusion made to the public Press was not likely to produce any good effect.

said, that as his name had been introduced in a manner not very creditable to him, he was desirous of troubling the House with a few words upon this subject. He was well aware that every person who acted in a public capacity, in that House, or out of it, was liable to have his conduct traduced, and his character calumniated; and for himself, he could only rejoice, that when this was done with regard to him, he had the opportunity which that House afforded of answering the calumny. The hon. Member who had introduced this petition had not had the common courtesy to give him the slightest notice of it—a conduct which he should not have pursued towards the hon. Member under similar circumstances. He was charged with having at first resolved upon committing Mr. and Mrs. Deacle to prison. That charge was not true. It was said, that Mrs. Deacle had fainted in the chair, and that notwithstanding her state, he had ordered her away, saying that the Magistrates could not be troubled with her, or some expressions to that effect. He utterly denied having ever said so. He had not, to the best of his recollection, heard her utter a single word; he had only come into the room accidentally at the moment when Mr. Deacle was having some evidence (his own he believed) read over to him. At that moment he saw a female in a chair, but he did not hear her utter one word. He looked over the evidence cursorily, and the cruelty of which he was then guilty was, to suggest to his brother Magistrates that Mr. Deacle should be admitted to bail. He took no other part whatever in the proceedings. When these statements were thus found to be unsupported by the fact, he thought that the House would not feel much inclined to give great credit to other statements in the same petition. At the time that these persons were brought to prison, he was occupied, at a distance of eight miles, in endeavouring to suppress a riot occasioned by other parties, and to take those parties into custody. On his return he again read over the evidence in Deacle's case, and then, upon a more attentive perusal than he had before given it, he found the evidence stronger than he had before supposed, and he surrendered his own opinion to that of the other Magistrates. These were the facts of the case as far as he was concerned.

wished to be permitted to say, that there were other statements in the petition which he had not noticed, but he hoped he should not be taken to have admitted the truth of them because he had not contradicted them.

said, that from his having mistaken the order of the proceedings in the House, he had not been present when this discussion began. He begged to express his regret at that circumstance. It seemed that he had been made a subject of accusation in the petition, and he found that he had been reduced to that situation from his having discharged what he considered to be his imperative duty as a Member of that House. The petition, so far as it referred to him, was not expressed in those courteous terms that might be expected; but he looked to the substance, not to the form of it. He wished to recal the attention of the House to what had occurred on the former occasion. He had not then expressed any opinion of what, had taken place; for he had not been present at the trial; he had not gone into those parts with which he was not personally acquainted; he had merely stated what he knew from the depositions that had been laid before him. The chief ground of complaint against the Magistrates, however, appeared to be, that they had themselves superintended the execution of their own warrant in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, instead of leaving it to others, as was the usual practice. No impression, unfavourable to the Magistrates, as he conceived, ought to arise from this circumstance of their superintending the execution of the warrant themselves, as the state of the country made it not only justifiable, but made it their duty to exert more than ordinary vigour in support of the law. The case should stand or fall upon its own merits; and, in discussing it, it would be little in accordance with his feelings to rank upon the side of harshness, oppression, or injustice: he had never embraced that side. It had been said that, in the former debate, he asserted that Mr. Deacle accompanied a mob to Mrs. Long's, to extort money. He had never stated any thing of the kind, and he knew not where it was so reported. He had taken the trouble to look over the reports of what fell from him, and, though not precisely, they were generally accurate. All he could say, was what the witnesses had sworn to in the depositions which had been submitted to him. After referring to the substance of the depositions against Mr. Deacle, the learned Serjeant reminded the House, that Mr. Deacle was only indicted for a conspiracy. He did not wish to deprive him of the benefit of the verdict of acquittal; but it was not unnatural to suppose, that those who had given evidence against him, at the moment when the transactions he was charged with taking part in were going on, and the country in alarm, when they found the country was quiet, should feel their sympathies awakened for their neighbour, and that they should wish to soften the charges they had made against him. All the statements he had made had been founded on the depositions that were brought to his notice, in the discharge of his duty in assisting the King's Attorney General in the public prosecutions. Unfortunately, on account of the absence of Mr. Chambre from town, he had not been able to bring those depositions with him. He now came to speak upon a matter more immediately connected with his professional practice, and his character as a Member of that House. A retainer had been left at his chambers some time before the trial. It was anticipated that he could not be able to attend at the Winchester Assizes. The person who left the retainer was told so. He thought he was bound before everything to discharge his duty in that House. A letter was written to the effect he had stated by his clerk. That retainer gave him no information of the nature of Deacle's case. Hon. Members must not confound a retainer with a brief. A retainer only contained the names of the parties. He (Mr. Serjeant Wilde) had never seen Me. Deacle or his Attorney—he had had no communication whatever with them—and it was not to be supposed that the leaving a retainer with a one guinea fee was to prevent a Member of that House from doing his duty there. If any persons did suppose that, he begged they would keep their retainers to themselves. He considered, that his duty in that House was paramount to all others. He had no knowledge whatever of the case.

said, he regretted that the hon. and learned Member had not removed the impression which what he had said on a former occasion had made on the House; the more particularly as the hon. Member had made that statement, not from his own knowledge, but from depositions. He submitted to the House, whether it was fair towards Mr. Deacle, who was now absent, that the merits of his case should be decided on by mere depositions. He did not know Mr. Deacle; the only feeling which induced him to advert to his case was, from an impression that he was a man who had been harshly and severely dealt with; in fact, there was no specific charge brought against him; and, in the absence of positive proof, the prosecuting party had recourse to that very convenient instrument, a conspiracy. By this means, Mr. Deacle was mixed up with a party, seven of whom were sentenced to death. He did not consider this a question referring solely to Mr. Deacle, but one of great public importance, and he hoped to see justice fully done. He would be glad to know who it was that ordered Mrs. Deacle to be separated from her husband. The hon. Baronet (Sir Thomas Baring) said, that he had not ordered Mrs. Deacle away, but, on referring to the petition, it appeared, that what the petitioners alleged was, that the Magistrates, with Sir Thomas Baring at their head, exclaimed, "Take her away, take her away; she must not remain to interrupt our business." He wished also to know who it was that ordered Mrs. Deacle to be handcuffed; if it had been the hon. Member, he was quite sure he would admit it. At present, the House did not know who it was, and he thought they were, in consequence, bound to institute an inquiry, and to take measures to remove persons who had been guilty of such improper conduct, from situations which afforded them an opportunity of committing similar acts of severity. He thought justice required, that the hon. and gallant Member who had presented this petition, should fix an early day on which to bring on a motion to refer the petition to a Select Committee up-stairs, in order that the allegations of the petition, and of the parties against whom the petition was directed, might be thoroughly investigated. This was necessary, to prove to the public, either that the Magistrates were innocent, or that, being guilty, they would be dealt with as their conduct deserved. In making this suggestion, he put Mr. and Mrs. Deacle wholly out of the question, and looked only to the public interest which was involved in such charges against Magistrates.

said, that the hon. member for Middlesex was mistaken upon one point. It had been sworn, that Mr. Bingham Baring was not present at the handcuffing, and that hon. Member had himself stated the same fact. He was quite ready to believe, that the allegations of the petition were much exaggerated. He was ready to believe this, as well from the statements of hon. Members of that House, as from the small damages recovered by the petitioners. At the same time, however, it was quite clear that, in the case of the petitioners, an extraordinary course had been followed by the Magistrates, which nothing but extraordinary circumstances could justify. He concurred in the desire expressed by the hon. member for Middlesex, to know who it was that ordered Mrs. Deacle to be handcuffed; for that act was disgraceful to a civilized country, and the House ought to be ashamed of having any person a Member of that House who could order a female to be so treated. It was certain, that Mrs. Deacle had great reason to complain of the hardship, in having been handcuffed and dragged to a gaol, for it must be recollected, that Mrs. Deacle had never been brought to trial. He thought, too, that Mr. Deacle had also much to complain of, when it was attempted publicly in that House to prove him guilty of acts which a Jury had declared him to be innocent of. Under these circumstances, whatever exaggerations there might be in the petition, Mr. and Mrs. Deacle, in his opinion, had great reason to come to that House, in order to clear their character.

did not rise to prolong this discussion as to the merits of the Deacles, or the conduct of the Magistrates. He should not have risen at all if some member of the Government had, as he expected, taken notice of a ground upon which, in his opinion, the House could not receive the petition. This ground was, that the petitioners stated that they had suffered by speeches delivered in that House. The petition had, doubtless, been drawn by some very ingenious person, and he believed that it had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member who presented it, that the petition, as originally drawn, could not have been received by the House. This showed the animus of the petitioners, which was also further apparent from the fact, that the hon. member for Portsmouth and the hon. member for Newark had been compelled to refer to and to repeat what they had said on a former occasion. Under these circumstances, he put it to the House, whether the petition was not a palpable violation of the orders of the House. At all events, he should be prepared to give a negative to the motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the petition do lie on the Table.

was not present when the petition was presented, but had read the passage to which the hon. Baronet alluded. It was true that, by an evasion, the petition did allude to speeches that had been made in that House, and it was true also, that, by the strict rule of the House, such petitions could not be received. He did not, however, think that the rule ought to be strictly enforced on all occasions, especially as there was a rule equally strict, but not enforced, against the publication of speeches delivered in that House. The hon. Baronet should recollect, that it was only by evasion that the Debates of that House were published. As to this petition being allowed to lie on the Table, he did think that they ought to be very cautious how they rejected a petition which contained an attack upon one of themselves. He certainly should not object to the petition being allowed to lie on the Table.

said, that if the Order alluded to by the noble Lord was an improper order, it ought not to be allowed to stand upon the Journals, but while it stood there he could not agree, that it was right to suffer it to be evaded. The language of the petitioners was ingenious and cautious, but the object of the petitioners was apparent. The petitioners said, "The allegations complained of are, by the newspapers represented, as parts of speeches delivered in your honourable House; but your petitioners having been informed, that your honourable House will not receive any petition which comments on speeches made in your honourable House, do not presume to say that the hon. Members named in this petition did actually utter the words which have, by the newspapers, been attributed to them." Now, the petitioners did not venture to say that they disbelieved the speeches to have, been delivered in that House; but they continued in the following words;—"But they complain of the grievous hardship and injurious consequences which have already resulted, and which cannot fail continually to result, from such calumnies being propagated as coming from Members of your honourable House in their legislative capacity; and the more so, since it is impossible for them to escape these terrible consequences, without the interference of your honourable House, in such way as to your honourable House shall seem meet." It did not appear, that this allegation of the petitioners was true. The petitioners ought to have made out that they could not obtain redress for the publication of these calumnies without coming to that House. He believed it was well known that persons circumstanced like the petitioners, could obtain redress from the law for calumnies which had been propagated in the manner stated in the petition; and that it was not necessary for them to come to that House for redress. It could not be pretended, that the House sanctioned the publication of Members' speeches. On the contrary, such publication was, by the order of the House, a breach of privilege. Under these circumstances, he considered the proceeding of the petitioners to be very disorderly. If the petitioners could show that the Courts of Law were not open to them, then they might come to that House, but not until then.

said, that the hon. member for Oxford did not carry his objection far enough. The hon. Member ought to enforce the order against the publication of speeches, if he enforced the rules of the House against this petition. Would the hon. Member do this, and call the editors of all the newspapers up to the bar; he should think not. If statements were made in that House, it was well known that they would go forth to the public; and if those statements were incorrect and injurious, evils would result which ought to be complained of. He would only say, with regard to the case before them, that, in his opinion it called for farther inquiry. That inquiry might for aught he knew, end in the most triumphant justification of the Magistrates; but he must say, that the two innocent persons—for the petitioners had been proved to be innocent—from whom this petition came, had made out a strong case for inquiry.

concurred with the hon. and learned member for Kerry. This was a question which concerned the public justice of the country. Personal considerations were involved in it, but the main point was a public one, and regarded the manner in which certain Magistrates had exercised the powers confided to them by the law. He was free to confess, that he thought this was a time at which such complaints as these ought to be investigated. The hon. and gallant Member who had presented the petition, would, of course, take into consideration the best mode of investigation. As to the objection upon a point of order, the hon. Baronet (Sir George Clerk) who raised the point, had admitted, that the petition was so drawn as to avoid infringing the rules of the House, and had declared, that much ingenuity must have been exercised by the person who so drew it. If, then, it had been skilfully and successfully endeavoured so to frame the petition as not to offend against the regulations of the House, he did think that it would be a most extraordinary proceeding to reject such a petition, especially when the administration of the laws, the liberty of the subject, and the character of many individuals, were deeply involved in its allegations. He would not offer any observation upon a single point of this case, except the handcuffing; and upon that he must say, that he considered it most improper to handcuff persons under the circumstances in which the petitioners were placed, take which version of those circumstances they pleased.

wished to know when the wine duties were to be brought on?

said, that if it suited the convenience of the House, he should wish to continue in Committee of Supply till ten o'clock, and that at that hour he would bring on the wine duties.

said, there was a subject of melancholy interest to al the Members of that House, but especially to him (Colonel Sibthorp), for he had lost two relatives on the occasion to which he was about to allude, to which he was desirous to call the attention of his Majesty's Government, and particularly that portion of it which was connected with the management of the Home Department. He wished to call their attention to a melancholy circumstance which had occurred a few days since—he meant the loss of the Rothsay-Castle steamer, on its passage from Liverpool to Beaumaris. He was sure that it was only necessary to point the attention of his Majesty's Government o this subject, in order to ensure a proper degree of attention to the investigation which must take place with regard to it. He was certain that his Majesty's Ministers would pay every attention to any statements which might be forwarded to them on this subject, and especially to the facts which would come out at the Coroner's Inquest, which would, no doubt, be held on the bodies of the unfortunate deceased. He would also take this opportunity to express a hope, that his Majesty's Ministers, in whose hands he was inclined to leave the matter, would bring forward an enactment, for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of such circumstances in future, by summarily punishing the proprietors or owners of steam-vessels, by fine or imprisonment, where such accidents were the result of wilful negligence, and also enacting that the Captain or any of the crew who should survive in such cases, should have a summary punishment imposed upon them for drunkenness, or any other wilful error with respect to the management of the vessel.

said, that his Majesty's Government had derived no information with regard to the very melancholy circumstance to which the gallant Member had referred, beyond that which was to be found in those channels of information to which the public generally had access. The Home Office, with which he was connected, had received no exclusive intelligence on the subject, though he was willing to admit, that it deserved the attention of the House. The necessary steps would be taken to secure the report of the Coroner's Inquest, and an accurate account of what should take place on that occasion; and if it should appear, that any further inquiry or investigation was necessary, it should be instituted. With regard to any enactment of the nature spoken of, the hon. Member must see, that it would require very deliberate consideration; but he begged to assure the hon. Member, that his Majesty's Government would give the subject the fullest possible consideration.

said, he was anxious to know whether his Majesty's Ministers could communicate any information on a subject which was of importance not only to the Members of that House, on the score of private, convenience, but in which the public convenience was also greatly interested—he meant the period for which the House would adjourn on the occasion of the approaching coronation. He was well aware that the noble Lord opposite did not agree with him (Sir Robert Peel) as to the period to which that adjournment should extend. It ought, however, to be borne in mind, that they had been now sitting continuously ever since the 20th of last October, for the short interval which had occurred at the time of the dissolution was not worth while taking into account. It was not, therefore, too much to expect that some adjournment—some respite from their labours—should be granted to them at the ensuing coronation; and it would be highly convenient, both to the Members of that House and to the public at large, if any adjournment was intended at the coronation, that the determination of Government on the subject should be known as soon as possible.

said, that the subject had certainly been submitted to the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers, but under existing circumstances, he could not assent to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet. He did not think, that it would be possible for him to propose any adjournment of the House, beyond a short adjournment over the day of the coronation.

said, that he wished to take that opportunity to mention a few facts in refutation of the statement which had been made by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, on a former evening, with regard to the king of Holland, and his conduct towards Belgium. From whatever quarter or whatever publication that hon. and learned Member had derived the information which he had given to the House on that occasion, he should be able, he hoped, to show that hon. and learned Member, that it was quite incorrect, and he was sure that the hon. and learned Member would be the first to retract, when he found that such was the case. The first accusation which the hon. Member had preferred against the king of Holland, respected the union of Holland with Belgium. That union was determined on by the great Powers in the month of July, 1814, and it was not till the month of August, 1815, that it was carried into complete effect. The Belgians, therefore, had ample time allowed to them to send remonstrances or Representations to the allied Congress against that union, if they had a mind to do so; but no such remonstrance or representation was fowarded by them, and it was therefore to be assumed, that they entertained no objection to the Union. The first act of the king of Holland in ascending the throne was, to order a Commission to be issued for the purpose of framing a constitution founded upon the fundamental laws of the country, and which should be in unison with the habits, and feelings, and manners of the people. That Commission was composed equally of Dutchmen and Belgians, and after they had drawn up a code of laws, the king submitted it to the States-General, in which the Belgians were represented by one Deputy for every 2,000 inhabitants of Belgium. It was quite true, that a certain majority of the Belgian Deputies voted against that constitution. He was ready to admit, that such was the fact, but it should also be stated, that their principal objection was made against the two first articles of that Constitution, which went to give equal protection and equal toleration to all religions in Belgium. The Catholic Bishops in Belgium specially addressed the king against the proposed constitution, and in that address they used the following words:—"Sire—The existence and the privileges of the Catholic Church in this part of the kingdom are inconsistent with an article of the plan of the new constitution, by which equal favour and protection are promised to all religions." They further said, in the same address, "Sire, we do not hesitate to declare to your Majesty, that the canonical laws which are sanctioned by the ancient constitutions of the country, are incompatible with the projected constitution which would give in Belgium, equal favour and protection to all religions." It was upon such grounds as those, that the majority of the Belgian Deputies voted against the proposed constitution. But it would be absurd to take that majority as the majority of the whole Chamber of the States-General, and it would have been absurd for the king to have acceded to its wishes, regarding it as such. Again he would say, that he did not know to what publication, or to what authority, the hon. and learned Member was indebted for his facts and statements, but he could assure that hon. Member, that the authority to which he had trusted, had completely misled him in this instance. The hon. Member had accused the king of Holland of having abolished trial by Jury, which it was said the Belgians possessed in the time of Napoleon. But that Emperor several times interfered with it, and it was not much resorted to. It was never well understood in Belgium, and the fact was, that three Jury laws which were successively proposed by the king of Holland to the Chamber in Brussels had been rejected by them. In truth, the trial by Jury was not popular in Belgium, and no attempt was made by the Belgians to obtain it till 1827, when a bill brought forward for this purpose, was rejected by two-thirds of the Chambers. The charge of the hon. and learned Member against the king of Holland, for reducing the Judges to a state of dependence on him, was quite unfounded. The 106th article of the constitution guaranteed their complete independence; and, as a proof that they were not at all interfered with, or controlled by the Crown, he begged to mention the fact, that there was not a single instance of the removal of a Judge from his situation during the fifteen years that the king of Holland had reigned over Belgium. The decree as to the change of the language in judicial and legal proceedings, whatever objections might be urged to it, or whatever reasons might be urged in its defence, had been, in fact, rescinded some months before the revolution had taken place in Belgium. The hon. and learned Gentleman had made a most unjust attack upon the king of Holland for his conduct with regard to the Press. There was no censorship over the Press in Belgium; there was, in fact, during his reign there, no restriction on the Press with regard to publication under the charter which he had granted to Belgium, and the fullest liberty was granted to the Press to publish whatever was not libellous. With respect to schools, about which the hon. Member had complained so much the only regulation enforced was, that the persons who opened them, should be properly qualified for the education of youth. The complaint with respect to the Philosophical College which the king had established at Louvain, was equally unfounded; and, at all events, as it was found to be unpopular, it was suppressed some months before the breaking out of the revolution. As to the non-appointment of Bishops to vacant Sees in Belgium, it should be recollected, that the king of Holland was a Protestant Sovereign, and that as such he could not appoint Roman Catholic Prelates. About three years ago, however, he succeeded in obtaining a concordat with the See of Rome, and the Pope had expressed his satisfaction at the appointments which had taken place since that time. It was said, that few Belgians were employed in diplomatic situations. The paucity of the Belgians employed in such situations was to be accounted for principally through non-application on their part for employment of that description. Nevertheless it did so happen, that at this moment there were three Belgians in diplomatic situations, under the king of Holland. Another of the charges of the hon. and learned Gentleman was, that no Belgians were employed in the higher departments of the army, which was, perhaps, owing to the Belgians themselves, for a vast deal fewer of them, in proportion, than the Dutch were promoted to the upper ranks of the French army, when both were in the service of Napoleon. The hon. and learned Member had spoken of the unpopularity which the Belgian Deputies who had taken the side of the king of Holland in the States-general, had earned for themselves. As a proof of their unpopularity, he begged to state, that two-thirds of them were at present members of the National Congress in Brussels. He had shortly stated those facts, to show that the hon. and learned Member had been grossly misled by the authority on which he had relied, and he was sure, that the hon. Member, when he was disabused of the error into which he had fallen, would be the first to retract a mis-statement, of the having made which wilfully he need scarcely say, that he altogether acquitted the hon. Member.

said, that the noble Lord had, with great courtesy, made a statement in reply to what had fallen from him (Mr. O'Connell) on a former evening, in reference to the conduct of the king of Holland. He (Mr. O'Connell) should feel the utmost delight in retracting any statement which he had made, if it were proved that such statement were unfounded. Instead, however, of retracting any thing which he had stated, with regard to the conduct of the king of Holland, he had only to regret, that his charges against that personage, on a former evening, had been preferred in a very mitigated shape. He had not stated a single fact which he was not ready to substantiate by documents. He hoped, that the House would bear with him on this occasion, while he proceeded to vindicate that statement which the noble Lord had endeavoured to impugn. As to the non-presentation of remonstrances from the Belgians, against the annexation of Belgium to Holland, he was aware that that annexation was only finally arranged in 1815, though it had been determined upon in July, 1814; but the noble Lord had forgotten to state, that the king of Holland was in possession of Belgium, as the commissary of the Holy Alliance, all the time between the period when Napoleon was completely defeated, and the period when the union of the two kingdoms was arranged and finally agreed to. When it was said, therefore, that the Belgians sent forward no remonstrances against that union to the Holy Alliance, let it be recollected, that the king of Holland was in military possession of Belgium, and there was in that country no magistracy, no civil authority, no law but the will of the Stadtholder; and it might very truly be said, that the Belgians expressed no unwillingness to the union. How could they? Dare any man of them, under such circumstances, throw out a hint about it? The king, indeed, referred the constitution to a Committee. But the way he managed was distinguished by the chicanery which pervaded the whole conduct of that king. The Dutch had already agreed to the constitution, and well they might, as they had all the advantages of it on their own side: but the constitution was referred to a Congress of an equal number of Dutch and Belgian Notables. With respect to the Dutch, then, it was merely acta agere. The Dutch nominees of the king in the States General of course voted for it, because it was favourable to themselves; but of the 1,323 Belgic deputies in the States-General, 796 voted against the acceptance of the constitution, and 527 in favour of it. Was not that a rejection of the proposed constitution on the part of Belgium? Could any man in his senses say, that the Belgians did not thus reject this constitution by a majority against it? His Dutch majesty, however, decided, that 527 votes were more than 796, and that the minority was greater than the majority. Because 126 of the Belgian deputies who voted against the constitution, assigned as a reason for doing so, that the king was a Protestant, his majesty struck their votes out of the list, on the ground of their having given a reason for their votes. There were 282 of the Belgian deputies who did not vote at all, and the king at once decided that every one of them had voted on his side. Such conduct was an insult to common sense, and an outrage upon the feelings of the people of Belgium. All these Notables had been selected by the king, and yet they voted against the constitution, than which there could not be a more decisive proof that it was opposed to the feelings of the nation, and that it was eventually forced upon them by fraud and violence. But then they were told, that the Belgian Bishops had protested against the giving equal favour and protection to all religions in Belgium. In doing so they only imitated the example, and followed the steps, of the Protestant Tories in this country. In doing so, they only acted in accordance with the principles of the hon. member for Oxford, for instance, and of many other hon. Members in that House. For his part, he differed from the Belgian Bishops, and from the hon. member for Oxford, on that point; he was for giving the same protection to all religions; but again he would say on behalf of those Belgian Bishops, that they only protested against the protection of the Protestant religion in Belgium, as the Protestant Tories would protest against the protection of the Catholic religion here. Such was the reason that some of the Belgic deputies assigned, for voting against the constitution proposed by the king of Holland; but though it was not a good reason, it was no just cause for disqualifying them for voting. Could any decision afford a greater evidence of fraud and force than that decision, on the part of the king of Holland? It was in such a way that this constitution was forced upon Belgium. By means of that constitution, Belgium was saddled with the debt of Holland. The only debt that had previously existed in Belgium, was the Austro-Belgic debt, which amounted to about 1,000,000l. sterling. By the constitution, however, which the king of Holland imposed upon Belgium, it was saddled in addition with the Dutch debt, which amounted to 80,000,000l. sterling. It was not at all wonderful that the Dutch Deputies had voted for the imposition of that constitution upon Belgium, when, by means of it, they transferred 39,500,000l. of it to the shoulders of the Belgians. The consequence was, that the increase of taxation in Belgium was enormous. To such an extent, indeed, was it carried, that the French war taxes in Belgium under Napoleon, amounted only to one-third of the Dutch peace taxes in that country. This taxation was, besides, increasing every year during the reign of his Dutch majesty over Belgium, and the result must have been either a bankruptcy, or a revolution, if that cause alone had been allowed to operate. In the year 1821, the king of Holland imposed additional taxes to the amount of 4,000,000l., 3,000,000l. of which were thrown on Belgium, and the remaining 1,000,000l. on the Dutch. Was that a fair or a just distribution of the burthen of taxation between the two countries? Besides, though the Belgic population amounted to 4,000,000, and the Dutch to only 2,000,000, the Dutch had an equal number of representatives in the States General. The consequence was, that the king being always sure of the Dutch Deputies, had only to bribe one or two of the Belgic Deputies, to secure a majority for any measure which he might propose with regard to Belgium, however onerous or unjust such a measure might be towards that country. It was by that means that he secured a majority of two in 1821, when the unjustly disproportionate share of the new taxes was laid upon Belgium. In truth and fact, there never was a more iniquitous and unjust union, than that which subsisted between Belgium and Holland, unless, perhaps, that which at present existed between two other countries, to which he would not further allude. The Dutch king, in 1814, when acting as commissary of the Holy Alliance, abolished by a decree the Trial by Jury in Belgium, and he never restored it, though the Belgians frequently petitioned for it. In one of the petitions, the Belgians, though living under the rule of this Dutch king, had the courage to repeat that the Trial by Jury "had been assassinated in Belgium." It was said by the apologists of the king, that he had presented three Jury codes to the Chamber, which were successively rejected by it. But when were they presented? It was not until the year 1828 that the first of them was offered to the Chamber, and the legislation of the middle ages was enlightened, compared with the specimen of legislation which they afforded. The fact was, that the Belgians were obliged to reject them, they were so extremely bad. In a message to the Chamber, on the 11th of December, 1829, the king of Holland expressly declared, that the Trial by Jury was an "exotic innovation" in Belgium. In the same decree by which the king of Holland abolished the Trial by Jury in Belgium, he ordained, that the examination of witnesses should no longer take place in open Court, and he thus removed one of the surest safeguards of public justice. Still further, he rendered the Judges in Belgium, quite dependent on his will and power. It was true, that not a single one of them had been removed, during the fifteen years that his Dutch majesty ruled in Belgium but his (Mr. O'Connell's) complaint was, that such was the case, and that all that time those Judges held their offices provisionally. The constitution declared, that the Judges should be irremovable; but then the king was to have the first nomination of them, and afterwards the Chamber was to have it; and by thus keeping in the original Judges, he rendered them perfectly dependent on him, for they were well aware that they only held their situations "during their good behaviour." Yet this king, who by thus withholding the execution of that part of the constitution which related to the Judges, rendered the judicial office provisional, and completely dependent, had been lauded in that House as a philosophic monarch! Undoubtedly, if cunning meant philosophy, he possessed a most superabundant store of wisdom, for, by withholding the constitution of the Courts, he contrived to keep in his hands, during the fifteen years of his reign in Belgium, an unlimited control over the Judges in that kingdom. The law of libel declared, that whoever excited a hatred of the government, or created any distrust (mefiance) of the government, should receive, as a minimum of punishment, one year's imprisonment, and six hours in the pillory, whilst the maximum of punishment should be death. This was the detestable law, under which Belgium had laboured for fourteen years. The law was published on the 25th of April, 1815, and not a single year had elapsed without somebody being prosecuted under this law. In the month of June, 1830, no less than thirty-two prosecutions were commenced under this law, on the same day. He would now name a few of the leading cases of oppression which had occurred under this mild philosophic king of the Netherlands. The first case lie would allude to, was that of Mr. Wallace, who had presented a memorial to the assembly at the Hague, praying that he might be allowed to institute a prosecution against the minister of police, for having illegally and tyrannically banished from Brussels two French gentlemen, who had resided at that capital, and who were entitled to all the rights and privileges of free and natural born subjects. For laying this petition before the house, Mr. Wallace was thrown into solitary confinement for sixty-six days. He was then brought to trial, for a transportable felony, and if he was acquitted he did not owe his escape to the king, or to his prosecutors. He could quote very many other instances of oppression. He would allude to a case of a priest at Antwerp, a man of the highest respectability, a most exemplary character, and one who employed his leisure time in the pursuits of literature. This person was invited to a dinner in a private family at Antwerp, and in the course of the entertainment, he produced some Latin verses, in which there was a line expressive of the sentiment, that the Belgians were ignorant of submitting to a foreign yoke—

"Nescit subire jugum."

For this line he had to suffer two years' imprisonment. He would now come to the case of M. de Potter. That gentleman's articles in the newspapers were so written, that it was impossible to attack any one of them with a view of bringing it under the law of libel; and what was the stratagem of Government? They took them all together, declaring, that though not separately libels, they were libels taken as a whole, and tried M. de Potter before the Premier President, without a Jury, and sentenced him to seven years' transportation. M. de Potter was a politician, and might merit the anger of Government; but what could be thought of the case of M. Vander Spragen? This gentleman published a large octavo volume upon Political Economy, and a prosecution was immediately commenced against him. M. de Potter's prosecution was going on at the same time; and a gentleman, M. Van de Weyer, now the Ambassador to this country, was the Keeper of the Public Library; he was Professor of Philosophy, and he had been elected Keeper of the Royal Manuscripts. M. de Potter sent to him to know if he would act as his counsel, and he replied in the affirmative; but on this being known, an intimation was forthwith conveyed to him, that if he acted as counsel for M. de Potter, he would be immediately deprived of his office. "You may deprive me of twenty places," he replied; "but I will do my duty?" Immediately he rose in Court to defend his friend; no sooner had he uttered the word "Messieurs"—the term in which Pleaders commence in addressing the Court—than a royal messenger rose, and gave him his dismissal from his official situations. How, too, did the upright King of Holland proceed in the case of M. Van Staaten. That gentleman had applied to seven members of the legal profession to draw up his case. The very next day all these seven gentlemen were committed to gaol, and were held without bail or mainprize, nor was it until a twelvemonth had elapsed that they were restored to their profession. In hearing of this case, who could forget that of the seven Bishops in England, which was followed by a revolution that no man could hesitate to justify, and yet the bigotted tyrant who prosecuted the seven Bishops never thought of prosecuting the Counsel that undertook their defence? But the Press in Belgium was open to prosecutions by foreigners. The king of France had a Belgian writer prosecuted and punished. And who was the next prosecutor? Why, it was no less a man than the beloved Ferdinand. A paragraph had appeared in the papers acknowledging that Ferdinand was an excellent embroiderer, but at the same time the writer took the liberty of doubting if the Virgin Mary would be much pleased with a petticoat embroidered by hands that were stained with innocent blood. The beloved Ferdinand prosecuted the writer of this, and he was punished. Even the Duke of Wellington tried his hand at these prosecutions. The Governor of some colony had neglected his duty, and great disturbance had been produced in consequence in the interior. The writer stated, that the Governor was a friend of the Duke of Wellington, and that his object was to throw the colony into the arms of England. The Duke of Wellington on this instituted a prosecution for libel, and had laid his damages at 10,000 florins, and what did he get? why, five fanes. He would do his Grace the justice to say, that he believed, that he did not put one penny of this in his own pocket. The Burgomaster of Maestricht, for opposing an illegal tax, had been tried and acquitted, but was deprived of his office, and of all his political rights. Another Burgomaster, for suggesting a petition to the House of Assembly in favour of the Jury law, was dismissed from his office, and deprived of his political rights, by which he lost his chance of being returned as a member of the Chambers. A Baron Stassart, a native Belgian, who had served in the French army, had resigned his pension of 10,000 francs in France, and had preferred to reside in his native country, upon a pension of only 1,800 guilders. He was a member of the second Chamber, before which was laid a petition complaining of grievances, and he voted that the petition should be received and considered. The next day he was deprived of his pension, and his political rights were taken away from him by this philosophic king. The noble Lord was wrong in his opinion of the press. The public press was intelligent enough. The noble Lord should reflect that there were 80,000,000l. of Dutch debt, some of which was due to English subjects, and this, he might easily imagine, would have its influence on the English press. The manner in which he had been reported in the leading journal was rather singular. It was something new for a reporter to state that a speech of his had received "a sneering answer." Such a thing had never before happened to him, and it had never happened except to him. To call the Belgians rebels was an abuse of terms, and a gross calumny. With respect to the religious part of the question, the Pope had considered himself to be defrauded in the transaction. The greatest tyranny had been shown in the licensing of schools. Not Carlile or Taylor could have gone farther in religious freedom than the Emperor Joseph 2nd, and his foundation of the College at Brussels had created the revolution of 1787, and yet the Catholic clergy were obliged to pass three years in study at this college. He had now shown hat he had exaggerated nothing. He had been attacked, but what had been his crime? He had merely assailed the Toryism of Holland, a Toryism similar to that which had devastated his own country, and yet this had excited the anger of a right hon. Baronet.

"Sejanus, Wolsey hurt not honest Fleury, But yet would put some statesmen in a fury."

He had now shown, that the Belgians were called upon by every sanction of religion to endure their tyranny only until they could snap their chains, and he trusted that they would never again be united.

did not think an attack upon the king of the Netherlands a proper mode of proceeding, and it was only because the noble Lord had made a statement in answer to what the learned Gentleman had said on a previous night, that he felt disinclined to interrupt the learned Gentleman, although the whole discussion was very irregular. He thought it far from desirable, that the discussion should be proceeded in. The subject extended over fifteen years, and it was not likely that the debate would be speedily concluded.

said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that the Belgians had had sufficient ground for the course they had adopted; but surely there was no one who had heard the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, both on that and on a former night, who would not admit, that what he said was more directed to another country than to that which formed the ostensible object of his two speeches. Much had been said respecting the Belgian Debt. It might be true, that it was not so large as that of Holland; but the hon. and learned Gentleman now admitted, there was a debt, which he had before denied. The hon. and learned Member had again misstated the facts of several divisions of the second Chamber on the Jury question. As to all the special cases of individual hardship which the hon. and learned Gentleman had enlarged upon, they had nothing but bare assertion to rest upon; but all the cases and circumstances he had mentioned did not justify the Belgians in casting off their allegiance. Contenting himself with these observations for the present, he should only say, that whenever the hon. and learned Gentleman thought proper to bring forward a motion on the subject, or bring the subject in any form again before the House, under circumstances in which it would be practicable to collect evidence, he should be prepared to answer him.

said, that 5,000l. had already been voted for this purpose, and he protested against anything further being paid out of the pockets of the people of England. If any wrong had been done to these individuals by the Assembly of Jamaica, the people of that island ought to make the compensation. It was not to the principle of just compensation that he objected, but to the House granting it without such necessary previous information as would enable the Members to determine, first, the grounds on which the claimants were entitled to compensation; and next, the proper quarter for defraying the burthen of it. Till, therefore, Ministers furnished the documents with respect to the present case, which he had on a recent occasion unsuccessfully moved for, he must give the vote a decided negative and take the sense of the Committee on it.

said, the question lay in a short compass—namely, whether these two gentlemen were entitled to compensation; that is, whether they had been illegally deprived of their situations by the Duke of Manchester, and exposed to consequent unmerited suffering, or otherwise; and who were the parties bound to afford the compensation? The whole point turned on another question—as to whether they were, or were not, aliens? If they were, the Duke of Manchester had not exceeded his functions of governor; if they were not, he had acted illegally, and they were entitled to compensation. The case had been fully inquired into in the years 1824 and 1825 in the island, and the report, and all the documents on which it was founded, referred to Mr. Justice Richardson, in 1826, for his decision. That gentleman having, however, retired from his judicial duties, in consequence of ill health, the whole case was referred to Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet, and that learned lawyer gave it as his opinion, that the Duke of Manchester had acted illegally towards the claimants under the present vote; for that they were not, in the eyes of the law, aliens, but British subjects. Mr. Bosanquet's opinion, and all the documents on which it was founded, were then referred to the then Attorney and Solicitor General, and they decided that that opinion was just and legal. The only question, then, that remained was, the amount of compensation, or damages, for unmerited suffering; and this point was left to the arbitration of Mr. Selwyn, upon whose award a Treasury minute was issued under the administration of the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Murray) opposite, who then filled the office of Colonial Secretary, under which minute, dated the 30th of July, 1830, a sum was paid to the parties on account, with an explicit promise on the part of the Treasury, that the remainder would be made good by a vote of Parliament. Hence the present vote, to which, as founded, after the fullest inquiry, on the opinion and award of gentlemen eminent in their profession, and free from all personal bias one way or the other, he could not anticipate any opposition.

said, he would only trouble the Committee with a very few observations upon this subject, understanding from the right hon. Gentleman, who had stated very accurately the particulars of the case, that no blame whatever was attached to the Government which preceded the present in what had been done. The arbitration, he thought, had taken place when his lamented friend, the late Mr. Huskisson, was in the Colonial Office. He had but few words to say as to the share which he had taken in the transaction. After the report of the arbitrators had been made, there was a supposition that some new facts might be elicited, which would possibly alter it, and he thought it incumbent upon him to send other papers, which had reached the office, to the parties who had the case before them. The result was, that the same decision was pronounced, and it was not till the Law Officers of the Crown had, after due investigation, confirmed the opinion of Mr. Serjeant Bosanquet, that the Committee was called upon to vote the remaining sum, part of which had been already paid, the amount of the compensation given.

having been a member of the Council of Jamaica, which had advised the Duke of Manchester to act as he had done towards the parties interested in the present vote, felt that it would be indecorous in him to offer an opinion on the merits of the case, in the absence of the documents essential to its thorough elucidation. He would therefore leave it in the hands of the Committee—merely observing, that he was confident that the documents, if produced, would show that the Council of Jamaica were warranted to act as they had done.

said, that the country relied on the professions of Ministers and their supporters to enforce economy to every possible extent; and therefore would hear with surprise of the present vote. As it was plain, from the statement of the hon. Secretary of the Treasury, that the Duke of Manchester's having acted illegally was the original error, why, he asked, in the name of common-sense and common justice, should not that noble Duke, and not the public, be called upon to defray the expense of compensation?

agreed with the hon. Member, but still felt himself compelled to give a reluctant vote in favour of the Motion as it stood. The statement of the hon. Secretary of the Treasury made it evident, that they were committed to the present vote, else he would divide with the hon. member for Middlesex against it.

had, on a recent occasion, resisted the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, for the production of the documents to which the present vote referred, on the ground, that their printing would cost 6,000l., and that the whole legal inquiry would have to be gone over again by that House, and the House had agreed with him, in negativing the hon. Member's motion. The inexpediency, then, of producing these papers having been thus decided, the only question was, whether the Colonial or the Home Government was bound to make good the award made in favour of Messrs. Lecesne and Escoffery. It appeared to him plain, that as Ministers were responsible for the Colonial Governors appointed by their advice, they, and not the Duke of Manchester, were the persons bound to afford compensation to individuals illegally used, like the present claimants.

said, if the hon. member for Middlesex persisted in his motion, he should vote against it; but, if the hon. Member would shape it for a Committee to inquire into the claims of the parties, he would support such a motion.

said, that the formation of a Committee would be of no benefit; the case had already been fully investigated. With respect to the act of the Duke of Manchester, it must be taken as the act of the Government. He did not say, that the Duke of Manchester was bound to follow the recommendation of the Assembly for the removal of the individuals, but, had he not, he would have been placed in a disagreeable position. It would be a gross act of injustice to require the noble Duke to pay the compensation awarded.

cared not much who made good the award, so as Messrs. Lecesne and Escoffery received the compensation to which their most unmerited treatment fully entitled them. He considered these individuals to have been most cruelly used, and he thought that they ought to have compensation, no matter whether it came from the Colonial Assembly, or from the Duke of Manchester, or from any other quarter. This country was only called upon to give 16,000l. as a compensation for the grossest act of perfidy and injustice ever committed. He said this knowingly, because he had given some attention to this matter. He was not connected with either party in this case; but if he had any connexion with it, his connexions and his relationship lay rather on the other side than on that which he was then advocating. He left it to the feeling and to the justice of the Committee to do what was right on this occasion; but when he considered the whole series of oppression which these individuals had endured—when he recollected that it was such as no English Legislature had ever sanctioned before—he thought that it was incumbent upon the House to make them ample compensation for the indignities and injuries which they had suffered. Indeed, he would put it to the Committee whether 16,000l. could be a sufficient compensation to individuals, who, independently of their pecuniary loss, had been manacled, tied neck and heels, and carried out of the island like slaves? In conclusion, he maintained that the Committee was bound to make to these individuals the most ample compensation within its power.

contended, that the Committee should give these individuals, not only ample, but also immediate compensation, inasmuch as a delay of all justice for seven years was something very like a denial of justice. It had been admitted on all hands that these individuals had been injured by the conduct of a representative of the British Government; he therefore insisted that the British Government ought to be responsible for the injury which its representative had inflicted. He thought that it would be hard upon the Duke of Manchester to make him personally responsible, as he had acted upon the advice of the Saw-officers with which the Government had provided him. He was of opinion that the case ought not to be re-opened, as it had been submitted to the arbitration of a most upright, learned, and pains-taking Judge, Mr. Justice Bosanquet, who had decided it in favour of Messrs. Lecesne and Escoffery.

could not refrain from observing, that the hon. member for Reading had been wanting in common justice towards him (Mr. Burge) when he (Mr. Palmer) gave so strong an opinion upon this case, without knowing any thing of the evidence by which it was supported. He denied that these individuals had been either manacled or tied neck and heels, He would not enter into the defence of the authorities of Jamacia upon this occasion, however he might be provoked by unjust accusations to do so. He would only implode the Committee to suspend its judgment with regard to this transaction, until the Members were made acquainted with all the circumstances connected with it.

contended, that these individuals had been most unjustly and oppressively treated, and he cared not by whom. They had sought a trial—they had been refused a trial—and yet, after all, they had been convicted without a trial.

denied the truth of this statement.

persisted in declaring, that they had been convicted on the green-bag evidence of the Colonial Assembly of Jamaica; and then, because that evidence would not satisfy a Court of Justice, had been deported as aliens. Now they claimed to be, and had since proved themselves to be, British-born subjects; and the establishment of that fact rendered the use of the Alien Act against them still more oppressive. The hon. and learned Gentleman, after entering into the facts of the case, which have been repeatedly published, proceeded to enforce their claims to compensation, on the ground that though economy was a good thing, justice was a better. He was also of opinion, that the Duke of Manchester ought not to be made pecuniarily responsible for the injury which these individuals suffered, as he had merely acted in conformity with the advice given him by the Assembly and the Council. He believed that, if he had refused to act according to their advice, he would have been liable to an impeachment.

said, that if these persons were to be indemnified, so ought every man who had been imprisoned under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. If the hon. member for Middlesex did not persist in dividing the Committee upon this clause, he should.

was surprised at the accusation of injustice which the hon. member for Eye had brought against him, for the speech which he had made upon this subject. Though he had not examined all the papers connected with it, he knew that they had been referred to the decision of a most learned and upright Judge, and that that Judge had declared, that these two individuals had been harshly and unjustly treated, and ought to be recompensed. He should have felt the rebuke of the hon. member for Eye more deeply, had he not recollected, that that hon. Member was, to a certain degree, mixed up with this transaction, and that he was now bound to confirm in the House of Commons the judgment which had been given by his advice in the Island of Jamaica.

said, that the advice which he, as Attorney-general of Jamaica, had given to the Duke of Manchester on this transaction, had met with the approbation both of the Council and of the Assembly of that Island. He did not wish to shrink from any of the measures which he had then advised.

thought the present discussion altogether unnecessary, as the whole question had been previously settled by the House. The Government was bound, he thought, to grant the compensation awarded.

was of opinion, that the present Government was not bound to carry into effect the award made during the late Government. He admitted, that injustice had been done to the two individuals but he must contend, that the people of this country were not bound to provide the compensation. He would not consent to vote the money unless some further in formation were supplied on the subject.

said, he had the honour to introduce the Irish Estimates to the House. They had been framed with the greatest attention to economy, and he hoped they were not liable to many objections. It was in contemplation to introduce measures which he hoped would be attended by a considerable saving, but they were not able to carry them into effect immediately. The first vote he should propose was, 5,794l. for the Protestant Charter Schools in Ireland for 1831. The Committee would observe that there was a considerable reduction in this vote, as last year the sum proposed was 8,950l.

asked when these grants were likely to cease; he had the strongest objection to these schools, which tended to promote religious animosities.

intimated, that it was proposed first to reduce this grant to 3,000l., and soon to cause its cessation altogether. It was in a state of gradual reduction; a few years since, the amount was 40,000l.—

said, the houses and buildings now occupied by these schools were purchased with the public money. If they were to be broken up, care ought to be taken to secure the buildings, and not allow the trustees to have them.

stated, that this vote also was in course of gradual reduction, with a view to its abolition as early as possible.

felt some regret at hearing these grants were to be gradually reduced. The poor people in Ireland had no other resource than these charities; they had no Poor-laws to fly to.

said, the whole principles of Foundling Hospitals wore bad; they inculcated bad habits, and fostered immorality. They induced the poor to look on them as asylums for their children, and thus made them indifferent to the consequences of their conduct. They were the resources of bad governments; Scotland required no such grants. They ought, by all means, to encourage feelings of self-reliance and habits of forethought in the lower orders, which such institutions had a direct tendency to counteract. He was glad to hear the grant was reduced.

concurred with his hon. friend that the principles on which such institutions were founded were bad. The mortality in them was frightful, and he feared the consequences were made worse by the salaries and allowances to the nurses not being regularly paid. He should recommend hon. Members to read the reports; the deaths were so numerous as to be hardly credible.

said, the delay of the payment of the salaries was caused by the time taken to prepare the Estimates.

said, it was the general feeling of the Committee to whom the whole subject was referred, that the grants should be gradually abolished. It was only on account of the children already in the asylums, that the grant was not instantly discontinued. If the children were not humanely treated, the trustees and overlookers of the institution were to blame.

had strong reasons for believing, that the nurses treated the children intrusted to them with the utmost kindness. There were many instances of the children retaining the strongest attachment through life to them.

said, it appeared, notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee, that children were admitted last year. This was wholly improper, and a neglect of duty in the late Government; the resolution was, "that the Committee recommend that all admissions of children to the Foundling Hospital shall cease and determine after the 1st of January, 1830."

considered, that the people of Dublin ought to pay all the expense of these local charities, but if the public were to subscribe to support local institutions, hospitals, on a good footing, were the best that could be supported.

said, the next resolution was, "That 1,388l. be granted for the Richmond Lunatic Asylum."—The expenses of this institution had been reduced this year 5,312l., the last year's estimate being 6,700l.

regretted very much to see these grants reduced. Many charitable institutions would be discontinued in consequence. The assumed saving was, after all, a mere transfer, the expense being saved to the public, but thrown upon the starving peasantry of Ireland. These grants had been given to compensate in some degree the loss occasioned by so many absentees, and others, who were compelled to attend their duty in England, and there spent much of their revenues.

said, however the hon. and learned Member's remarks might apply in general, they did not apply to this institution in particular; it was a local charity, and its benefits confined to a particular district.

said, the next resolution was, "That 6,323l., be granted for the Hibernian Society for Soldiers' Children." A reduction of 1,273l. had been made since last year, in this grant. There were formerly 800 children in the school, there were now 500, and they proposed to reduce the number to 300, which would allow of still further reductions.

regretted, that the orphans of soldiers, who had fought the battles of their country, were to be deprived of the benefits they enjoyed by means of this institution.

said, the children of artizans had as much right to be maintained by the State as the children of soldiers. This institution could not, however, be abolished in Ireland, while a similar one was kept up in England, but he hoped the grants for both would be discontinued.

said, the children of Catholics were only admitted into these schools on the understanding, that they were to be educated as Protestants. He hoped some explanation would be given if this was really so.

said, he was not aware of that particular circumstance, but he must observe, that, as the expense of supporting the orphan children was borne by the State, and as it was obvious they must have some religious education, it would follow, that the only one that could be given them was that founded on the religion of the State.

said, the Catholic relations of these orphan children objected to send them to the school, where they knew they would be educated as Protestants. This led to their total exclusion. If the Protestant religion was that of the State, the Catholic religion was that of the great majority of the Irish people, and the exclusive system had a pernicious influence on their minds.

said, the exclusive system had been much relaxed. The children were now allowed to be apprenticed to Catholic masters, although he acknowledged the school was still under the superintendence of a clergyman of the Established Church; but the children of both persuasions were similarly treated in every respect.

could also assure the House that the children of Catholics and Protestants were placed on the same footing.

said, the system altogether was what he complained of. The Protestant soldier's child was educated in his father's religion, the Catholic in what was called the State religion.

said, the grant had been reduced 132l. since last year.

recommended that this vote should be withdrawn as speedily as was compatible with justice to those who happened to be at present on the institution. There were considerable abuses connected with it. The children educated there, were not those for whose benefit it was intended, and the expenses besides were far too large for the number maintained.

replied, that all admissions were to be stopped for the future, as it was in the contemplation of Government to anticipate the hon. Member's suggestion.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had made an extraordinary use of his statements, and he confessed he thought the opponents of the measure would not derive much advantage from his arguments. The right hon. Gentleman placed the whole question on the perpetual character of the Methuen Treaty; but it must be recollected, that at the end of fifteen years after the signing of that treaty, either party was at liberty to put an end to it if they thought fit. Dismissing it, therefore, he meant to apply himself to the purely commercial part of the question, and on that he believed the Government had committed a very dangerous error. The Vice-President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Poulett Thomson) had asked, with an air of triumph, if they thought that the Portuguese would deprive themselves of some of the most necessary articles of consumption, purely because this country admitted French wines on better terms? He would ask, in his turn, however, what was to prevent the Portuguese from equalising the duties on all the articles of export from England? According to the returns of 1830, it appeared that the exports to Portugal on official value amounted to two millions and a half, in addition to 200,000l. worth of cod, shipped from our colonies of Newfoundland. The fish which Portugal took from the fisheries of Newfoundland amounted to 300,000 quintals. The transport employed 100 sail of vessels, and it was received at a duty of fifteen per cent, while the fish brought by our great rivals, the Americans and the Norwegians, paid a duty of thirty per cent. The consequence was, that we enjoyed the monopoly of the market, in spite of the active competition of the Americans and the Norwegians. If the duty should be equalised, we should be driven out of the market. The noble Lord said, that if the duty should be equalised, we could compete with the Norwegians and Americans in Portugal, as we now competed with them in Spain. He would tell the noble Lord what had been the effect of that competition in Spain. Twenty years ago we imported into Spain 80,000 quintals of fish, whilst the Norwegians imported only 10,000. Now, the case was exactly reversed—we imported the 10,000 quintals, and the Norwegians imported the 80,000. Were the noble Lord, and those who advised him, acquainted with the state of our export trade to Portugal, as compared with that to other countries? Our exports to Portugal alone exceeded those to France, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, collectively. At the same time, our imports from those countries were ten times more than those from Portugal. But the noble Lord said, that by taking off part of the duty on French wines, we should induce the French to take more of our commodities. Experience might have instructed Ministers on this point. A few years ago we reduced the duty on French wine 6s. 6d. per gallon. It was now proposed to reduce it only 1s. 9d. per gallon. Our imports from France were now twice as much as they were at the time the duty was reduced, and our exports were only half as large as they were at the same period. If the large reduction of duty had failed to induce the French to take our commodities, it was but reasonable to expect that the small reduction would fail also. Unfortunately, many persons advocated what was called free trade, without considering the consequences to which that system would lead. Foreign nations knew what we meant by free trade. They knew that we wanted to obtain the monopoly of their markets, and to prevent them from becoming manufacturers for themselves. The United States of America, one of the most enlightened nations in the world, inferior to us in hardly any respect, repudiated the doctrine of free trade. She knew that she could get manufactured iron and cotton goods cheaper from us than she could make them herself. But she would not deal with us notwithstanding. She legislated for the future, and, knowing that she had an increasing population, determined to take measures for becoming a manufacturing nation herself. Already America was making rapid progress in manufactures, and from the information which he possessed on the subject, he believed, that in twenty years she would be altogether independent of English manufactures. He was at a loss to conceive what motive could have induced the noble Lord, embarrassed as he was with the Reform Bill, to trouble the House with this subject at the present time. Had the drinkers of French wines complained that they could not pay for their burgundy, champagne, and claret? If so, he would tell the noble Lord not to attend to them. The measure now proposed was a departure from the noble Lord's own principles. The noble Lord had always professed a desire to relieve the poorer classes. He was now relieving the wealthy, and placing an additional burthen on the poor and the middling classes. Whether he looked at it as a question of finance or of commercial policy, he considered it one of the most unfortunate measures ever proposed by a Ministry. If the noble Lord should succeed in transferring the wine trade from Portugal to France, he would add to the prosperity of a country which must always, to a certain degree, be our rival, and diminish the power of a nation which never could injure us, but had, on many occasions done us good service. It was, however, impossible to increase the consumption of French wines of the first growth, owing to the limited quantity of them which was produced. In 1828, when the Americans, by a new tariff, placed almost prohibitory duties on British goods, what did the late Mr. Huskisson say? He stated, that this country might, and would perhaps, be driven to import cotton from the Brazils, in order to show the Americans that this country was independent of them. Was this a hasty observation, or was it not rather the deliberate opinion of a statesman, founded on the principle that where a country acted in opposition to us, it became our duty to deal with other nations which were ready to act towards us on a fair principle of reciprocity? He now called on the noble Lord to apply this principle to the case of France and Portugal. He knew very well that the hon. member for Middlesex dissented from the doctrine which he laid down. That hon. Member would say, "Let us go where we can get any article at the cheapest rate," without looking to any collateral circumstances; but this case was connected with collateral circumstances that ought not to be overlooked. If they did not draw a proper distinction, in their intercourse with friendly and unfriendly Powers (he spoke in a commercial sense) the situation of this country would be greatly deteriorated. During the late war, this country might be said to have enjoyed the commerce of the whole world, and there was an abundant market for her manufactures. This was not now the case; and both in France and in America they were rapidly improving their manufactures. It was, therefore, important that we should retain whatever market we at present possessed. But yet, though the state of commercial affairs was such as he had described, Ministers were adding to the evil, by throwing open the home trade to an extent that was never before thought of; thus accelerating that distress and difficulty which would by and by assail us, when it would be utterly impossible to prevent or to guard against it. In saying this, he was not actuated by any feeling of despondency. He believed the resources of this country to be almost exhaustless; but still he feared, if the line of policy which he deprecated were persevered in, that this country would, in time, be brought on a level with the poorest nations of the continent. The agricultural interest would be the next to suffer; for it appeared to him, that a free trade in corn would, in the end, be called for. But if we procured corn from Poland, silk from France, and other articles from various places abroad, he admitted, that the consumers would be benefitted, the few would reap a certain degree of advantage, but the many would be ruined. And then he would ask the noble Lord, who was to pay the taxes? The next thing would be, to come down on the Funds; for he would contend, that the system which was now introduced would be found incompatible with paying the interest of the Debt and supporting such establishments as ours. He should conclude with moving a number of Resolutions, as an amendment to the second reading of the Bill. In doing so, however, he despaired of making any converts to his opinion; but still he deemed it necessary to place his sentiments on the Journals of the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an amendment, the following Resolutions. "Resolved, that it appears, by official statements, that the exports of British and colonial merchandise, and of British manufactures, from the United Kingdom to Portugal and her dependencies, with a population of about 2,500,000, have amounted to the sum of 11,906,622l. official value, during the past five years, independently of exports of about 1,000,000l. during that period, from the island of Newfoundland, averaging 2,581,324l. per annum; the imports from Portugal and her dependencies into the United Kingdom not having exceeded 3,023,277l., averaging 604,654l. per annum. "That this beneficial commerce, the fruits of more than a century of close and intimate connexion with Portugal, is carried on almost exclusively in British shipping, the proportion being about seven to one, thereby affording employment to a large portion of our commercial marine, adding essentially to the naval strength of the empire, and promoting the interests of British commerce and manufacture, and the employment of the labouring population of this country. "That, during the same period of five years, the exports of British and colonial merchandise, and of British manufactures, to France, with a population of about 30,000,000,have not exceeded 4,387,357l. official value, or 867,470l. per annum; the imports from that kingdom having amounted, during that time, to 11,282,190l. or 2,256,438l. per annum; and that, notwithstanding these imports have greatly increased since the late reduction of duty on French wines, silks, &c., the exports to France have materially diminished. "That this limited commerce with France is carried on indiscriminately in French and British vessels in the proportion of about three to two only in favour of the United Kingdom, exhibiting a remarkable contrast with the trade of Portugal. "That the magnitude of our exports to Portugal, as compared with France, is owing mainly to discriminating duties to the extent of about fifteen per centum in favour of Great Britain, giving almost the exclusive supply of her markets to British capital and industry; whilst the limited extent of our exports to France may be attributed to her discouragement of British produce and manufactures, by high protecting duties in favour of domestic capital and industry, to the exclusion of British competition: "Therefore, that it is highly inexpedient to make any alterations in the relative duties now payable by law on wines imported from Portugal and France for purposes of revenue only, which might be attained by an equal increase of duty on all foreign wines, thereby hazarding the loss of a steady and valuable market for our surplus produce and manufactures, diminishing our naval resources, and incurring the risk of transferring our remaining fisheries in Newfoundland to rival nations, without a reasonable hope, that further concessions to France will be productive of any corresponding benefit to our commerce, as long as that government, notwithstanding the liberal example we have before shewn, continues to maintain her present system of commercial policy."

seconded the Motion.

complained that the hon. member for Worcester had brought a most extraordinary charge against him—that of having spoken before the hon. Member. If he had done wrong in taking that course, he was extremely sorry for it; but he was not aware that the hon. Member had a greater right to speak than he had, because the hon. Member had given notice of his intention to move certain resolutions.

disclaimed any intention of bringing a charge against the hon. Member.

said, that, after the protracted and discursive address of the hon. member for Worcester, he should endeavour, as briefly as he could, to state his opinion on the question then before the House. The objections which had been raised went either to the policy of the measure altogether, or to the manner in which it was proposed to carry that policy into effect. He was surprised, that the right hon. member for Totness (Mr. Courtenay) should have endeavoured to re-construct an argument on a point which had formerly been introduced, and which had been successfully rebutted. The noble Lord, he believed, could easily satisfy the House, that the interpretation now put upon the Methuen Treaty was precisely the same that Mr. Pitt and other statesmen of his day had affixed to it. As to the notice required by the stipulations of the Treaty of 1810, that was only contemplated in the event of some peculiar change in this trade which did not exist at present. The stipulations of the Methuen Treaty and of the Treaty of 1810, remained just as they originally were. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think, that the stipulations of the Methuen Treaty were not now in force, but that Treaty was at present as much in force as ever. If Portugal pleased, she might, under that treaty of alternatives, entirely change the duties on the few bales of woollens we now sent to that country, which proved that the Methuen Treaty was still in operation. He would not go into the history of the immense injury which this country had sustained from the great wine monopoly in Portugal. It was not an unimportant topic; but, on account of the lateness of the hour, and having formerly stated his opinion on it, he did not think it necessary to advert further to it on this occasion. As to the general policy of the proposed measure, he entertained not a doubt. The miserable and declining state of Portugal, in every point of view—the necessity which existed for securing markets for our immense population—the change which had taken place in the political system of Europe since the period of the Methuen Treaty, and the manifest propriety of strengthening the bond of good will between this country and France—these different considerations, as it appeared to him, perfectly justified Ministers in adopting the course which they had followed on this occasion. These considerations had only received their just and proper weight in the Bill now before the House. The commercial relations of this country with France had, for a long time, settled down unsatisfactorily, which was, he believed, chiefly to be attributed to England. An unjust feeling towards the exports of France, and an unwise preference for those of Portugal, had existed for 130 years. By now equalizing these duties, we should place ourselves in the right with France, whereas we were before decidedly in the wrong, by the preference we had given to Portugal; but he hoped, that it was now beginning to be understood, that strict commercial amity and alliance with France ought to be the chiefest care of statesmen who desired to preserve the peace of Europe, and who wished their country to pursue a career of prosperity and honour. In his opinion, an independent legislation, and an active diplomacy, founded upon the knowledge of the internal wants of the French people—a knowledge but too little cultivated hitherto, but which might be easily acquired—would give us a party in France always favourable to our commercial interests. A great effort would thus be made to place the commercial interests of the two countries on an improved footing. To maintain peace with France must be one of the chief cares of every wise and just statesman; and he knew no surer mode of effecting that object, than by the encouragement of an extensive commercial connexion. If this liberal course of policy had been adopted long before, the ports of France would be now open to us, and we should have had a ready market for our woollens, our cottons, our iron ware, &c. But, instead of that, the two countries had persevered in a system of mutual prohibition and restriction. As we were the first to adopt that pernicious system, he was very happy to find, that, by this Bill, we should now be the first to depart from it. The resolutions of the hon. member for Worcester appeared to be framed with so little knowledge of true commercial principles, and with so little acquaintance with the real facts of the case, that he did not feel it necessary to descant on them. It appeared to him, that the great fear of the hon. Member was, lest this measure should have an injurious effect with respect to the exportation of fish from Newfoundland to Portugal. But, were the people; of this country to be content to suffer under, and to inflict on themselves, all the evils and mischiefs of the Methuen treaty, political as well as commercial, lest, by any chance whatever, the fish that was carried into Portugal from Newfoundland should, in future, be admitted into that country, at a rate of duty, to a certain degree, less favourable than at present? He was himself anxious for the prosperity of that trade; and it was a remarkable fact, that no apprehension of the kind which was entertained by the hon. Member, had been put forward by the inhabitants of Newfoundland. There was no reason whatever to suppose, that this measure would inflict any injury on the trade in fish. Portugal would scarcely attempt any thing of the kind, knowing, as she did, that we had in our hands, the means of immediate and ruinous retaliation. The hon. Gentleman had argued, that our imports from France were greater than our exports to that country, and that the reverse was the case with respect to Portugal. Now, many things that seemed to be imported from France were not so imported. Thus, silk, which came from Italy, through France, appeared to be an importation from France, though it really was not. Again, much of our exports to France was effected through the medium of a smuggling trade, and could not, therefore, be entered in the regular returns. He could not, therefore, subscribe to the accuracy of the hon. Member's calculations. The hon. Member complained, that the trade was at present restricted, and yet the specific which he prescribed to cure the evil was calculated to confine it within still more narrow limits. He regretted that the member for Worcester—a place of so much commercial importance—should withhold his support from the King's Government, in their praiseworthy exertions to extend the principles of free trade, and the division of labour, which was, in fact, the soul of trade, which would prove advantageous, in proportion as they were extended, and which were always attended with the most salutary effects, whenever they were acted upon.

did not think, that indulging in general arguments, as had been done by the hon. Member who had just sat down, was the best way to deal with a subject of this description, materially affecting the industry of the country. Such a subject should be discussed in a more practical manner, at a period when the agricultural and manufacturing interests were in a state of unparalleled distress. He should shortly have to lay petitions on the Table, from persons connected with the industrious classes, which would tell a different tale from those who declaimed upon the prosperity of the country. If the new system of universal liberality was to be adopted, without caring upon what system other countries acted, he should be glad to know, what was the use of the cumbrous and expensive Board of Trade, and of the other Boards, which were so well paid for considering commercial treaties. The treaty with Portugal was said to be the last vestige of the system of illiberal commercial regulations. That system, however, he contended, had exalted the commerce of this country to that gigantic state of health and prosperity, which had few prototypes in the history of nations. For the sake of encouraging a good understanding with France, it was now thought necessary to succumb to that country, by adopting a new commercial system. The experiment had been already made, however, with respect to France, but no beneficial result followed, for the principle of reciprocity was not acted upon by that country, and every attempt to conciliate her had been attended with a signal failure. It was not one of the features of the times least to be deplored, that ancient treaties were looked upon as little better than rotten parchment bonds; and in following some imaginary interest, to which Ministers were guided only by crude and abstract principles, the House was now asked to abandon the commercial treaty which so long united this country to Portugal. The hon. Member concluded, by expressing his concurrence in the Resolutions proposed by the hon. member for Worcester.

denied, that under the Methuen Treaty, this country was interdicted from placing the wines of France on the same footing as the wines of Portugal. By such an arrangement, this country would be no longer bound to Portugal, nor Portugal to this country, Portugal stipulated to admit our woollens so long as we admitted her wines at a duty inferior to that which we imposed on French wines; and, so soon as we increased the duty on Portuguese wines to the same amount as that on French wines, Portugal was no longer bound to admit our woollens. The right hon. Member (Mr. Courtenay) seemed to think, that he had not correctly quoted the opinions of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox on this subject, in 1787, when the commercial treaty with France was under consideration. Mr. Pitt then said, that admitting the wines of France would not amount to a breach of the treaty with Portugal, but that it might be considered as virtually putting an end to that treaty, for, that Portugal only stipulated to admit our woollens so long as we admitted her wines at a lower duty. He said, therefore, that, though the proposed treaty with France would be an alteration, it would not amount to a breach of the treaty. Mr. Fox was strongly opposed to the treaty with France; and, in looking back to the arguments used on that occasion, he did not hesitate to say, that he agreed in the views taken by Mr. Pitt, and was opposed to those of Mr. Fox. As Mr. Fox was very warmly opposed to the treaty with France, he could not assent to the principles laid down by Mr. Pitt. In the commencement of his speech, however, he distinctly conceded, that admitting the wines of France would be patting an end to, rather than a breach of, the Methuen Treaty. Both Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, therefore, took the same view as Ministers took, that it was competent for either Power to put an end to the treaty. Considering the immense resources of France, the circumstance of our trade with that country being so limited was a strong proof of the impolicy of the system adopted in our commercial relations with that country. The great export trade this country enjoyed with Portugal, did not arise from the commercial advantages which we enjoyed in Portugal, but because this country was the great consumer of the productions of Portugal. The reason why so large a quantity of the wine of Portugal came to this country was, not because of the advantages this country had in the Portuguese market, but because Portuguese wines were not much to the taste of other countries. The hon. member for Aldborough (Mr. Sadler) had stated, correctly enough, unfortunately, that great distress and difficulty now existed in the country; but what had that to do with the wine trade? As to the distress of the agricultural interest, this measure had nothing to do with it; and, though the manufacturing interests were pressed upon at the present moment, it was not the consequence of the principles of free trade. The manufacturers were not suffering from anything done of late years, but from the consequence of long wars. On the whole, he had not heard a single argument from the other side, which he conceived should induce the House to reject the proposition now submitted to it.

did not object to this measure on the ground of its being a breach of treaty with Portugal, but simply on the ground of its inexpediency as a measure of commercial policy. He should willingly agree to the reduction of the duty of 1s. 9d. a gallon on French wines, if he thought that reduction would open the ports of that country to our commodities; but since the previous reductions of duty on French wines, our exports to that country had not increased. Perhaps the fairest mode of settling the question, so as to protect our own interest, and keep faith with our old and firm ally, Portugal, would be, to impose an ad valorem duty on all wines. He did not share the common opinion as to the Oporto Wine Company, and thought it contributed to keep down the price of port wine. He wished to say a few words as to the effect which this Bill would have on the cultivators of Cape wines. It would not be denied by any person acquainted with the Cape of Good Hope, that the noble Lord's Bill would have the effect of completely ruining the wine trade of that colony. He would remind the House of what took place in 1821 with respect to Cape wines. At that period, every encouragement was given to the cultivation of the grape at the Cape. Premiums were held out for the best wines produced. A proclamation was issued in the colony, calling the attention of the merchants and capitalists to the cultivation of the grape, as one of the most important branches of industry to which the capital of the colony could be directed; and as a further encouragement to the colonists, it was stated, that no higher duty should be imposed on Cape wines than on those of British manufacture. In a statement of those engaged in the trade, this proclamation is thus noticed:—"By a Government Proclamation of 19th December, 1811, the merchants and cultivators of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, were directed to the subject of the wine trade, as 'a consideration, above all others, of the highest importance to its opulence and character;' and such Proclamation, after authoritatively demanding from the settlement a serious and lively attention to their interests, promised the most constant support and patronage on the part of Government, and that no means of assistance should be left unattempted to improve the cultivation, and every encouragement given to honest industry and adventure, to establish the success of the Cape commerce in this her great and native superiority." This proclamation was followed by another, offering premiums to those who planted most largely, and those who produced the best wines, by the promise that the old channels of this trade should be re-opened, and new ones formed, and by a variety of regulations, all strongly evincing the lively interest which Government felt in promoting the trade, and which was fully ratified and confirmed by the Act of July, 1813, admitting Cape wines to the British market at one-third of the duty then payable on Spanish and Portugal wines. He had now before him the Report of the board of Commerce, which pointed out the ruinous effects which must follow from the increased duties. The increase of the duty to 5s. 6d. per gallon, even though the operation of the Bill should be deferred as to Cape wines for two years, would involve the ruin of those engaged in that branch of industry. The Board of Commerce said:—"The present state of the Cape wine trade is a subject requiring the utmost reflection of every well-wisher to the colony. For several years past a large proportion of the wines exported have been sold at a loss, while those of the very best qualities have barely realized a remunerating price. But now every market that is open—but particularly that of Great Britain—is so exceedingly depressed from various causes, that no sale can be effected except at the most ruinous sacrifice. By accounts received within these few days from the Chairman of the Cape Trade Society, your Committee were informed, that his Majesty's Ministers had resolved on the measure of equalizing the duties on all descriptions of wines to 5s. 6d. per gallon, which was equivalent to a prohibition of Cape wine altogether in that market. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, been prevailed on, in consequence of the immediate and strenuous exertions of the Home Committee, and other friends of the colony, to abandon his original intentions in part, and to agree that Cape wines should be admitted at 2s. 9d. per gallon for the space of two years, when the duty is to be raised to the same rate as upon foreign wines—namely, 5s. 6d. per gallon. The Committee congratulate their constituents and the colonists at large, on a respite from a measure which, if persisted in, would have caused immediate bankruptcy in the wine trade of this town, and eventually the total ruin of the cultivators in the wine districts. Although it is so forcibly declared, that no further protection will be given to the produce of the colony after the expired limits, your Committee would strongly recommend the necessity of sending repeated petitions on the subject to both Houses of Parliament, pointing out the injustice and inhumanity of destroying so extensive a branch of colonial industry, as well as the inconsistency of putting this colony out of the pale of the general system of protection granted to all the rest of the possessions of Great Britain. So long as the sugars of the West Indies and the Mauritius are admitted at 24s. per cwt., whilst foreign pays 63s.; Jamaica rum at 9s. per gallon, when foreign spirits pay 1l. 2s. 6d.; coffee 6d. per pound, foreign 1s. to 1s. 3d.—there can be no just reasons for excluding protection to Cape produce." He hoped that the Government would reconsider this subject, which would, in his opinion, have such great influence on the state of our trade with Portugal. He presumed that it was not the wish of Government to encourage the consumption of ardent spirits, but there could be no doubt that such would be the effect of this increased duty on Cape wine. At present, the labouring classes consumed a considerable quantity of Cape wine. A pipe, of ninety-two gallons, might be had for 10l., and to which was to be added 11l. duty, so that it could be sold at a profit for 1s. per bottle. If the duty were increased to the extent proposed by the noble Lord, this article would be placed wholly out of the reach of the labouring classes, who, instead of wine, would consume ardent spirits. When the House considered, too, the situation of the inhabitants of the Cape, who had embarked their capital in the cultivation of the vine, on the faith of the encouragement they received from this country, in the year 1811;—when the House considered, also, that the Cape paid all its own expenditure, to the amount of 30,000l. or 40,000l., while the whole patronage of the colony was in the hands of the Government here, and that it was treated as if it were a colony which did not pay, but was a heavy burthen to the mother country; when the House took these circumstances into consideration, it must admit, that the course now proposed by the noble Lord, with respect to Cape wines, was one of great injustice. He meant, therefore, to give his most strenuous opposition to this Bill.

would take a future opportunity of fully expressing his opinions on this measure. But he begged leave to advert to one observation which had fallen from the noble Lord. The noble Lord had alluded to the conduct of Mr. Pitt with respect to the Methuen Treaty. But did Mr. Pitt abrogate that treaty? No; he entered into negotiations on the subject, and the treaty was confirmed. The noble Lord had argued the question, as though the Methuen Treaty was the only commercial and political engagement between this kingdom and that of Portugal. By other treaties, as well as by the Methuen Treaty, we had a preference in many things over others of the most favoured nations, and we possessed civil and municipal rights of our own, with Judges and Courts peculiar to the subjects of Great Britain, which were advantages enjoyed by no other people. And what had Portugal thrown to her as her share or equivalent in return? Nothing but the right to succour and protection, Portugal should suffer from invasion or unjust aggression. How had we recently fulfilled that condition? But on the impolicy and inutility of our late proceedings with respect to France and to Portugal, in the present circumstances of those countries, he would take another opportunity of speaking. He could not however, help designating this measure a this time, when our relations were so critical with both of these countries, as highly impolitic and dangerous.

said, he should confine himself to a single observation, in reply to the hon. Members who had assailed the measure of his noble friend. The state of things, it should be remarked, lad materially varied of late years, in respect to the close and intimate intercourse between this country and Portugal. That country, even in Mr. Pitt's time, and in the period succeeding the Treaty of 1812, when Portugal was eminently indebted to his nation, for powerful exertions in her behalf, was found unwilling to observe strict faith in its stipulations, though Portugal had so many valid and solid reasons to be grateful and attached to Great Britain. But, since then, it had been found impossible to inspire Portugal with a sincere disposition to meet England fairly in negotiation, for a period now of nearly sixty years, and there could, therefore, be little indelicacy in this country now adopting a line of policy independent of the existing treaties. Indeed, Mr. Pitt had formerly intended to have done this, and pay the penalty defined and limited by treaty—namely, that our woollens should have no preference in the Portuguese market. The present Bill only adopted the principle of that great man, who was certainly eminently qualified to decide on an occasion like that which had since arisen.

said, that if he wanted a proof of the assertion which had of late been frequently made, that the business of the country was not properly discharged, he should find it in the manner in which the present proceeding was carried on. Here was a measure, involving the most important principles, involving our interest as a trading nation, and our national honour as a moral people, and yet see how it was managed. It was arranged that the second reading should be moved at ten o'clock, and when that time arrived, the benches were thin, and they had continued to be so, and little attention had been paid by the few Members present. For this he laid the blame on Ministers. The impression out of doors was, that there was very little chance of the business of the country being followed up, or transacted with any spirit or sagacity, whilst the whole time of the House, and the whole energy of the Ministry, were directed solely to one question, that of Reform. Under these circumstances, he should, like his immediate predecessors, be very brief, He felt himself in rather a difficult situation. A string of Resolutions had been proposed by the hon. member for Worcester, in hostility to the Bill. He, like that hon. Member, was opposed to the Bill; but, it was quite a different thing to be opposed to the Bill, and to support the hon. Member's Resolutions. To the substance of those Resolutions he strongly objected. With all deference to the hon. Gentleman by whom they had been proposed, he must say, that he had never seen any Resolutions, comprehending more misrepresentations, or so many allegations, not borne out by the facts. Whenever the discussion on the Bill should come forward, he would oppose the measure; but not on the grounds stated by the hon. member for Worcester.

had never witnessed a measure brought into that House, upon commercial matters, which reflected greater disgrace on its authors, than that part of this Bill which seemed intended to carry distress and ruin on one of our finest colonies, the Cape of Good Hope. He felt most keenly the injustice Government was about to commit on these colonists, and when the proper time should arrive, he would take the earliest opportunity to submit a case, which was so demonstrative of the injustice of this measure, towards the colony, that it must expose the scandalous misconduct of the Ministry, to all who were not totally blind, or totally prejudiced. In his recollection, he had never witnessed the infliction on British subjects of such an iniquitous and heartless atrocity. Words failed him to characterise this monstrous and most atrocious violation of the public faith, and the faith of the Government of this country. He felt, the Committee on this measure would be a peculiarly fitting opportunity to make a stand against the present Government, for its total disregard of former solemn pledges, made by the Government of this country its colonies, and of all sound principles of colonial policy. The Bill should have his most unqualified and unmeasured opposition in the Committee.

said, he should embrace the same opportunity to oppose, with all his might and capability, a Bill which he could not avoid characterising as a total departure from the true principles of colonial policy.