rose for the purpose of bringing forward the petition, which he had given notice of presenting, and for the discussion of which an early sitting of the House had been determined upon. It was unnecessary for him to enter at great length into the facts detailed in the petition, as it was already printed and in the hands of hon. Members. He must observe, however, that the petition was one of vast importance to the parties, who were in humble and indigent circumstances, and who had, on this occasion, to contend against the powerful influence of the Crown, with which they had been engaged in litigation for twelve long years, during which, in the opinion of persons of great weight and authority, justice had been refused to them. Under those circumstances, he did not think he need say more to the House of Commons—who were the representatives of the humble, as well as the affluent—in order to secure for the petitioners a grave and serious consideration of the subject. The hon. Member entered into a long genealogical history of the claimants on the property of Mr. Troutbeck, who died intestate in 1785, at Madras, leaving a considerable property, of which the Crown had taken possession for want of heirs. The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that he asked, on the part of the claimants, for an inquiry into the case, and if the Committee were convinced there was ground on which to found a new trial, he would ask them to recommend that a new trial should be granted to the parties, and that all legal and technical objections be waved, so that the whole merits of the case might go before a jury. He was sorry to have detained the House so long, although he felt there was a great deal more he ought to have stated. The hon. Gentleman moved, that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the case of Catherine Robson and Isabella Ainsley, claimants of the property of the late Samuel Troutbeck, of Madras.

vindicated the Government. He admitted that the hon. Member had done no more than his duty in bringing forward the case, and he praised the exertions of his hon. Friend in bringing forward similar cases. He contended, that the Treasury had acted with justice, and that they would have been guilty of a dereliction of duty, if they had acted otherwise. The moment the petition was received, they did not shut the doors of justice against the petitioners, but gave them the benefit of going into the highest court in the land. It was referred to the Court of Chancery, which had adjudicated upon the case. It had been said that the Solicitors of the Treasury had rigidly opposed the prosecution of the claim, and held the petitioners to strict legal proof of their pedigree. Was not that, he would ask, the duty of the Treasury, when there were several other claimants. The Crown, in such a case, held the property in deposit for the rights of other persons, and it was therefore its duty to watch rigidly proceedings on the part of the claimants. He objected to any interference with the decision of a jury and a competent court of law. If the Treasury had endeavoured to controvert the law of the land, then there would be a real ground for complaint. Now, there was none. As long as the laws of evidence continued, they should be applied equally, and not relaxed because the parties could make out a case in the House of Commons, and could find a Member of such ability, industry, and perseverance to bring it forward.

had been counsel in the case, and would take leave to state a few facts. In his opinion, nothing would be more fatal to the general and efficient administration of justice than to consider that House was to be made a court of appeal for the administration of justice between party and party; but he thought that an appeal might be made with perfect propriety and consistency (and he hoped it would never be made in vain to the House of Commons) in a case where the Crown was concerned on the one hand, and the subject on the other. It was his honest, and firm, and sincere conviction, that if the case was fit to be tried at all, it ought to be tried again; and a more entire miscarriage—a more complete failure of justice—he never witnessed in the whole course of his life. This was a case between the subject and the Crown, and the honour of the Crown was implicated in giving every possible facility to the proof of claims to such property.

presented the report on the petition for leave to bring in a Bill for forming a harbour at Trinity. He then moved for leave to introduce the Bill.

opposed the motion on the ground of the lateness of the session, and said that the rules laid down by the House with respect to notices and subscribers had not been observed.

contended that the previous Bill brought in this session had not been thrown out upon the merits, but merely on the ground of informality, the House of Lords having made a pecuniary amendment. All that was now asked was, what had been granted in the previous cases of the Leith Police Act and Glasgow Gas Act. The measure, in various shapes, had been already three years before the House, and the object was merely to re-introduce the Bill, which in an amended shape had been approved by both Houses of Parliament.

opposed the introduction of the Bill. He did not deny, that the promoters of it were highly respectable, but asserted that they were much better known on the Stock Exchange than in Edinburgh. He contended that the old harbour of Leith might be improved in such a manner as to answer every purpose, and called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to interfere in consequence of the large sum of the public money risked by the new undertaking.

remarked, that the difficulty having arisen out of a clause moved by the hon. Baronet, he ought not to object to the introduction of a new Bill which would remedy the defect.

said, that the clause out of which the rejection arose had been frequently before a noble Lord in the other House, who had not objected to it as long as it seemed likely that the Bill would not pass. When it became probable that the Bill would pass, the objection had been raised. He did not mean to impute motives, but merely to state his own impression of the fact. The inhabitants of Edinburgh were naturally opposed to the undertaking of making a new harbour to the detriment of the old, but the real question was, whether the House would sanction a measure which would give to the trade of Scotland the accommodation it required.

, upon the order of the day being moved for the third reading of the Church of Ireland Bill, brought forward his motion that the petition which he had already presented from persons having suffered loss by seizure of property by the Danes, in 1807, should be referred to a Select Committee. He observed that there had been different classes of claimants upon the Government; to some of them their demands were conceded, while those whose case he now brought forward had not received that to which he thought they were justly entitled. In the year 1807 the British Government considered that the French were about to take possession of the Danish fleet, and in consequence an armament was sent out to Copenhagen, under the command of Lord Cathcart and Admiral Gambier. Their instructions were, if possible, to obtain possession of the fleet by negotiation; if not, to take it by force. The details of the circumstances that followed, and the peaceable taking of the fleet, were sufficiently well known. It had, however, been declared by the commandant of Copenhagen, that hostilities having been commenced on the part of the English, all English property was to be confiscated. The claims of the English sufferers by that confiscation had been brought forward without success; but at length an hon. Friend of his, in 1834, brought forward a motion on the subject, which was acceded to, and it was left to Commissioners to decide upon the claims of all persons having demands upon the Government. On the 28th of March, 1835, the Commissioners made a Report, in which they arranged the claimants into several classes: first, those whose book-debts had been confiscated; next, those whose goods had been unshipped and placed on shore; and, thirdly, those whose vessels had been seized. The claim arising from book-debts was stated in the estimates at 125,000l.; those whose goods were allowed to be landed were in the estimates of this year for 78,000l..; while, with regard to the third class, whose losses were caused by the confiscation of their ships and cargoes in the ports of Denmark and the Baltic, their claims were refused, and no remedy was to be granted. In answer to an application from the parties who had been thus spoliated, they were told by the Treasury, in October, 1835, that their demand could not be acceded to, because the confiscation of ships or cargoes in port or on the high seas was according to the usages of war, and to accede to the demand in this instance for compensation, would be establishing a dangerous precedent. It had been decided by Lord Ellenborough that the seizure of book-debts was contrary to the law of nations—the parties, then, who suffered in that way had a demand upon the Danish Government, and that might be a sufficient answer to them. But here the parties were not apprised that England was at war with Denmark. There was no want of caution on their part; and when that war broke out, it was known in England before they could be apprised of it in the Baltic, and no insurance could be procured upon their vessels. It was not even suggested in the proclamation of Lord Cathcart and Admiral Gambier, when they appeared before Copenhagen, that any act of hostility up to that time had been committed against the English Government. Instances could be shown in which the British admiral assured parties they might with safety proceed to the Baltic. It was to be observed, that the amount of Danish property seized could not be less than three or four millions, while the English property seized was very trifling in amount. It might be said that the parties here had no legal claim; but there was an equitable claim, the recognition of which was demanded by national honour and a sense of justice. He contended that the confiscation of Danish ships was a robber-like transaction on the part of England. There could be but one excuse for such conduct, namely, that the proceeds were made available to reimburse British subjects who had suffered loss through similar proceedings on the part of Denmark. He did not blame the present Government for the course they had thought it their duty to pursue in regard to these claims, no doubt they had acted according to what they thought to be their duty, in refusing to make payments of this description, for which they had not received the sanction of Parliament. He trusted, however, that this evening the House would give their sanction to the payment of the just demands he had endeavoured to advocate. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the petition be referred to a Select Committee.

said, it was one of the most painful tasks which a Minister of the Crown could have to perform, but still no less an imperative duty, to resist the payment of demands of this description, when brought forward in that House, unless he could bring himself to believe that those claims were founded in justice. His conviction was, that if the principle of the present motion were to be admitted, it would form a precedent new in itself, liable to extension, and leading to the worst possible consequences, not only in a commercial point of view, but also as regarded our diplomatic relations with other countries. The total amount of claims to indemnity as they originally stood, were classed under the following three heads—namely, first, book-debts, &c., confiscated by the Danish Government, amounting to 112,000l.; secondly, goods and stock to 78,327l.; and, thirdly, ships and cargoes alto confiscated, estimated at 6,641l. The first two of these classes had already been admitted and provided for by Government nearly; 200,000l. had already been paid on account of them, and now a claim was still maintained against the country for the 6,641l. for the ships and cargoes. Now this demand he was prepared to resist, and that not upon his own authority, but upon that of the Crown lawyers—he did not mean his hon. Friend the Attorney-General, who sat near him, but former Crown lawyers also, who, when applied to to state how far these injuries were justified by the laws of war and of nations, replied, that all ships and cargoes, whether in port or on the high seas, might be seized and confiscated, even though the two nations were not actually at war at the moment; but that goods and items of the nature mentioned in the first two classes were not subject to such seizure, and ought to be fully indemnified to their owners. Now, this was the opinion upon the weight of which he had hitherto acted, and by which he was prepared to stand on the present occasion. He would only add on this point, that when, on a late occasion, application was made to him on the subject of these claims, he told the applicants that, in order to give them every chance of success, he would lay their own statement of the case before the Crown lawyers, if they would draw one up. This they did, and the statement was laid before the Crown lawyers, who, after taking it into consideration, said, that they saw in it no ground whatever to alter the opinion which they had already given on the subject. He would not enter into a discussion as to the justness or injustice of the hostilities in which these confiscations took place, in the same way that he was not prepared to assert the justness of the causes of the American war, or of the French revolutionary war as it was called; he confined himself to this simple principle, that the war once commenced and in operation, the laws of nations and of warfare were the same and unchangeable. Upon the grounds which he had thus stated, he felt it to be his duty to resist the motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets.

thought it to be his duty to oppose the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question, and to give his support to the motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He had it upon a very high authority, in opposition to the opinion stated by the Crown lawyers, that these proceedings had taken place in direct contravention of the law of nations.

would also support the motion of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets. He contended that this country was not at war with Denmark at the time these seizures took place; so far from it, the parties trading with Denmark, and having cargoes on the point of starting to that part of the world, made inquiry of the Government at home, and also of the Danish Ambassador, whether hostilities were meditated in that quarter, and they received an assurance in the negative. After taking this precaution, and receiving this assurance, he thought it extremely unjust that these parties should be made to suffer. He trusted that the House would act upon the principle that British subjects ought always to be protected in furtherance of their lawful commerce, upon which so much of our strength as a great maritime nation depended. He called upon the House not to resist those claims in the manner and on the grounds stated by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but as they had already indemnified the first and second class of losses, that they would complete the act of justice by paying those comprehended in the third class.

hoped the House would not support the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the technical objections which he had raised against these claims. It was proved that these parties had acted under the assurance of perfect security given them both by the British Government and the Danish Ambassador, and he thought sufficient grounds had been shown to justify the House and the Government in admitting the claim which was now made.

said, that although he agreed in many of the arguments of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he must add that he felt under the necessity of coming to a different conclusion as to the justice of these claims in the present case. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that claims of this description should be entertained with great caution; and that they should not be listened to unless undeniably established upon the grounds of justness and right; and it was because he did think that the present claims were so established that he should support the motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for the Tower Hamlets. The Chancellor of the Exchequer held the doctrine that to seize the vessels of other powers, even when no war had actually commenced, was not contrary to the law of nations. This was a principle which he (Dr. Lushington) would not admit, although a distressing precedent had occurred previous to the present case, in the seizure of the Spanish ships in 1804. Surely, if this principle were admitted, and was to be acted upon, it would lead to a total distrust of treaties, and would greatly tend to check that system of peaceful commerce which now existed with so much advantage to all nations. He hoped that, for the sake of a few thousand pounds, the Government of this country would not be led to commit a gross wrong on individuals.

said, that the distinction taken between the two classes of cases was perfectly supported by the law of nations. The class now under consideration was such as included those liabilities to which every man circumstanced as these claimants were, either knew, or ought to know, that he was subject. The only question was, whether this seizure was consistent with the law of nations, or in violation of this law? The moment they came to the former of these conclusions, it followed that, however great the hardship on individuals might be, the ships were taken according to the usage of nations, and that this seizure came within the same class as that which comprised the ships taken in the ordinary course of warfare. Though it might be expedient that this law should be changed by the consent of all nations, and that some notice of seizure should be given, rather than that the first intimation of the intention should be conveyed to traders by the act of seizure itself, still it would be inconsistent with all precedent, if such a course were adopted without the abrogation of that law, which had hitherto been observed, being made in the first instance.

expressed his hope that the House would not sanction such a system of abominable plunder as that by which vessels and cargoes were seized without the possibility of any notice that the nations were engaged in war. They would never have borne with such a system only that they happened to be the greatest naval power in the world, and that they had themselves practised it. The argument that this practice was justified by international law amounted to this—because we have plundered others, that is a sufficient reason for pronouncing the act which we have committed, as one warranted by international law. He admitted, that this had been the practice, but he denied that it was the law; and he trusted that the decision of that House would deter not only this but other countries from adhering to such a practice. This claim was one founded in justice; its rejection on this occasion would be but a continuation of wrong, and he hoped those who made it would never cease to urge it upon the consideration of the Legislature until the cry of justice for Englishmen resounded through the land.

said, that the case made out by his right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was so strong that he felt bound to get up and state his conviction, that these claims ought not to be acceded to. The doctrine of the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny, if worth anything, laid it down, that not only should the Danish merchants receive the amount of their losses, but that England was to be considered liable to the making good of all losses on account of seized cargoes, where the suffering parties were ignorant of a declaration of war having been published. This general position would, he need not say, give rise to more claims than the wealth of England could redeem. The hon. and learned Member had then gone on to say, that the seizure of the cargoes of the petitioning merchants was an act of robbery, and that the property so forfeited should be made good to them. If this position was maintainable, England should at once say to Denmark, "We have robbed you of 1,500,000l., and we must compensate you." Upon the fullest consideration of the subject, he felt bound to oppose the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets' proposition.

expressed a hope, that means would be taken to enforce the observance of the school rules in Ireland.

promised to use his best exertions for that purpose.

objected to the retrospective power proposed to be given to this clause, and moved, that the words "any Act now in force in Ireland," be omitted. He considered the clause was introduced for the purpose of forcing an unjust claim on the county which he represented, and under it the Judge would be forced, even contrary to his own opinion, to order money to be levied off the county.

said, the clause would have the effect of an ex post facto law, particularly with respect to the claim made upon the county of Roscommon, because the Government's claim had already been discussed there; and the Judge, after taking proper time to deliberate upon the case, had declared, that the law of the land could not enforce the payment of the money. Now, by this Act, the same Judge would be compelled to reverse his own decision, and compel the Treasurer of the County to levy the money, upon receiving a certificate to that effect from the Chief or Under-Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, which was to have all the force of a Grand Jury presentment, and this would operate most hardly upon those who, in the county of Roscommon, had hitherto resisted the claim of the Government, because the matter would be investigated, no evidence would be heard—it would be at once settled by a certificate from the Government, that the money was due, a course of proceeding which was neither consistent with justice and equity, nor reconcileable to the duty of the Government towards his Majesty's subjects. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated, that he thought there should be a limitation of five years, after which such claims could not be sustained; now if his Majesty's Government were of this opinion, why introduce this clause into the Act before them, compelling the people to pay that which could not be demanded from them by the law? He considered the clause to be an extremely oppressive clause, and he hoped his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Fitzstephen French) would persevere in his amendment. There was a limitation to the claim of debts in common cases, between man and man, and he could see no reason why this should be an exception; it was now fourteen years since the money was said to have been advanced, in the course of which time those who originally benefitted by it, perhaps were dead; new tenants, who had no interest in it, might be in possession of the property; various transfers must have taken place; the Judges had declared against it, and said it was not in their power to enforce its payment; and now the House, by this clause, gave a new power to recover it, which he could neither reconcile to justice nor honest dealing with the parties, and therefore he should join in resisting the clause.

supported the clause, and declared, that it was not retrospective. He stated, that it gave no new power, and that if it were not passed, the constabulary would be unprovided for.

The hon. Member did not understand him as wishing to enforce the payment of the money immediately upon the expiration of the five years, but merely as desirous to have it enacted, that unless payment be demanded within that period, there should be no power to recover it by levy; whereas, with respect to Roscommon, the money was said to have been advanced in 1822, and a period of fourteen years had since elapsed. The clause gave the Government the power to do that which they could not do now, and therefore he should oppose it. If the noble Lord would frame a clause, enacting that money advanced should not be repaid unless demanded within five years, he would support him; but he would not agree to one which gave power to recover money after such an extraordinary length of time had passed away. He considered such a proceeding to be unjust and inconsistent with fair dealing between the parties. He should be the last person to resist a just debt, but confiding in the integrity of the Judges who had decided against the power of the Crown to enforce the payment, he saw the greatest evil arising from a clause which gave a summary power of enforcing it after the lapse of fourteen years.

supported the amendment, and considered that such a power ought not to be vested in the judge.

stated, that the hon. Member for Kildare was incorrect in every statement he had made. The clause was a retrospective one, as the hon. Member him- self confessed the clause did contain new powers. The court now could refuse to fiat until certain presentments were made by the grand juries. But by this clause the judge could make an order which would have the force and effect of a presentment, and under which the money would be levied off the county. The hon. Gentleman would not deny that this was a new power. The omission or alteration of this clause would not affect that portion of the expense for the support of the constabulary, which was to be borne by the counties in Ireland. This was provided for by the constabulary Bill, which had passed so very lately, that he was quite surprised it should have escaped the recollection of his hon. Friend. The last assertion was, that this money was lent on the application of the grand jury. This was also incorrect, as the grand jury never made an application on the subject.

said, the operation of the clause was not retrospective; it merely preserved the right of the Crown, and provided for a clear exercise of that power which was now exercised in a most inconvenient manner. The presentments of the grand jury, as the law stood now, must be fiated by the judges, before they could he put in force. Certainly this money could only be paid upon their presenting, but the judge had the power of refusing to fiat their other presentments, if they refused to make those which might properly be required of them. He could by this means stop all allowances for the maintenance of the gaol, or for county expenses of any kind whatever. Instead of doing this, he would now have the power of ordering payment on the certificate of the secretary of the Lord-Lieutenant, but not of saddling the county with one shilling expense, to which it was not before liable, and this was not a new power.

said, the only existence it had was in a local Act for the city of Cork, and was, to all intents and purposes, a new power, so far as the counties were concerned. It was, he contended, for the purpose of making the country in general pay sums that had been lent, or granted perhaps would be a better phrase, by individuals.

—There are twenty Acts of Parliament applying to counties, but none to individuals. This Act will not, in any way, affect the claim upon the county of Roscommon.

—The clause would have the effect of forcing the payment of money, in spite of the decision of the grand jury; all that the judges could now do was to say, we will refuse to fiat your presentments, but the jury might think proper to take the consequence of their refusal, rather than present certain sums required of them, and then the money could not be demanded; but hereafter, should this clause be passed, the judges might allow the grand jury to go through the farce of presenting, and set them at defiance, telling them "we do not want your presentment, we have power to control your decision—the treasurer may at once levy the money.'' He thought it was much better to leave to the grand jury the alternative they have now, rather than the counties should be set in opposition to them, as they would be in the payment of sums like these; the clause would give the judge the right of setting aside the deliberative power of the grand juries, whenever he was directed so to do by the Lord-Lieutenant. He would prefer leaving them the alternative they now had, to giving the judges, on the direction of the Lord-Lieutenant, the power of levying without their previous presentments; the judges had no such power now, if they had, they would exercise it. This clause would give them a new power, and if Mr. Justice Burton went the same circuit next assizes, he would probably be compelled by it to act contrary to his own former decision.

said, it was plain to him that if the cases referred to by the hon. Members opposite were not just debts, this clause would not compel the payment of them; while, on the other hand, he had already had sufficient experience to satisfy him—such was the present uncertain state of the laws in Ireland, that there was the greatest difficulty experienced in procuring any pecuniary advances out of the general funds of the empire to be applied to local purposes in that country.

believed, that many of these advances should be repaid, but he objected to the more stringent power which this clause would give to the judges. The noble Lord and learned Attorney-General for Ireland said, that it would only enable them to do that directly which they now have the power of doing indirectly. In the present state of things, it would be more desirable that the control of the county funds should be vested in a body of men, than that of an individual, thereby setting aside the presentments of the grand jury, and Tendering them useless altogether.

observed, that this was a Bill to do away with settlements, and to enable tenants for life to rob their children. If it were brought in, he should most certainly oppose it in every stage.

said, he was so strongly opposed to it, that he would take upon himself the responsibility of dividing the House on the motion of the hon. Member.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not do so. It would be a great matter to afford the public an opportunity of considering the merits of the Bill during the recess.

said, the Bill had been recommended in the Report of a Committee, and he hoped the House would not object to its being brought in.

said, it really was with great reluctance he persisted in his opposition to the proposed measure, but he did not wish even so much countenance to be given to the principle of it, as leave to bring in such a Bill. Why should such a Bill be brought in for Ireland, when he would venture to say, no man ever even contemplated such a Bill for England? He did not understand why it should be proposed to bring in a Bill for Ireland in particular, which would have the direct and immediate effect of annulling settlements, and enabling tenants for life to charge the inheritance with any amount of expenditure they might think proper to make; he, however, knew what use would be made of this Bill in Ireland. In fact, no remainder-man, under any settlement in Ireland, would be safe if this Bill were to pass. Even as the law stood at present, they knew what waste was frequently committed by tenants for life on the property of infants, who were unable to protect their own interests; but, if tenants for life were to be enabled to charge estates with the moneys expended by them on those estates, it would be better at once to bring in a Bill to annul all settlements. If the Report of a Committee was before the House, as had been stated, they could judge of the Bill from that just as well as if they had the Bill itself upon the table, and he could not see what object was to be attained by giving greater publicity to the measure than what that report afforded.

said, that as a law of a similar nature existed in Scotland, he did not see what objection ere was to its introduction into Ireland. The people, no doubt, might be a little startled by it at first, but when they would see the restrictions he had to propose, he was sure that that surprise would subside. He only now asked for permission to point out what the restrictions and conditions were upon which he would propose this measure.

said, he felt great difficulty about the measure, but upon that very ground, he was ready to assent to the proposition of his hon. Friend, the Member for Galway.

said, he considered the measure as getting rid of the franchise of the outvoters in counties by a side-wind. He objected to a question of so much importance being decided in this way. The Bill was liable to the objection, that it was an interference with the Reform Bill, which he thought was to be a final measure. He should divide against the motion.

said, it was always his intention that the polling for counties should last only one day. There were formerly the same objections to reducing the time from fifteen days to two, that there were now to reducing it from two days to one. Instead of putting a clause to effect the proposed change into the Registration Bill, in order to avoid objections, he had made the matter the subject of a separate Bill. He thought this was an answer to the charge of endeavouring to effect his object by indirect means.