The Sun. — London, England, 1829-05-05 00:00:00

I Int circumstances haVe.proved t o b e we ll-f oun d e d . proved indiiputably'that any appeal to brute force could not advance their cause, and pointed out to t hen% that their only resource was to be found in the widdoni of the Legislature. Where, then, I would ask it the mischief of which I have been charged with producing, by the publication of that letter ? It has 'been said, however, that I recommended stritatien.. I would those who make that charge; to point out to me a single paragraph Which could be construed into an invitation to agitation. On the contrary, the whole course of ipy policy---the whole study of my Government was to suppress agitation, and to silence agitators. I must take leave to refer to that letter in illustration of this assertion, and I shall read the only paragraph which can bear in the remotest possibility such an interpretation. I should like, indeed, to take the letter to pieces, and to read it paragraph by para graph; as the best illustration of its tenor; but, as I have already troubled your Lordships with so many documents,,_,_ I shall ta k e l eave merely to refer to that winca bears upon thi s part o f t h e quest i on. I pass by all which touch upoh the impossibility of carry lug the question by force, or of burying it in obli vion, and. come at once to that upon which, I pre sume, the charge is founded. The words are these, i ‘ What I do recommend is, that the measure should riot for a moment be lost sight of." Is there any recorninendation to agitation in that ? " That anxiety should continue to be manifested; that all constitutional (in contradistinction to merely legal) means should be resorted to to forward the cause." I am told there is a good deal of cavilling at this ex preasion. 1 have heard it is asserted that this may be construed into an incitement to agitation; but I apprehend it will be at once understood that what I recommended is an exertion purely within the bounds of the law, and that the Government was trot to be satisfied with any thing which was not Most strictly within legal and constitutional limita tion. While, however, lam on that part of the "'fleet, I must say, that during the whole of my residence in Ireland, I never recollect bearin g from the mouth of more than one Perso n that the Catholic Association was an illegal assembly ; I never could find any person who, as the law then stood, could make that assertion. I Bey again, my recommendation was, " that all purely Constitutional- means should be resorted to to for- Ward the cause of the Catholics, but at the same time, with the most submissive obedience to the l aws." This was the advice contained in that letter, and it is my confident belief, that if that letter had not been published, and if that advice had not been 80 implicitly followed, the Noble Duke at the head of his Majesty's Government would riot have been in a condition to bring forward that Bill which has been recently carried so triumphrntly through both House s of Parliament. I am confident, indeed, that the country would not have remained in that state of peace which would have warranted its introduc tion.---(Hear bear.)—lt is not my wish to detain the House longer ; I feel that I have already tres , passed too much upon its attention. All I have to `ay is, that your Lordships are now in possession of the whole of the circumstances connected with my recall. I leave myself in Your hands, and whatever may be your opinion of my conduct, I shall bow with resignation to your decision.—(Hear, hear.) — The Noble Marqui s concluded by moving for a Copy of the Letter of the Secretary of State for the Ilome Department, dated February 10, mid ad dressed to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, together With a Copy of the Letter of the 14th February, aldressed by the Lord Lieutenant to the Home Se cretary in reply. When the motion was read from the Woolsack, The D u k e o f WE LL I NGTON said - 1 rise, my 4 •ords,.wi t h feelings of no ordinary pain and reluc btasce, to reply t o th e o b servat i ons w i t h w hi c h t h e 'itohle Marquis has thought proper to prepare the b rought upon that su bj ec t, w hi c h h e h as t hi s even i ng u t,ought under yo ur L or d s hi ps ' cons id erat i on. I F, indeed my Lord s , th at t h e N o bl e M arqu i s Fmk; have refrained altogether from making such a °lotion. I think he might h ave s p are d me t h e ee eessity of touching upon the subject at this late Period of the session. I think that during the course of a session in whiCh the course of policy to be pur sued towards Ireland, and the state of the people o f I that kingdom has been so frequently brought under the consideration of the House— ur and ding a ses sion i n w hi c h I h ave had so frequently to address your Lordships on these subjects, and in the course of which I have so invariably refrained from advert ing to any part of the conduct of the government of the Noble Marquis, as influencing the deter mination. of his Majesty's Government here—l say I think, that after I have, on all occasions, ab stained from making any personal allusion to the Noble Lord, or of bringing any charge against his govern ment; and when I have, even at all times when the conduct of that Government was questioned in this House, taken upon myself the responsibility and the defence of the Noble Marquis's Government of Ireland,_ that" the Noble Marquis ought to have spared his MitjeSty's Government the necessity of entering into the consideration of the events of that Government at any time, but more particularly at this period of the session,and after all that has already Passed in reference to the question with which it is Siost intimately connected.—(Hear.)—I confess, my Lords, that under these circumstances, I must object to the production of those papers which the Noble karquis requires. It must be obvious that this louse has no business to interfere with the dismissal of his Majesty's servants, except in cases where the Public may b e su bj ecte d to injury and incon enience, or in cases where Parliament may ,ttfeet it necessary to interfere for the edscharge of ese Who h ave b een supposed guilty of abuses in tpoiir. official situations. Then I thi n k t h e power of ar naMent may be beneficially employed ; but I be lieve • it • re r d i a fact, th a t e xce pt i n suc h cases t h e Par ament ought not to interf ere , an d t h at i t never can Par do so without great injury and inconvenience to the public service. In this very case the motion of the ,„? ble Ma rquis affords an apt exemplification of the j etury and i nconvenience to which I allude of enter tw;,'g on the discussion of such questions in this tto s e. The Noble Marquis has moved for one or o letters of a correspondence; but to elucidate the cor respondence, of which he has read extracts, w e Nobl e M arqu i s h as not read the half of what rn " r equired, an d h e has even omitted som e o f th e tiost material porti ons o f th e l etters , an d t h ese por :ns, too' w i t h out wh i ch I th i nk the whole question irnotbe clearly understood. I a lso o b serve th a t t h ° N9l-de Marquis has read extracts from letters tie rfi °st liecret and most confidential which pos -4 coul d Pass between a Lord Lieutenant of Ire nd the Government of this, country—namely, tho se l etters which contained the sentiments- and the 4 in itms of the Sovereign.—(Hear.)—The Noble erquis says h e h as o b ta i ne d aut h or i ty to rea d t h ese e ltters, and t o ma k e t h e i r contents pu bli c. I tt, rife ss I und erstan d t h at measure diff erent l y f rom Pleasure to relieveq the Noble Marquis from his Go ern Toent of Ireland, because his Majesty was con- Pi nced efrom the co rres po n d e nce whi c h h a d taken a ces that t h e confidence required between the Go merit of of this country and the Lord Lieutenant }). Irel a n d , ,; could not b e ma i n t a i ne d ; an d hi s Majesty rrt g Nignified it as his p leasure that the Noble si i - "lnie, one of tire parties to that correspondence, from t h e nature o f its commun ication, be re ed"' from th e Government of Ireland, could not sI I4 , O YP , g i ven his c o nsen t that the correspondence th a ti ' mede public. I repeat, lam convinc ed t hi s Alui 6,1114 trot haye advised that corres ndenee to be read in - this House,—,( ow, ghat Hear, hear.) is this correspon d ence ? It is now well I ,,, newn 'ant during the whole of the last autumn and ; 0 11 ?rner , had th ose measures in contemplation als o n l 'ae been since brought into effect. It is t o whit we h ll known that my principal object, and that all my efforts were . directed, was to prevail fr On rat person the most interested of all others tv situatio,', in the s ettlement of the Catholic to give his consent to its being brought I • r-ar m• — •-(Hear, hear.) It was well known, that vithout that consent, I could not undertake to in- troduce any measure to the consideration of Pailia ment.—( Hear, Lear.) Tit the correspondence of the Noble Marquis with Dr. (7iirti , , the Noble Marquis says, however, that he did not my Aentiments on that subject, and that he was left in ignorance of my intentions with rcvect to the Catholic Ques tion. Now I shell take leave to read an extract from the correspondence of the N. ble Marquis, which shews clearly he was informed of my inten tions, anti of the ground of my proceedings.— ( Hear, bear.)—ln one of the letters of the Noble Marquis, dated the 24th of September, he observes to me, in speaking of the Catholic body, its condi tion, and its hopes, " that he was convinced there never was a period when the Catholic Claims could be conceded with greater safety on the part of the Protestants, or with better expectations of con tent and satisfaction on the part of the Catholics. It was impossible not to perceive that the re sistance of the Bishops and others to some of the most material points of concession, or their party, might be easily got over, and he had strong reason to believe that they would make but a very feeble opposition even to a proposition for the payment of the Catholic Clergy, where there would probably be as little resistance on the part of the laity to measures connected with the forty-shil ling freeholders?' To this letter I replied on the 28th of September. I informed the Noble Marquis " that I had not had an opportunity of laying his last letter, and one or two others upon the subject of the Catholic question which preceded it, before the King, because his Majesty was at that moment unwell, and there was no immediate necessity for communicating to him their contents; and that I was the less inclined to do so at that moment, be cause they related to a subject of which his Majesty never hears or speaks without being disturbed by it. —(Hear, hear.)—l beg, however, to remind your Lordship, that as an individual Member of Parlia ment, I never can introduce or support any measure for the relief of the Roman Catholics until that mea sure is the proposition of the Government, and until, by their means, sufficient securities are provided for the security of the Protestant Throne, and the mainte nance of the rights and privileges of the chnrch of England. As one of the King's servants, and long in close connection with the Government, I sub scribed most cordially, and determined to abide by the opinions embodied in the memorandum drawn up by Mr. Canning in the year 1810. In the terms of that memorandum, I say that the very first thing to be done, and that which must precede all others, is to reconcile the King's mind to an arrangement. Until that is done, and until I obtain his Majesty's consent, I should deceive your Lordship if I did not say that on the subject I shall not talk at all.— (Hear.)—l conceive also that I must give just and reasonable grounds of suspicion to the Protestants of England and to the Prelates of the Church, if I were to discuss with ;the Prelates of the Catholic Church, or the demagogues of the Association, a plan for relieving the Catholics from their political and religious disabilities.—(Hear.)—You see what is necessary as a preliminary to the discasssion of this question. There are arguments connected with the subject quite distinct from those drawn from a consideration of the present state of Ireland, or of the temper of the Catholic body. Some per sons, it is true, think that the arguments drawn from the condition of Ireland render the settlement of the Catholic question quite clear and incontrovertible; but do these persons think that nothing is to be done to preserve the peace, or secure the loyalty of the people of England ?" (This is really, as we could collect, the terms of these letters ; but es his Grace read them in a very low tone, and ftequently with rapidity, we cannot be answerable for peculiarity of expression.) I subsequently had occasion to write to the Noble Marquis on the 11th of December, with reference to the agitation which was going on with increased activity in Ireland ; and here I beg your Lordships to advert to the peculiar situation of a lord Lieutenant of Ireland. :The Lord Lieutenant of that country is armed with the most extensive powers—powers greater than those possessed by the subject of any Sovereign in Europe—but exe cuted under the controul, and by the instructions of his Majesty's Government in this country, commu nicated through the responsible servants of the Crown. It is the business of that Government to communicate with the Lord Lieutenant upon the subject of any acts which are improper or inconve nient to the course of the public service, or which may be displeasing to his Majesty tinder the parti cular circumstances in which the Government may then be placed. With this feeling, and with this view of my duty, and of the situation of the Lord Lieutenant, and of the objects which were to be at tained—l say, I think I should have been very much to blame, if I had abstained from making the Government of Ireland acquainted with the cir cumstances in which they departed from the intentions of the Government. I did, there fore, communicate with the Noble Marquis upon those subjects, and the result is contained in the l e tt er to w hi c h t h e N o ble Marquis has directed your Lordships' attention. But I ask, was I not fully justified in the political view I took of these questions, and of the conduct of those per sons whose names have been mentioned ? I say I do not think I was very wrong in the judgment I formed respecting these two Magistrates, for in a very short time afterwards one of them was struck off the Commission by the Lord Chancellor, and the other removed a short time afterwards for conduct not very different from that which I had condemned. Now when that has been the case, I think it is a little too much that I should be charged with writing letters of accusation against the Noble Mar quis, when they were really intended to make the Noble Marquis acquainted with the difficulties he was throwing in the way of the final settle ment of the Catholic Question. After this cor respondence took place, it was, however, quite obvious that the Noble Marquis and I could not go on in our relative situations of Minis ter and Lord Lieutenant. I may have been wrong—God knows I am liable to be wrong as well as others ; but from the correspondence which had taken place it was obvious that all confidence between. the Noble Marquis and me was at an end. I did not take the responsibility of the Noble Mar quis's removal, as he seems to suppose, upon my self. I waited until my colleagues came to town, and finding, upon making them acquainted with what had passed, that their opinions were in accord ance with mine, I took the pleasure of his Majesty upon the subject, and obtained permission to relieve the Noble Marquis from the Government of Ireland —I say to relieve him from the government. The Noble Marquis, in touching upon this part of the subject, says that I did not attend his Majesty until the 28th, and that the order for his removal did not depend upon the letter to Dr. Curti , . The Noble Marquis is right in both cases; I did not attend the King on that day, and his dismissal did not depend upon the letter toDr.Curtis, but upon the transactions which are detailed in those letters which he contends were not confidential. I attended his Majesty, however, on the 27th, although I did not attend him on the 28th, and I took his pleasure upon the question of the Marquis's dismissal, and conveyed it to him on the 28th. Having stated thus much upon the subject I there leave it; but I must add that I deprecate such discussions. They can do no good. They may do injury; and I am convinced from the result of this day's discussion, that the Noble Marquis would have been more satisfied with himself if he had not brought the question forward.—(Hear.)—l come nowto the subject o f th e Noble Marquis's removal. The Noble Marq u i s was told he would be relieved, and it was intended to leave him in the possession of the Government until he would be relieved in a manner agreeable to himself, and with advantage to the Government. To that communication the Noble Marquis replied by his dutiful assurance that he was disposed to await the time, manner, and cir cumstances under which it might be his Majesty's pleasure that relief should take place. My coin , munication was dated on the 28th of December; the Noble Marquis's reply was dated on the 30th. In the mean time, however, I received from Dr. Curtis a letter, dated the 4th of December, to which I wrote an answer on the 1 1 th, which the Doctor thought proper to publish. I know it is said that the letter, to which. mini is called the reply, was never written. My answer is, that I shall not follow the example of the Doctor in making that letter public —publish it I will not; but if any Noble Lord wishes to inspect that letter, here it is off the table for his perip.al. On the Ist of January appeared the hirer of the Noble Marquis to Dr. Curtis, being, as it seemed, a running comment upon that letter, which I had addressed to the tame person on the 11th December. The Noble Marquis says that his letter was written on the 23d, and that it was on the morning of that day my letter was first shown to him in his official capacity as Lord Lieutenant. It seems, however, a most extraordi nary circumstance, that on the very morning when the letter was thus shown to the Lord Lieutenant in his official capacity; it was also published in all the Dublin Papers. This is certainly a most extraordi nary circumstance; arid the first thing I must ob serve upon it, with respect to myself, is, that the Noble Lord there asserts that he did not know what I thought on the Catholic question : an other remarkable circumstance in that letter is, that the Noble Duke observes en my feeling of the necessity of tranquillity in Ireland previous to any further Parliamentary discussion of the question. In answer to this observation, I beg leave to refer your Lordships to a letter written by the Noble Lord in the month of July previous, and which I wish he had read over attentively before he made the observation contained in his letter to Dr. Curtis. That letter goes to show that the Noble Lord did not at that time object to that part of the subject; for in the letter of July he says, "If I should for tunately be enabled to keep this country in a quiet state, and if the Association should cease, I sincerely conjure . you to suggest that it is the interest of the country to take the state of Ireland into considera tion in the first week of the next Session of Parlia ment. I hold it my duty thus to explain myself." From this extract your Lordships will perceive that it is quite clear that this opinion as to the necessity of tranquillity is not mine, but that of the Noble Lord himself. It was he that at that:period thought it was necessary that tranquillity should come be fore the concession of the Catholic Claims. But this is not the only point of view to which I beg leave to call your Lordships' attention. The Noble Lord has told the House that he wrote the letter to Dr. Curtis confidentially, and that it was published afterwards with a view of petting the country in a state of tranquillity. But, let me ask, was it calcu lated to produce any such tranquillity ? I will tell your Lordships what Mr. O'Connell said on the subject. Your Lordships shall hear what he thought about this letter ; the words of Mr. O'Connell were, " The Marquis of Anglesea recommends that all constitutional, in contradistinction to merely legal means, should be resorted to to forward the cause: —that is the only part of his letter which we are inclined to disobey; for though the measure may be unconstitutional, if they are against the law, we ought not to adopt them."—(Hear.)—So that it appears that the Noble:Lord, by way of tranquilliz ing Ireland, publishes advice to these agitators, which even they will notf ollow, because they think it too strong a measure to adopt. But the Noble Lord says that the tenor of this letter is misun derstood, and that, although there is the word " agitate" in it, it does not mean agitation.— (Hear, hear.) The Marquis of ANGLESEA—I do not think that there is the word " agitate" in the letter at all. Read it, read it.") The Duke of WELLINGTON—The word " agitate certainly appears here :—" I fear that ad vantages might be taken of the pause, by represent ing it as a panic achieved by the late violent reac tion ; and by proclaiming, that if the Government at once peremptorily decided against concession, the Catholics would cease to agitate, and then all the miseries of the last years of Ireland will be to be re-acted." Now with respect to agitation, it cer tainly does appear that the letter contains not only advice to persevere in that course, but even goes on to shew by what means agitation may be made most effectual ; for the word is aot only mentioned incidentally in the letter, but the Noble Lord refers back to the past history of Ireland. And what is it that we under stand by agitation ? Why, if I may at all judge of its meaning by experience, it means something jut short of rebellion, and that is all—(hear, hear,)—it means a state of thingsi in which the Government of the country becomes absolutely impracticable, and where every thing is bordering close upon irreme diable confusion.—(Hear.)—Let me ask whether that is the condition in which the Noble Lord con templated leaving the people of Ireland ? Let me also beg your Lordships to remember that when the Noble Lord wrote thus he was still in his Majesty's service : let me beg the Noble Lord himself to look at the instructions he received when he assumed those functions—to look also at the sense of duty which he entertained during the whole period of his continuing in office. The Noble Lord began his Government of Ireland by entering into dis cussion with the King's servants here, respect ing the point of whether or not he should follow up the step he had taken by an application to Parliament to revise the laws that had reference to the disabilities of the Roman Catholics. After this the Noble Lord received directions to consider (in conjunction with the Law Officers of the Crown) of the practicability of putting down the Catholic Association by means of the law, either through the medium of the common law or of a specific Act of Parliament. The Noble Lord did consider that point, and I need not tell your Lordships that it was with a view to putting an end to agitatien that the direction was given. Now let me ask whether the Noble Lord's letter to Dr. Curtis corresponded in spirit with these previous steps? The next step adopted by his Majesty's Government was, to give directions for the Proclamation of the first of Octo ber in consequence of the representations made to the Ministry. Again, I ask the Noble Lord whe ther agitation was consistent with the spirit of that Proclamation ? I ask whether agitation was really consistent with his previous efforts ? After that the Noble Lord gave directions for the arrest of Mr. Law. less. These circumstances will serve to show your Lordships the whole tenour of the Noble Lord's correspondence, from which I might read much more copious extracts, but that I feel that I have already occupied too much of the time of the House. Those extracts, should I read them, would all go to shew that the Noble Lord at the com mencement of his Government of Ireland was fully sensible that the evil of that country was the agita tion carried into effect by the Catholic Association. It was evidently impossible, after the letter which the Noble Lord addressed to Dr. Curtis, not to withdraw him from the Government of Ireland; and I must say that however painful—and certainly I never felt more pain at any thing than at the adop tion of this measure—however painful it was to me to form such a resolution, I should not have dose my duty by his Majesty or by the country if I had op posed myself to the withdrawal of the Noble Lord from the Government of Ireland. The Marquis of ANGLESEA—With respect to the declaration of the Noble Duke, by which. he seems to doubt my having received the permission of the King to read the correspondence which 1 have this evening laid before your Lordships, I beg to assert, most unequivocally, that 1 had his Ma jesty's permission to read any papers that I might deem necessary for the vindication of my administra tion in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)—ln consequence of this permission, I have produced the papers now before your Lordships; and if the Noble Duke can discover that I have asserted what is false, I shall find no fault with him if he advises his Majesty to take away all those honours which I have received at his hands. The Noble Duke seems also to think that I have kept back part of the correspondence that has taken place—and a part, too, that would have told against me.—(" No, no," from the Duke of Wellington.)—The Noble Duke certainly did utter words to that effect, or I am much mis taken. The Noble Duke has also quoted a letter, in which he supposes that he told me what his sentiments on the Catholic Question were; all I can say on that subject is, that I have read that letter with attention, and I have not been able to discover any declaration by which I might learn what his sentiments were,—certainly. not that they were favourable to the question.— (Hear, hear.)—The Noble Duke's expression in that letter was, " there are those who think that the measure will pacify Ireland, but I have always doubted it ;" how,therefore, I was to understand that he had any intention of carrying this measure into effect, I am at a loss to conceive. —(Hear.) I do say that I have a right to complain of the fact—and a filet, after all, it is—that my first idea that the Noble Duke had decided on conceding. the Catholic Claims was from the letter that the King's Prime Minister wrote to the Catholic Primate of Ireland. I think that there mustbe some extraordinary mistake with respect to the letter which the Noble Duke has quoted as my letter. I feel confident that in that letter I did not use the word " agitate ;" and as the Noble Duke has it in his power to refer to my original hand-writing, I do not exactly understand why he goes to the printed copy. If there are papers which are to tell so mar vellously against me, why are they not produced ? My great anxiety is, that every document that re lates to the subject should be laid before this House. With respect to the Proclamation, I do not suppose that there was any particular merit in issuing it; but if there be any merit in it, it at least does not attach itself to it, as an order from Government; for it was I who wrote to state that such a course was necessary, and that I might even find it expedient to adopt it before I could receive an answer.—The same thing took place in the case of the arrest of Mr. Lawless. I wrote that I had. been engaged in consultation with the Law Officers on the pro priety of such a step, and that I might be compelled to arrest_Mr. Lawless before I could receive any answer, which proved to be the case—for Mr. Law less was arrested before any answer was received. The Duke of WELLINGTON said a few words across the table, but they were entirely inaudible below the bar. The Marquis of ANGLESEA—The day but one after my arrival in England, I demanded an audience, and waited upon his Majesty, on which occasion I explained to the King the policy I had pursued in Ireland; and on referring to these letters I told his Majesty that I did not believe that he could have seen them ; he said that he had, on which I suggested that he might hare only seen ex tracts, and that it was not impossible that the letters in their complete state might afford fuller informa tion. I said that I had the letters with me, and I placed them in the King's hands; his Majesty was then pleased to read every word they con tained to me ; and then told me that I was at liberty to read to this House those or any other documents that I might deem necessary to explain my conduct while holding office in Ireland.—(Hear.) The motion of the Noble Marquis was then nega tived without a division, and their Lordships ad journed at Five minutes to Eight o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS.-(LAST NIGHT.) The SPEAKER took the Chair precisely at Four o'clock. Several Private Bills were forwarded a stage. Mr. DICKENSON presented a petition from the Woollen Manufacturers of Somersetshire,,praying for a Repeal of the Laws affecting the Free Trade with India; and also a petition from the parish of St. Michael's, Bath, praying for a Repeal of the Window Tax. Lord WILLIAM POWLETT presented a pe tition from the Ship-owners of Durham, in favour of a free trade to the East Indies. Mr. F. WILSON presented a petition from the inhabitants of High and Low Harrowgate, praying for a Repeal of the Window Tax. Mr. itOWLAND HILL presented a petition from the county of Salop against the reduction of the Militia. Mr. NICHOLSON CALVERT presented a petition from St. Albans, against the reduction of duty on Foreign Thrown Silk. Mr. DOWNIE presented a petition from the Magistrates of Aberdeen, against the Bill now in progress for the enlargement of gaols in Scotland. Mr. DUGDALE presented a petition from Bir mingliam against the Able Bodied Labourers' Bill. Mr. SLANEY moved for the amount collected in every parish in England and Wales, for the sup port of the poor since the year 1819.—Ordered. Mr. ROBINSON presented several petitions from Silk Manufacturers in Berkshire and Somer set, against the reduction of the Duty on Foreign Thrown Silks. Mr. W. WHITMORE postponed a motion re specting the East India Company for a fortnight. CLAIMS OF MR. SIMCOX. Mr. LITTLETON rose to present a petition from Mr. Simcox, respecting the rate of interest allowed on Commercial Claims by the Commissioners for Liquidating the Claims of British subjects on the French Government. The petitioner complained of the amount of interest awarded by the Commis sioners on his Claims, and of their having induced him to abstain from prosecuting his appeal before the Privy Council, on the assurance, that whenever the case of Boyd's claims should be decided, if 5 per cent. interest should be allowed upon them, that the same rate of interest would be awarded on all claims of a similar class, under which the petitioner's claim was included. He (Mr. Littleton) had given notice of his intention to present this petition, as it involved a question of considerable importance, both as re garded the conduct of the Commissioners, and a great number of claimants of the same class, and who were placed in the same situation with Mr. Simcox. A convention was agreed to in 1818 be tween this country and France, in consequence of which a mixed commission was appointed, for the purpose of liquidating the claims of British sub jects upon the French Government. The first four articles of that conventions referred to the liquidation of claims arising out of the loss of funded property ; the sth and Gth Articles referred to claims arising out of landed aisd moveable property ; and upon all the claims to which these articles referred, an 'interest of 2 per cent. was to be allowed. The 7th article especially provided, that all claims arising out of the loss of property, not included under the six preceding articles, should, when allowed, have an interest of 5 per cent. awarded upon them; and it particularly mentioned com mercial property as coming under that head. The com mission sat at Paris for two or three years, a great number of claims were liquidated in that period, but amongst them only one which arose out of the loss of commercial pro perty, and upon that claim an interest of 5 per cent. was awarded. The British Government then consented to accept a certain sum from the French Government, and with it to liquidate all the remaining claims. The Com missioners they transferred their labours to London. The petitioner and the class of claimants to which he belonged, did not mean to impugn the honourable conduct of the Commissioners, but they conceived that tke decision of the Commissioners with respect to the rate of interest to be allowed on their claims would be productive of injustice towards them. The seventh Article of the Convention ex pressly provided, that upon all balances of money and mortgages claimed from the French Government, a rate of 5 per cent. should be awarded. Upon the class of claims under which the petitioner's came, the Commis•• sioners thought fit only to award three per cent. inte rest. Now, looking to the articles of the Convention, and its provisions, he was of opinion that the petitioner's claim respected property which came under the 7th Article, and upon which, consequently, five per cent. should be awarded. The most important part of the case to which he had already alluded, and which he was prepared to prove, was that which related to the pro mise given to Mr. Simcox, that if, in the case of Mr. Boyd a certain allowance was made, the same should be extended to his claim. On the strength of that promise, Mr. Sim cox had withdrawn his appeal. It appeared that the case of Mr. Boyd, which came before the Privy Council, and which was adjudicated by that body, was decidedly similar to that of Mr. Simcox, which was the subject of the pre sent petition. Mr. Simcox, after the adjudication of Mr. 130yd's case, applied to the Commissioners, who had balance of 500,060/. in their hands, for interest, at the rate of , five per cent. He did so, relying on the promise previously given to him by the Commissioners, ;and the House might easily conceive what his surprise was, when, after repeated statements and appreat;ons being made to the Commissioners, he was informed by them that they had no recollection whatever of having ever made any such pro miss ; and they at last paid over the balance of money held by them to the Treasury, without liquidating this demand. Ile should nosy briefly advert to the pr.ticipal objections likely to be a2ain•t tbe petitioner's (-lain). In the first place, it , mild be all• god that the Cnnatis Milers did not recollect giving to Mr. Siincox the promise he relied on ; but that such a promise had been made was clearly borne out by the statement contained in the petition, where it was posi tively set forth, that in M irch, 1821, Mr. Coning wood, one of the Commissioners, told the petitioner that if, in the case of Mr. Boyd, or of any other claimant, more than 31- per cent, interest was allowed, he should re ceive the same. The petitioner declared that on another occasion, a distinct recognition of the promise was made : and he observed, that his memory was the more accurate on that point, becouse immediately after leaving the office, he committed the chief points of the conversation to paper. Confiding in that promise, be, on the 4th of June, 1821, which was just before the period of three months allowed for entering an appeal had expired, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Commissioners, calling to their recollection the conversations which had previously taken place, and the assurance then given that if any claimant received more than 3]t per cent. he should receive the same. Now it was perfectly evident from the answer to the letter, dated the sth June, 1821, that the recollection of the conversations with Mr. Simcox was fresh in the memory of the Commissioners. He therefore knew not how they could turn round and say, that they had no re membrance of such a promise. The Hon: Member then proceeded to point out several cases similar to that of Mr. Simcox, beginning with one which occurred in 1788, where claims on the French Government bad been paid with an interest of 5 per cent. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, no man was disposed to pay more deference to the opinion of the Hon. Gentleman than he was; but he could not agree with him that the course now taken was a proper mode of proceeding with respect to questions of this nature. With respect to the promise alleged to have been made by the Commissioners, he had taken the earliest opportunity of consulting one of the gentlemen who was said to have made that promise. Mr. Collingwood was out of town, and he could not, of course, apply personally to him ; but in the letter written in June, and to which allusion had been, there was a paragraph, in Mr. Cellingwood's own handwriting, denying having given any such promise, which declaration was just as good as if he had received the communication personally from that gentleman ; and it was remarkable, that in the petition that paragraph was omitted. la his opinion, the Commissioners, had acted, in this case, with great imprudence. They should not have acted under the influence of kind or favourable feel ing; but when applied to for their advice, they ought to have answered—" Gentlemen, it is for you to decide whether you will appeal or not." Looking to the whole of the case, he could not consent to any interference with the decision which had been come to, because it would, in his opinion, establish a precedent of a very dangerous nature. Mr. K. DOUGLAS was of opinion, as the Right Hon. Gentleman had not contradicted the fact, that the case of Mr. Boyd and that of Mr. Siincox were nearly alike; and as it was admitted that the balance had been paid over to the Treasury by the Commissioners, that the question ought to be reviewed by the Treasury, in order that justice should be done to the petitioner. Mr. BERNAL hoped that a Committee would be al lowed. Mr. P. THOMPSON said that the petitioner having no other Court to apply to, naturally looked to the House of Commons for relief. Mr. R. GRANT hoped his Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), would re-consider this case, since the interests of so many persons were involved in it. His Right Hon. Frienti grounded his opposition upon these points:—That the House ought not to take a case under their consideration, after it had been finally ad judicated ;—that the petitioner had the full opportunity of appeal, and that he neglected that opportunity;--and lastly, that the House ought not to be guided by private conversations of the Commissioners, but by their adjudica tion as it appeared in their award. Now it should be re collected that a sense of justice bad already induced the House to interfere in cases like the present. In 1819, Lord Castlereagh said, that if any surplus remained, the cases of those who had not prosecuted their claims within the legal period should be attended to; but all those cases must be considered as out of Court, if this case was to be so considered oa the ground of his Right Hon. Friend. As to the argument that they were not to be bound by private conversation of the Commissioners, but by the award of the Commissioners, he begged to re mind his Right lion. Friend that in legal proceedings an open understanding in Court was perfectly binding, and that conversations were frequently necessary for the ar rangement of business. The petitioner and others swear to a certain understanding,--and two only of the Commis sioners declare that they have no recollection of such un derstanding. It might be that the Commissioners, who had so many cases before them, did not recollect it ; but it was very unlikely that the parties, who were so deeply interested in the matter, should forget it. This however was not the question, but the fact they were to consider was this,—that the petitioners had been led into a firm belief of this understanding. Was it just, then, to deny them • a rehearing? In conclusion, he would only add, that as the inexperience of the Commissioners bad been admitted, and as, whatever might be the real facts of the case, it was perfectly clear that there was something un usual mixed up with it, he thought it incumbent upon Government to give the case all the attention they could bestow upon it. Mr. BARING admitted that the case was an extremely hard one, and should be glad to see the mode of extending relief to the petitioner. At the same time, he thought that the case could come before 'no more improper tribu nal than a Committee of that House. Mr. C. PELHAM (as we understood) said the case was; extremely hard, and hoped the Committee would be allowed. Mr. LITTLETON had no wish to press a motion for a Committee, though he certainly could nut reconcile it to his sense of justice to the petitioner's claim to let the case rest here. Would his Right Hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, himself nominate a Committee to son sider the propriety of passing a short Act to allow the petitioner to go before the Privy Council? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER should be extremely reluctant to nominate any such Committee. The claims were so numerous, and of so many classes, that they had occupied the greater part of his time; and he could not nominate such a Committee without leaving it to them to decide, in fact, the question whether this claim was better than any of the rest. Mr. K. DOUGLAS said, that the Committee would not have to try that question. Mr. R. GRANT said that his Right Hon. Friend seemed to misunderstand the question. The only practical question would be, whether the petitioner, having let the opportunity of appealing escape him, should be allowed to retrieve it. He must strongly submit, that a renewed Commission for three or four months would be a very pro per and desirable means of determining this question. Mr. LITTLETON, in moving that the petition be printed, said, that although he made no motion on it then, he did not allow the case to rest there. The petition was then ordered to be printed. Mr. HUME presented two petitions from friendly so cieties against the Friendly Societies' Bill.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. V. FITZGERALD presented a petition from the corporation of Leith, praying the House to allow the Hat , . bour of Leith to be one of the ports at which foreign silk might be admitted. He stated that the petitioners over. rated the value of the imports at the Leith Harbour, which had amounted during the last year to five ounces of velvet, and 341. worth of other silks.—Laid on the table. Lord J. RUSSELL presented a petition from the in habitants of Rye, in Sussex, complaining that the repre sentation of that borough was in the hands of one family, and praying that measures might be adopted to correct the evil.—Laid on the table. The same Noble Lord also presented a petition from the members of a benefit society meeting in the neighbour hood of Carnaby-market, against certain clauses in the Friendly Societies' Bill. On the motion of Mr. Poantax, the Friendly Socie ties' Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be corn mitted on Wednesday next. Sir J. MACKINTOSH posponed hii motion on the subject of Mr. O'Reilly's petition till to-morrow. It was tlAen his intention to move that a Select Committee be ap pointed to inquire into the cases of Mr. O'Reilly and others who suffered by the insolvency of the Registrar of the Court at Madras. SILK-TRADE BILL. _ _ Mr. V. FITZGERALD moved that the report on the Silk-trade Bill be brought up. Mr. FYLER could not allow the Bill to pass the pre sent stage without protesting against its injustice. Mr. V. FITZGERALD could inform the Hon. Gent. that a proposition was now under the consideration of the Board of Trade, as to the propriety of destroying seized goods. If the proposition should be judged a proper one, he should have no hesitation in calling upon the House to 244 a clause for that purpose to the Bill. He would. hots ever, give no pledge on the subject. After some observations from Mr. V. FITZGERALD and Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN, the Report was received, and the third reading was fixed for Thursday next. INTERFERENCE OF THE BENGAL GOVERN MENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT OF JUS TICE. Mr. PEEL moved the second reading of the Justice of Peace Bill. Mr. BROUGHAM would take the present opportunity of putting a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo site. He had seen with a great deal of corn:era and some S'll'lW:Se an account of certain proceedings with respect to the judicial operation of the Court of Justice in Bombay. lie alluded to the interference of the Governor with the proceeding, of that Court, and it certainly appeared to hint wholly impossilde that Parliament should let pass the earliest opportunity of obtaining an explanation of that most extraordinary proceeding. The interference of the political and military government of the country with the solemn decision of a court of judicature was of itself a sufficient reason for calling for explanation. H e s h ou ld purposely abstain from entering into the merits of this question. He-would indeed assume that the court of jus tice might have come tera wrong decisii n—he would as sume the possibility of the decision of the court being founded in right. The court supposed that its jurisdiction over native subjects extended beyond the territory in which it was situated, and acted upon that supposition. There upon the court received a communication from the Go vernment in terms sufficiently respectful, but undoubtedly in substance directly interfering with the jurisdiction of the court of justice. The communication notified to Cie court that steps had been taken by the Govern ment to prevent their decision being put into effect, and warning the court how they proceeded further in such a course. The communication stated that the Government had transmitted their view of the case to the authorities in England, and suggested to the Court that they might do the same. As he had said be fore, the Court might be wrong in their opinion,—but supposing that to be the case, the course adapted was not the proper way of correcting the emirs of the Court.— He by no means meant to east blame on any body with out inquiry; all he maintained was, that it was itnpoe.ild e for Parliament to let slip the earliest opportunity after the publicity given to this strange proceeding Ole svottlit say unprecedented proceeding), did he not remember that a case very analogous to it occurred during a very bad time,—he meant during the most turbulent period of the Murquis of Hastings's Government, when three memhees of the Council were in possession of the government of ;he country, in consequence of being in the majority, and the Governor-General was in the minority—he repeated that it was impossible for Parliament to let pass the earliest op. p. rtunity without calling for an explanation of the affair. Mr. PEEL stated, that the transactions alluded to by the Hon. and Learned Member had been put in a coot s,o of inquiry, but what the result of that inquiry was he was not yet aware. The affair being one of considerable delicacy, he was unwilling to pronounce any positive opi - nion on it without referring to the papers connected with the subject. _ _ After a few words from Mr. 13aotreliam and Sir .1. MACKINTOSH, the Justice of the Peace Bill Was then rea4 a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday, the 11th of May. LAW COMMISSION.-SUPPLY. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR or• T/IF. Ex- CHXQUER that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. BROUGHAM wished to ascertain how it was the intention of Government to act on an important subject. There was before the House a report of the Commission ers appointed to inquire into the Courts of Law. He thought that they had limited the field over which they had a right to go; but still, as far as the report went, he could not conceive any thing much more complete. The report united great firmness and moderation. It showed a determination not to shrink from reform in law, from the apprehension that they might be thought by some to go too far; and on the other hand, it manifested every disposition to consult even the most groundless scruples,and the most ill-founded prejudices, of those who were opposed to any change. He never saw any thing more admirable than the manner in which the Commissioners had applied their minds to the consideration of those objections, to every one of which they had given most ample and satisfactory an swers. He therefore thought that great importance ought to he attached to the report as far as it went, and he wished that no time might be lost in acting upon its suggestions. The Commissioners of Inquiry had reported on two branches; Ist, as to the administration of justice, particularly with respect to the enlargement necessary in Westminster-hall, —and 2dly, as to the propriety of uniting the Welsh with the English Courts of Judicature. The proposed assimi lation of the Welsh judicature to the English system was a subject of great importance. It was almost impossible that there should not exist considerable differenee of opi nion respecting it. On other points recommended in the commissioners' report there might alto be a contrariety of opinion. This indicated the absolute necessity of intro ducing whatever measures it was intended to bring for.. ward founded on the report, as early as possible, in order that all parties might have an opportunity of considering and reconsidering their objections. He therefore hoped that Government would introduce Bills this session which, might be amply cmsidered during the recess, and passed next session but if they should not be introduced until next session, it was not likely that they would be passel until the session after that. Colonel WOOD said, that the commissioners had net made themselves acquainted with the locality of the Welsh counties, in consequence of which he thought that it would be impossible to adopt the plan which they had proposed. He, however, wished to see a great portion of the Welsh judicatures abolished, but he hoped that GoVernment would introduce no measure on that subject during the present session. Sir J. MACKINTOSH expressed his entire concur rence in all that had been stated respecting the important nature of the Commissioners' report. The Commissioners deserved as well of their country for their labours as any equal number of men ever did before. The Hon. Member who preceded him seemed to have no objection to a sub stantial alteration of the system of Welsh Judicature, but only disliked the particular mode of alteration recorn•nerded by the Commissioners. That particular plan was not now under consideration, and it was premature N charge the Commissioners with having acted without due consideration and inquiry. Mr. PEEL had heard with much satisfaction the testi mony which the Hon. and Learned Member for Winchelsea had borne in favour of the report of the Commissioners. The appointment of that Commission arose out of a motion made by the Hon. and Learned Member. The Hon. and Learned Member stated at the time, that he cared less for the form of the Commission than for the selection of the Members. He (Mr. Peel) declared that he would make the selection on a principle which would secure a satisfac tory result to their labours. He believed that the general voice of the profession concurred with that of the Hon. and Learned Member in praising the manner in which the Com missioners had conducted their inquiries, and the discreet, safe, and temperate reforms which they had recommended. With respect to the law of arrest, it was probable that the Commissioners had taken a correct view of the powers in abstaining from entering on its consideration. They con ceived that the object of their appointment was to inquire into the practice and proceedings of courts of law. He had no hesitation in saying that he was convinced, by almost daily experience, of the necessity► of instituting an inquiry as to the law of arrest, with a view to the reform of the whole subject. At present the power of arrest was vested in some local jurisdictions, which perhaps were not worthy to he trusted with suck an important power. He alluded to the manorial courts, hundreds' courts, and ether juris dictions. The Hon. Member for Montrose had more than. once urged the appointment of a committee of that House, to take into consideration the subject of arrest. He did not think that the inquiry could be conducted so well by a com mitiee of that blouse as by a commission constituted like the present. Whether or not it would be advisable to ex tend the powers of the Commissioners, and direct them to enter into an inquiry respecting the law of arrest, would he a matter for consideration. He was anxious, however, that the attention of the commissioners should not be diverted from their present labours. Its auswer to the Hon. and Learned Member who desired to know whether it was the intention of Government to bring itt a Bill, founded on the report of the Commissioners, he would state, without at all pledging himself on the subject, that it had not escaped his attention. He communicated with the Lord Chancellor on the subject yesterday, and their joint opinion was, that if a Bill could be introduwd this Session, which would embody the recommendations of the Report, and which might receive consideration dur ing the recess, it would be a great advantage; at the same time it was necessary that such a Bill should be well matured before it was introduced, in order that no undue prejudice should be raised against it on account of defec tive enactments. He was happy to find that his Hon. Friend (Colonel Wood) concurred in the principal recom mendation of. the Commissioneri, namely, that respectiog the Welsh judicature. It waft no reflection on the Coumissioners that there were local objections to their plan. Mr. BROUGHAM wished an inquiry into the law of arrest to be made by the existing Commission, because he