Page images
PDF
EPUB

the measure, as a protection against a glut of foreign corn, in the event of the ports being opened.-Lord Erskine opposed the bill; and moved to postpone the commitment for three months. Lord Dacre thought it would be better to postpone it.-The Earl of Harrowby observed, that if their Lordships refused to legislate on this subject, until the removal of every possible objection, they might postpone their proceeding for a century. The Earl of Carnarvon replied, that there was no period at which Parliament had proceeded to legislate under the disadvantage of such a total ignorance as at that moment. On a division, the numbers were, for Lord Erskine's amendment, 19; against it, 37; majority, 18.

JULY 10.-Earl Bathurst moved the third reading of the Corn Importation Bill.-The Earl of Lauderdale moved to postpone the third reading for three months.-On a division, there appeared for the amendment, 16; against it, 32; majority, 16.— The bill was then passed.

JULY 15.-The Marquis of Lansdown adverted to the seizure by officers acting under the Spanish Government, of a British ship, carrying on trade with South America; and asked whether, if his Majesty's Ministers had not yet come to the determination of formally recognizing the Independent Governments of South America, they had not, at least, adopted measures for the protection of our commerce with those States, in order that our merchants might not be liable to have their vessels seized under any orders from the Government of Old Spain?-The Earl of Liverpool replied, that with respect to the British ship which had been seized, a strong_remonstrance had been sent to the Government of Spain, demanding a remuneration for all the loss which the owners had sustained by that illegal act. To this remonstrance there had not yet been time for receiving an answer. As to the question of the formal recognition of the de facto Independent States of South America, it involved a number of considerations. Such a measure must necessarily be preceded by a negociation with the government of Spain.-The Marquis of Lansdown, feeling all the advantages which must result to this coun

try from the formal recognition of the Independent Governments of South America, expressed his disappointment, that no such preliminary negociation as that alluded to by the noble Earl, had been entered into.-The Earl of Liverpool intimated, that such a negociation had been commenced.

JULY 16.-The Earl of Carnarvon took the opportunity of the motion for the third reading of the Small Notes Bill, to express his regret, that this seemed to be the only measure to be expected, during the present Session, for the relief of agricultural distress. He ridiculed the notion, that that distress was occasioned by superabundant produce, and attributed it partly to the pressure of taxation; but, principally, to the diminution of the circulating medium, occasioned by the bill of 1819.-The Earl of Liverpool maintained, that the distress of agriculture did not proceed from the measure alluded to by the noble Earl, but that it was attributable to a variety of causes, all growing out of the change occasioned by the cessation of the late war.

JULY 17.-Earl Grosvenor observed, that as this country had interfered with other powers with regard to the slave trade, he trusted there would be no hesitation, in interfering with regard to that most atrocious slavery into which the Greeks were forced by the Turks. The cruelties which had been committed by the latter were a disgrace to the age. Seventy or eighty Greeks, held as hostages at Scio, had been put to death in the most dreadful manner, and ten or twelve had been murdered at Constantinople. It was reported that the lives of those unfortunate individuals had been guaranteed by the English ambassador at Constantinople. If so, it unquestionably became the duty of our government to interfere; and, to ascertain the fact, he moved for copies or extracts of any dispatches from the British minister at Constantinople, respecting the hostages of Scio executed at Constantinople and at Scio.-The Earl of Liverpool opposed the motion, as entirely unprecedented. He admitted that the execution of the Sciot hostages was a most flagitious act; but he denied that we had any right

to interfere with the conduct of the Turkish government, whose subjects they were. With respect to the contest between the Turks and the Greeks, he could assure the House that the British government preserved the strictest neutrality on the subject.-Lord Holland denied that the motion was unprecedented. The noble earl had given no answer to the enquiry of his noble friend, whether or not the safety of the unfortunate persons, who had been massacred at Constantinople, had been guaranteed by any British authorities.-The Earl of Liverpool replied, that he had no hesitation in declaring that no such guarantee had ever been given. The motion was then negatived.

JULY 19.-The Earl of Liverpool moved the second reading of the Irish Insurrection Bill, expressing his regret that circumstances rendered a renewal of the measure necessary. The Marquis of Lansdowne

strongly recommended the adoption of such a system, as, by healing the evils which Ireland endured, might render similar measures unnecessary. -Lord Ellenborough coincided in opinion with the noble Marquis.— The Earl of Limerick and Lord Redesdale defended the conduct of his Majesty's government.-The Earl of Darnley reprobated the disgraceful scene which had taken place in Dublin on the 12th.-The Earl of Liverpool assured the noble Earl, that the noble Marquis at the head of the Irish government had been exceedingly anxious to prevent the proceeding alluded to.-The Earl of Donoughmore and Lord Rawdon supported the bill on the ground of its necessity.-Lord Holland could not consent to grant such enormous and frightful powers, even to the noble Marquis at the head of the Irish government, in whom he had the greatest confidence. The bill was then read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

JUNE 24.-Mr. Brougham pressed upon the House the expediency of reducing the over-grown influence of the crown. The honourable and learned gentleman described the vast extent of our establishments; the immense patronage which consequently fell into the hands of government; and the necessary effect upon the conduct of the House of Commons; and concluded by moving "That the influence of the Crown was unnecessary to the maintenance of its due prerogatives, destructive of the independence of Parliament, and inconsistent with the well government of the state."-The Marquis of Londonderry denied that the influence of the Crown was such as it was represented to be by the hon. and learned gentleman, and moved the order of the day.-On a division there appeared, for passing to the order of the day, 216-for the original motion, 101-majority, 115.

JUNE 25. Mr. Abercrombie brought the conduct of the Lord Advocate, and of the other law officers of the Crown in Scotland, in regard to their interference with the public press, under the consideration of the House; and after particularizing the circumstances of that conEur. Mag. Vol. 82.

duct, moved for the appointment of a Committee to enquire into it.-The Lord Advocate defended his proceedings and those of his learned friends in the transactions in question.Mr. Peel maintained that the appointment of a committee on the mere assumptions of the hon. and learned mover would be inconsistent with justice.-Sir J. Mackintosh warmly supported the motion, and observed that the House were called upon that night to determine, whether they would frown down the infamous system of private calumny which had overwhelmed the country, or whether they would authorise, establish, and perhaps perpetuate it. — The Marquis of Londonderry denied that any ground had been laid for the proposed enquiry.-On a division there appeared, for the motion, 95— against it, 120-majority 25.

JUNE 26.-Mr. Creevey moved for the repeal of the Pension Bill; and proposed eight resolutions, descriptive of the various abuses that existed under the present system of granting pensions; and expressive of the opinion of the House, that the Ministerial Pension Bill ought to be repealed forthwith. Mr. Bankes considered that the present mode of

K

rewarding public servants was one of the least expensive that could be pursued, and moved the order of the day. Mr. Bennett, as an instance of abuse, quoted the pension of 30001. which had been granted to Lord Sidmouth, a man just as much calculated to fill a ministerial situation as one of the door-keepers of the House. The Marquis of Londonderry said, he regarded with indignation the disgusting language, in which the hon. member for Shrewsbury had spoken of his noble friend. -The House divided, for passing to the order of the day, 143-for the motion, 42-majority, 101.

JUNE 27.-Mr. Wilberforce moved an address to his Majesty, conjuring him to renew his remonstrances to foreign courts on the subject of the slave trade. The hon. gentleman stated that, although the Cortes of Spain had, most creditably to themselves, passed a law inflicting a severe penalty on any one who should be found dealing in slaves, yet that the trade was still carried on by the Portuguese; and, which was still worse, by the French to an enormous extent. The Marquis of Londonderry did not oppose the motion, which was agreed to

JUNE 28.-In answer to a question from Mr. W. Smith, the Marquis of Londonderry said, that Goverment were not in possession of the details respecting the ten or twelve hostages of Scio, who had been executed at Constantinople. Great barbarities

had been committed by both parties; although he did not mean to say that that fact justified the recent event at Constantinople.-Sir J. Mackintosh asked, if any dispatches had been received from our ambassador to the Ottoman court, on the subject of the persons recently murdered by the barbarous tyrants of Constantinople. -The Marquis of Londonderry replied, that none of the persons lately executed at Constantinople, stood in such a relation to the British Government as to justify our interfe rence on the principle of protection; although our ambassador had certainly interfered on the principle of humanity. On the report of the reso lution for diminishing the amount of the salt duties being brought up, Mr. Curwen moved as an amendment, "that the duties, payable on British

salt in Great Britain and Ireland, should cease and determine.”. A division took place-for the amendment, 92-against it, 104-majority, 12.

JULY 1.The Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward the budget, and observed that the revenue was rapidly improving, and that the public credit was in the most satisfactory state.-Mr. Maberley exposed the inconsistencies of his Majesty's Government with respect to the Sinking Fund, and strongly recommended a further reduction of our expenditure.-Mr. Ricardo contended, that the real efficient Sinking Fund amounted only to 1,400,0001. -Mr. Hume declared that the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were entirely visionary. The resolutions were agreed to.-Mr. Secretary Peel then moved the commitment of the Alien Bill, which was opposed by Mr. Hobhouse, as involving principles that must lead to an infringement of the liberty of the state. On a division there appeared, for the Speaker's leaving the chair, 142-against it, 60-majority

82.

JULY 2.-Mr. Hobhouse moved three resolutions, the last of which went to declare the expediency of taking off the tax on houses and windows. - The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the motion his decided opposition. The House divided-For the motion, 59-against it, 146-majority, 87.

JULY 5.-Sir J. Mackintosh asked his Majesty's Ministers, if they had received an authentic copy of the Ukase of the Emperor of Russia, claiming as Russian dominions the N. E. coast of Asia, and the N. W. coast of America, being an extent of coast of five thousand miles?The Marquis of Londonderry replied, that a copy of the Ukase had been received, and that his Majesty's Government had addressed a note to the Russian ambassador, stating that they could not accede to the principle of the Ukase, but offering to enter into a friendly explanation on the subject.

JULY 8.-Mr. Goulburn moved, that the house should resolve itself into a Committee on the Irish Insurrection Bill.-Sir R. Wilson opposed the motion, adverted to seve ral acts of extreme oppression, which

had taken place in Ireland; pointed out a number of grievances of which the Irish had to complain, especially the system of tithes; and concluded by moving an instruction to the Committee to investigate the causes of the present distress of that country, with a view to its removal with ont the adoption of any unconstitutional measure. This proposition was negatived, the numbers being 17 in its favour; 135 against it; majority 118.

JULY 9.-Mr. Courtenay called the attention of the House to two publications, which he had no doubt they would consider breaches of their privileges. The one was a letter to J. Abercromby, M.P. by John Hope, Esq. commenting in very strong terms on the speech which that hon. gentleman had recently made in that House, with respect to the conduct of several individuals in Scotland; the other was a correspondence between Mr. Abercromby and Mr. Menzies, on the same subject, which had been published in the Courier. Having read the offensive paragraphs in these publications, he moved, that they were breaches of the privileges of the House. The motion was agreed to; Mr. Hope, and Mr. Menzies, were ordered to attend at the bar of the House on the 17th, and Mr. Abercromby was ordered to attend forthwith.

JULY 10. Mr. Nolan obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws respecting the poor. The hon. and learned gentleman stated that the principal object which he had in view, was to bring back the system of the poor laws to the intention of the statute of Elizabeth.-Mr. Western again called the attention of the House to the evils, which had resulted from Mr. Peel's bill, and moved eighteen resolutions, embody ing his opinions on the subject. Mr. Richards contended, in opposition to the hon. member for Essex, that the bill of 1797 had been the cause of the evils which the country had endured, and that the bill of 1819, was the remedy. Lord Milton was of opinion, that the only advisable measure was the reduction of taxation to a large amount. The resolutions were negatived without a division.

JULY 12.-Mr. Abercromby appearing in his place, Mr. Courtenay moved, that he should be enjoined not to prosecute any quarrel against any person or persons, arising out of the publications which the House had pronounced breaches of privilege. The motion having been agreed to, the Speaker accordingly so enjoined Mr. Abercromby.

JULY 15.-Sir J. Mackintosh presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Lees, Ashton-under-Line, in Lancashire, expressing their horror at the murder of their Christian brethren, the Greeks, by those inhuman barbarians the Turks, and praying for the interference of the House. The hon. and learned gentleman observed, that for himself he could not help entertaining a wish, that the powers of Europe would make a simultaneous effort in favour of that brave and persecuted people.-Mr. Hutchinson, and Mr. Wilberforce declared their strong sympathy in the cause of the unfortunate Greeks. The Marquis of Londonderry said, that Ministers had done their utmost to recommend pacific and conciliatory measures to the Turkish government; at the same time he regretted to observe, that there were as many acts of ferocity and cruelty perpetrated on the one side, as on the other. Sir R. Wilson urged the repeal of the foreign enlistment bill, to enable the Greeks to receive assistance from the subjects of this country. Lord A. Hamilton contended, that the conduct of England towards the Greeks was not creditable to her as a nation.-On the motion for going into a Committee of supply, Mr. Hume called the attention of the House to the large sums levied by the Consul General of the Brazils, and his Vice Consuls, very much to the detriment of trade. The Marquis of Londonderry admitted that the facts were strong; but thought that the hon. gentle man's statement must be exaggerated.

[ocr errors]

JULY 17-Mr. Brougham presented a petition from Mr. John Lawless, of Belfast, complaining of the outrages consequent on the orange processions, which had been permitted in Ireland on the 12th inst. Mr. Spring Rice, Sir J.

Mackintosh, Mr. Hutchison, and intosh asked his Majesty's Ministers, Mr. Brougham warmly condemned whether any representation had been such processions.- Mr. Goulburn, made to Spain, which related to the and Sir G. Hill, concurred in repro- recognition of the independence of bating the practice, bnt declared South America by Great Britain? that great provocation had been The Marquis of Londonderry regiven by the other party.-In pur- plied, that unless he were to give a suance of the order of the House, detailed answer, which could be Mr. Hope appeared at the bar, and, done only on a specific motion, what in an address to the House, justified he said on the subject would be liahis conduct; at the same time ex- - ble to misrepresentation. pressing his regret that the course, which he had felt it imperative upon him to pursue in vindication of his honour and character, had led to an act which was an apparent violation of the previleges of the House. After some discussion, Mr. Hope was recalled to the bar, and told by the Speaker that, as he had expressed his regret at what had occurred, the House, under all the circumstances of the case, had determined not to proceed any further. Mr. Menzies then appeared, explained his conduct, and was also discharged from further attendance.-Sir J. Mack

JULY 18.-A considerable discussion took place on the motion by Mr. Wilmot, for the House to go into a Committee on the Canada trade bill. On a division, the numbers were, for the motion, 48; against it, 14; majority, 34. The bill then passed through the Committee.

JULY 19.The motion for the third reading of the Alien bill produced a long debate. On a division, there appeared in favour of the third reading, 75; against it, 32; majority, 43.

[blocks in formation]
« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »