773 cation of his Majesty's subjects, in case of to it agreed to invite the other maritime any abuse of the right of search now con- powers to accede to it within as short a ceded; and last of all, the limits under period as possible, so that any maritime which that right of search was to be exer- power, by declining to employ any vessel, It could cised were more strict and definite than might nullify this convention with regard they had been in any former treaties. both to England and to France. There was no such limitation in the not be desired by us, that the four Powers treaties which we had formed with Spain to whom he had already alluded-namely, and with Portugal, in which the right of Spain, Portugal, Sweden, aud the Nethersearch had been reciprocally conceded, as lands, should accede to this convention, In the inasmuch as they would be less restricted was contained in this treaty. treaties with Sweden and with the Nether- by it than they were at present. Under all lands it was provided that the right of the other treaties the vessels seized were search should not be exercised in the Medi- carried before a mixed commission. By the terranean or in any other European sea-a present convention, the vessels captured for limitation which made the right of search being engaged in the slave-trade, or as as extensive as it was necessary, inasmuch being suspected of being fitted out for that as no slave-trade was carried on within infamous traffic, were to be delivered over those seas. In this treaty the limits were without delay to the jurisdiction of the more restricted than in any other, for they nation to which they belonged, and were were confined to that part of the western only to be judged according to the laws in coast of Africa which runs from Cape force in that nation. This clause of the Verd to ten degrees south of the Equator; convention, therefore, enabled France, by to the islands of Madagascar, Cuba, and a change in her municipal laws, to deprive Porto Rico, and a distance of twenty the treaty of any value. Wher. he made leagues from their coasts; and to the same these observations on the discrepancies of More- this convention and of its predecessors, he distance from the coast of Brazil. over, the right of search was not to be trusted that it would not be supposed that exercised beyond those limits, unless the he objected to the Government for having cruisers to whom it was given came up made some concession with regard to the with the slave-ship beyond those limits mixed commission; for he knew that in without having ever lost sight of her; so America, and he believed in France also, that, if a night intervened, the right of there prevailed great objections to allowing search could not be exercised beyond the their citizens to be tried by a mixed comIf mission. Neither did he object to the space which he had already mentioned. their Lordships would only take this point Government having agreed to these narrow into their consideration, they would see limits, if wider ones could not be obtained. that this limitation nullified the provisions What he objected to was this: that Gowhich were included in the treaties which vernment had accompanied this convention we had made with the other four Powers. with provisions which enabled France, if There was another difference between this so inclined, to nullify it altogether. In convention and the preceding conventions, every other convention, the instructions which he deemed still more important. accompanied the convention; here they In the conventions with Spain and Portugal were to be drawn up and agreed upon by there was no limitation as to the number of the two Governments: so that, until they vessels of each kingdom which were to be were drawn up and agreed upon, the conemployed under them. In the conventions vention was a dead letter. The instructions with the Netherlands and with Sweden, here were extraneous from the treaty, and there was a limitation that not more than must form a supplemental treaty by themBut selves; and very important and very delitwelve vessels should be so employed. in this convention it was provided, that in cate would be the question, when the two no case should the number of the cruisers Governments should come to consider what of the one nation be more than double the the instructions ought to be. The instrucnumber of the cruisers of the other. tions would be most important as to what France, therefore, by declining to employ should be admitted to be proof that a any vessels, would prevent us from em- vessel was engaged in the slave-trade, or ploying any, and would thus be enabled that it was fitted out with a view of being to nullify every provision of the treaty. engaged in that trade, when there were no There was also an article in this con- slaves on board. There were also cases vention, by which the contracting parties which ought to be excepted from seizure, 2 C2 where there were slaves on board a vessel either as servants or as sailors, and not for traffic. In our trading vessels from the East and West Indies it was possible that slaves might be on board under circumstances which would render it difficult to decide whether they were slaves or not. There was another point of importance on which it would be necessary that there should be some positive instruction, and that was, what should be the right of search when a vessel was under the convoy of a vessel of war belonging to another State. That would be a question of great difficulty -first, as to whether any right of search should be given under such circumstances; and next, as to the manner in which it should be exercised, if given. There was also another question of difficulty to which he wished to call the attention of the noble Earl, and that was, whether any right of search could exist when a vessel was within cannon-shot of the shore of another State. All these questions must be decided, and they could only be decided by a supplemental treaty. It was therefore not only immature, but also impolitic, to bring this convention under the notice of Parliament before all these points were arranged. Let all this be done; there remained that of which he did not understand the omission-he alluded to the means of indemnifying his Majesty's subjects who might be stopped unjustly by French cruisers. There could be no objection, on the part of France, on point of principle, to grant this indemnification. By this convention, so little restrictive on France for she had but few vessels on which we could exercise the right of search -by this convention we subjected to search all our numerous vessels which were engaged in the South American trade, the African trade, the West-Indian trade, and in our trade with the country parts of the East Indies. He therefore thought, that it was absolutely necessary that there should be a provision in this convention, as there was in all its predecessors, for the indemnification of British subjects, in case of any abuse of that great power which we were now granting to France, for the sake of the interests of humanity. He, therefore, desired to know, first, what progress had been made in drawing up these instructions? and next, what fund, if any, was provided for the indemnification of British subjects, for losses which it was possible they might incur under the operations of this convention? Earl Grey expressed his satisfaction that the noble Baron, though he found fault with the details of the convention, did not object to the principle on which it was founded. He thought that by this convention a great advantage had been gained, not only for England but for humanity in general, by the further prevention of that inhuman traffic in the sinews and muscles of man the slave-trade-which he trusted would be the result of the execution of this convention. He thought that his Majesty had not been ill-advised to make that statement in his opening speech to Parliament to which the noble Baron had alluded. It was true, that this treaty was not so extensive as those which had been made with Spain, Portugal, Sweden, and the Netherlands; but their Lordships must be aware-and none more than the members of the late Administration—of the difficulty of making any arrangement on this subject with France. Their Lordships must know the jealousy which existed in that country as to the right of search. It existed not only in France, but also in the United States of America, and he believed it was also felt by the officers of our own navy. He therefore thought, that much had been done in obtaining the agreement of France to the provisions of this convention; for though it was not so extensive as our conventions with the other Powers, it was sufficiently extensive to enable the navies of the two countries to check that trade which disgraced humanity, and of which both Governments anxiously wished to see the termination. The noble Lord had complained that the limits were more restricted under this than under any former convention. They were so; but after the best inquiries that could be made, and the best information that could be collected, it was believed that the right of search, within the limits and under the conditions mentioned in the convention, would be most effectual. Besides, that very limitation might serve as some counterpoise to the danger which the noble Lord anticipated our shipping would incur from the concession of this right of search. The noble Lord had stated his apprehension, that as the number of cruisers to be employed by each of the Powers was not specified, and as each was restricted to employ not more than double the number of the cruisers of the other, one of the Powers, by refusing to employ any cruisers, might compel the other to do the same, and would thus nullify and defeat the con of treaty. Lord Ellenborough remarked, that the noble Earl had stated, that injuries to British property would be redressed in the usual manner, on proper demand for reparation being made. So they might without this treaty; but the object of it ought to have been specifically to put an end to such a practice, by rendering the demand for such redress unnecessary. It was, also, perfectly clear, that the Crown, of its own authority, could not carry into effect this or any other treaty upon the subject without coming to Parliament for its sanction. The King possessed no power to permit foreign ships of war to search British merchant-vessels, nor could the Crown of its own right indemnify the subjects of other States if injured in the process of carrying such a treaty into effect. As to another point to which the noble Earl had alluded, he begged to call to the recollection of the House, that both the South American and the Indian trade, by the usual course of navigation, came within the limits defined by the treaty. vention. Now this supposition took it for | able advantage had been gained by the granted, that there would be a want of good faith on the part of France in the execution of the treaty. If there were that want of good faith on the part of the French government, he did not know by what form of words he could possibly bind it. With respect to the mixed commission alluded to by the noble Lord, whatever disposition the French government might feel with regard to an arrangement of that nature, it was totally It was inconsistent with French law. incompatible with the law of France that the property of any French subject should be brought for adjudication before any other than a French tribunal. The French law might perhaps be altered hereafter, but at present it opposed an insurmountable objection to the plan of trying these cases by a mixed commission. For the present, however, a part of that difficulty had been got over. It was proposed to appoint a French consul with full power to decide on all such questions as might arise out of this treaty, such consul to be resident either at Sierra Leone or Fernando Po, to save the necessity of vessels proceeding further than was absolutely necessary for the purpose adjudication. The noble Lord had proposed two questions, having for their object to ascertain in what state the instructions were, and whether any measures would be adopted to procure indemnification for English subjects who might be injured by improper conduct on the part of the French cruisers. He could not give the noble Lord a satisfactory answer to either of the questions the noble Lord had put. He was not prepared to say in what state the instructions were; but he believed he might state with some confidence, that there would be no difficulty on the subject, and that they would be placed on a most satisfactory footing. With respect to the noble Lord's second question, as to the procuring of indemnification, all he could say was, that until some specific arrangement could be made (and he was not prepared either to admit or deny that this would be done), any undue exercise of power by the French cruisers would stand on the same footing as any injury committed by one State against another. A representation of the injury would be made, and redress, he hoped, obtained, where the justice of the case required it. This was all that he felt himself called upon to say on the present occasion, and he would therefore sit down with once more remarking, that, even by the admission of the noble Lord, consider The Earl of Aberdeen said, that the treaty under consideration was the first he had ever known to have been laid before Parliament as an original treaty in the French language. It had been the invariable practice, since Lord Grenville was in the Foreign Office, to have every original treaty in the English language. He did not wish to press this point as of undue importance (though it was not wholly unimportant); but he had felt it necessary to allude to it, lest the present proceeding might be drawn into a precedent. Viscount Goderich observed, that a copy of the treaty in English was also laid upon the Table. The Earl of Aberdeen replied, that the document on the Table was a translation; but there ought to be two original treaties, one French, and the other English. Earl Grey expressed a wish that there should be no departure from any rule which He took it existed on the subject. For his part he knew nothing of the matter. for granted that the papers would be sent to the Foreign Office in the usual form. The Earl of Aberdeen said, that the noble Earl did not seem to understand the point to which he had referred. The mistake which had been committed could not be remedied. Our Ambassador had signed a French treaty, instead of signing one in French and another in English. The omission was, of course, accidental on the | Members who desired information as to part of Lord Granville. He did not mean to do more than advert to it. Motion agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS, MINUTES.] Bills brought in. By the LORD ADVOCATE, to provide for the due carrying on of the business of the Court of Session in Scotland, when interrupted by the death or Ireland. absence of a Judge:-By Mr. CRAMPTON, to amend the Acts 58th and 59th George 3rd, to establish Fever Hospitals, and for the prevention of Contagious Disease in Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. CROKER, the authorities on which the Commissioners fixed the boundaries of Boroughs and Towns; and an account of the Assessed Taxes paid by each with relation to the Reform Bill:-On the Motion of Mr. LITTLETON, of the quantities of British Iron, Hardwares, and Cutlery exported during each year from 1825 to 1831, inclusive, distinguishing each year, and the countries to which the same was exported; of Foreign Iron imported and exported again during each of these years, distinguishing the several sorts, and the Countries to which it was exported:On the Motion for regulating the New Bankruptcy Courts made by the of Mr. FRESHFIELD, for a Copy of the Rules and Orders Judges of Review. Petitions presented. By Sir EDWARD SCOTT, from the Burgage-Freeholders of Lichfield, praying that the resi dence of Freeholders in that place might be enforced. Against the General Registry Bill, by Mr. SANFORD, from Somerton and Crewkerne, Somerset:-By Lord Bridlington, Yorkshire:-By Lord CAVENDISH, from Derbyshire. By Mr. JEPHSON, from the Parishes of Whitchurch and Garracloyne, in the County of Cork, complaining of SANDON, from Liverpool:-By Mr. STRICKLAND, from the amount of Grand Jury Assessments; and from the Inhabitants of Greenagh, for an Amendment of the Tithelaws. By Mr. DRAKE, from Agmondesham, against the Reform Bill. By Mr. HUNT, from a number of Me chanics in the Parish of Lambeth, against the Anatomy Bill. By Mr. HUME, from the Inhabitants of Dingeston, Tregare, and eight other places against the Tithe Laws in Ireland; and one from a place in the County of Monmouth on the same subject. By Mr. SANFORD, from John Ward, against the regulations for the Silk Trade. EXPORTS AND IMPORTS.] Mr. Littleton moved for an account of the quantity of Hardware and manufactured Iron exported from England to the last year. Mr. Hume expressed his regret that he did not see any of his Majesty's Ministers in their places on this occasion, as he was anxious for some explanation of the fact why an annual account was not laid before the House of the amount of exports and imports of the United Kingdom. Such an account would be of the utmost importance, as well for the information to which Members would thus have easy access, as also for the great saving of expense which it would occasion. He had no doubt that a saving of some 30,000l. a-year might be made, by having one general account of exports and imports laid before the House every year, at the commencement of each Session. From the want of such account, any particular branch of our exports and imports, were obliged to move for separate returns, by which great expense, and often great delay, were occasioned; and then the information was not obtained in that satisfactory manner which was desirable. He had that morning got an account from the United States of America, in which one might find at a glance the amount of exports and imports for any year during a number of years, and he did not see why a similar account should not be published by the Government of this country every year. He did not know what Ministers had to do that they could not publish such an account. The motion was then agreed to. SCHOOLS OF ANATOMY-EXPLANATION.] Mr. Hunt presented a Petition from a person named Robert Thomas Webb, of York-street, Marylebone, Surgeon, stating, that he was what was called an Atheist, and was perfectly indifferent as to what became of his body after his death. He, therefore, had no objection that his body should be dissected for the benefit of Science, but he had a wife and family who all professed the Christian religion, and in regard to their feelings he would object to dissection; he, therefore, prayed the House not to pass the Anatomy Bill. Lord Morpeth would take this opportunity of correcting an error as to what fell from the hon. member for Preston, in alluding to the petition from Leeds, which he (Lord Morpeth) had presented last night. The hon. Member had alluded to a person who was instrumental in getting up the petition, and stated that he was a man who had roasted his Bible, and had rejected all religion; but in some of the papers this act had been attributed to a highly respectable individual, Mr. Baines, of Leeds, on whom he was sure it was not the hon. Member's intention to cast any such imputation. Mr. Hunt was sure the recollection of the House would bear him out in the declaration that he had made no such charge aginst Mr. Baines, whom, whatever objections he might otherwise have to him, he believed to be a religious man, and incapable of any such act as had been coupled with his name in the report. What he stated was, that a person named Smithson, and others, who had assisted Mr. Baines in getting up the petition, were persons of the character he had mentioned; and it was one of them (Smithson, we understood) who had roasted his Bible. Although Mr. | had fallen on the petitioners. Was it not Baines had been in the habit of attacking natural that the parties in this case should him behind his back, in his paper, he would object to the payment of tithes? Could any not make any charge against him which he man reasonably expect that any body of did not believe to be well founded, and cer- men, no matter of what creed, would be tainly he had made none of the kind al- content with such a system? He would luded to. beg the attention of the House to the conMr. Strickland said, that any person who cluding paragraph of the petition, in which had heard distinctly what fell from the hon. the petitioners stated, that considering Member (Mr. Hunt) must recollect that he that Church rates and tithes are exacted had not used the words imputed to him. 'in a situation where there is no Church, The error, no doubt, arose not from inten- and no duty performed, we have come to tion, but from the difficulty of hearing.this conclusion, that there is no moral obNo man who knew Mr. Baines couldligation on us to pay those taxes.' When believe him capable of the act which had a feeling of this kind was avowed, and was been erroneously attributed to him. The hon. member for Kirkcudbright (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) had, on a former evening, made some remarks on Political Unions, and particularly on the subject of the Political Union at Leeds, which the hon. Member stated to be contrary to the Constitution. Mr. Warburton rose to order, and said, that that question had nothing to do with the subject before the House. Petition to lie on the Table. 6 every day spreading in that country, he would ask, whether it did not impose a strong obligation on the Government to take the whole subject of tithes and Church property into its earliest and most serious consideration? For his own part, he would say, that if he were in the situation of the petitioners, he would not pay such a tax. He would do what his ancestors did in Scotland-he would resist the attempt to exact such a tax, for which no sort of duty was performed. He thought, that all fair means of redress should be first resorted to, and, in his opinion, the Irish people had resorted to such means, but without effect. Could it, then, be a matter of surprise that they should now resist the payment altogether? Did the House think, that this country would consent to the payment of an immense military establishment in Ireland, for the purpose of enforcing the collection of tithes, and protecting the property of the Irish Church? We had now an army of 20,000 men in Ireland, though in the year 1792, the whole of our military force in that country did not exceed 8,000 men; but at one time, and not very long ago, our force there amounted to 26,000 or 27,000 men. Would the people of England consent to the maintenance of such an establishment, the chief object of which was, the protection of Church property and tithes? He was sure they would not, and therefore he earnestly hoped that Ministers would lose no time in submitting the whole question to the consideration of Parliament. The Petition read. TITHES (IRELAND)-PETITIONS.] Mr. Hume, in presenting a Petition from the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of the Parish | of St. Agnes, in the Diocess of Cork, against Tithes, took occasion to observe, that phrases were sometimes used in the heat of debate which were not intended. He admitted, that he himself often, in the course of debate, used words which, on more cool reflection, he should wish not to have used. He supposed that it was in this way the word " disgraceful" had been applied to his statement as to the Tithe Question in Ireland, by an hon. Member opposite, and had afterwards been repeated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel). He did not think it disgraceful to state important facts which came to his knowledge on this subject, and he thought the disgrace would only lie upon the suppression of such facts. In the petition which he now presented, it appeared that in this parish there were only four Protestant families, consisting altogether of fourteen persons, but there were 2,800 Roman Catholics, from whom the tithe was exacted, though Sir Robert Peel said, that anything there was no Church, and no clerical duty which had fallen from the hon. member of any kind belonging to the Established for Middlesex would not divert him from Church performed. The petition further the real question before the House. He stated, that the tithes, before the Composi- was not conscious of having used the word tion Act, amounted to 610l.; but that they" disgraceful" in reference to the hon. had since that time increased one-seventh Member's argument; but if such a word in amount, the whole of which addition had been [applied, it was to the principle |