stages, in sixteen of which the captures had taken place before July 1815. The act of parliament of that date could therefore apply only to five of them; and four of these were still in a course of litigation, on which no judgment had been given. Only one case, then, could be attempted to be included in the provisions of the act, and this was that of the Rosa. This had not been cap tured by our cruizers, but had been driven by stress of weather on the coast of one of the Bahama islands, and had been taken because some slaves were on board. There were only five judgments, and those were against the captors; and surely the claimants, as to the remedy now afforded to them, compared to their prospect of recovering from the captors, had no right to complain of this country for turning them over to the justice of their own. Upon the whole, he trusted that he had satisfied the House that no doubt had hitherto existed with regard to the sovereign power of a state, upon all the principles of international law, to conclude a treaty with another foreign power, of the nature of that under consideration. He had shown that it had been recognized on two solemn occasions, and that there was no ground of charge against the navy board, as having placed itself between a judgment on a statute law, and its execution. He had only to remind them, that the Spanish flag had been made use of by the subjects of other states as a cloak to their violation of the law, and that the Spanish courts must necessarily. be the fittest place for determin

ing any question which might arise out of that practice.

Mr. Wynn said, he would not dispute the abstract proposition, that a sovereign had a right to adjust with another potentate the claims of any of his subjects; a power vested, and necessarily so, in the head of any state, whether republican or monarchical. He also admitted, with the noble lord, that the question here was, whether the power so vested had been properly applied in the particular case. But when the legislature, by a special act, prescribed the mode of pursuing a legal inquiry to correct a wrong, and where the sufferers had followed the course laid down, and obtained an adjudication after making out their demands to the satisfaction of the court, then both equity and justice required that they should be protected in their rights. He thought that the interest of the claimants should in the present instance, be defended by the courts in which the proceedings relative to them had been instituted, and not transferred to another jurisdiction producing additional expense and delay.

After the remarks of some other gentlemen, Dr. Phillimore spoke in reply.

He said, the question upon which he went was, whether those claimants who were in possession of the verdict of a British court of justice in their favour, ought not to be indemnified for their losses in the first instance, and the subsequent heavy expenses incurred in the prosecution of their claims; and whether there was not a difference between the

cases

cases of such persons, and those whose claims were in progress? He did not deny the right of the sovereign to bind the subject by any treaty entered into with a foreign power; but he thought the honour of the country ought to be maintained; that the purity and integrity of British courts of justice ought not to be lessened in the minds of other nations, which would be the case if the persons whose cause he advocated were to be deprived of redress. He admitted that three out of the four cases which he had mentioned did not come within the act. The fourth did. The noble lord had stated that it was the captor, and not the public, who would be liable if no treaty had been entered into. He would appeal to the House, whether it would be fair that the captor of a slave ship should be ruined in his fortune by being obliged to pay all the damages attending on the restoration of

his prize. What was the result of the treaty? The decisions of the British courts, to which those cases had been referred were left at the mercy of the Spanish government, than which no government in Europe ranked lower in point of credit. It had been said by an hon. member, that much fraud had been carried on by some of the claimants, which was the reason why they were so anxious to apply to England rather than to Spain. To that, he would only observe, that he did not personally know the gentlemen whose cause he advocated; but from what he had heard of them, he had no reason whatever to doubt their respectability, or the validity of their claims. He had not heard any thing from the other side of the House from which he was not the more convinced of the necessity that his motion should be carried. The motion was negatived without a division.

N April 13th the Prince Regent sent a message to both Houses of Parliament, of which the following was communicated to the House of Commons by Lord Castlereagh.

"GEORGE P. R.

"The Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, thinks it right to inform the House of Commons, that treaties of marriage are in nego tiation between his royal highness the duke of Clarence and the princess of Saxe Meiningen, eldest daughter of the late reign ing duke of Saxe Meiningen; and also between his royal highness the duke of Cambridge and the princess of Hesse, youngest daughter of the landgrave Frederick, and niece of the elector of Hesse.

"After the afflicting calamity which the Prince Regent and the nation have sustained in the loss of his Royal Highness's beloved and only child, the princess Charlotte, his Royal Highness is fully persuaded that the House of Commons will feel how essential it is to the best interests of the country that his Royal Highness should be enabled to make a suitable provision for such of his royal brothers as shall have contracted marriage with the consent of the Crown: and his Royal

Highness has received so many proofs of the affectionate attachment of this House to his Majesty's person and family, as leave him no room to doubt of the concurrence and assistance of this House in enabling him to make the necessary arrangements for this important purpose."

The message having been read from the chair, Lord Castlereagh said, that conformably to prece dent in former cases, he should move that the message be referred for consideration to a committee of the House to-morrow. should abstain from any proceeding which might have the appearance of pledging the House to an express line of conduct, and should merely move, "That an

He

humble address be presented, &c. [Here follows an address to the Prince Regent, exactly copied from his message to the House.]

Mr. Tierney remarked that he could have no objection to agree to the proposition of the noble lord.

Not having been one of those favoured members who had the advantage of hearing the noble lord's views with respect to the sums which ought to be asked from the House, of course he could at present form no opinion on the subject. He could not help thinking it was not very respectful to the House to sum

mon

mon certain members out of the ministerial side of the House, who had in confidence communicated to them what it was not fitting should be made known to the House till to-morrow. These meetings it would seem, were always called when any new measure was to be submitted; for ministers were convinced that unless their measures had such a previous rehearsal, they could not carry them.

Mr. Protheroe said, that if the reports which were in circulation were true, he thought an opportunity ought to be given to the people of England to see how every individual representative acted on such an occasion as the present; and he should therefore probably feel it his duty to move a call of the House.

Lord Castlereagh affirmed that if a call of the House was moved for, he should give it no opposition.

Mr. Brougham said, that under the present circumstances of the country it was necessary for the House, if it valued its own character, the peace of the nation, and the security of the throne, to take every step in all it did to carry the voice of the country along with them.

Mr. Methuen was decidedly of opinion that an account should be laid before the House of the income of the royal dukes from naval and military appointments, from the civil list, and from the droits of the Admiralty.

Lord Lascelles said, that he was one of those who had attended the meeting alluded to during the early part of the discussion; and thought that he should not

take too much upon himself if he stated that what had transpired there, had not met with the satisfaction of several others besides himself.

Mr. Brougham observed, that there was an omission in the address, which, if not supplied, would prevent him from concuring in it. He thought that the House should declare its regard to the state of the people, and its sense of the burdens under which they labour, and the privations they undergo. He would therefore move to add, after the word "House," these words," and to the burthened state of the people of this country."

Lord Castlereagh declared his intention of opposing the amend

ment.

After some long discussions, the question was put upon the amendment, when there appeared Ayes, 93; Noes, 144: Majority,

51.

The address was then agreed to in its original form.

Mr. Methuen then moved, "That there be laid before this House, a return of all Incomes received by their Royal Highnesses the Dukes of Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Sussex, and Cambridge, arising from Military, Naval or Civil Appointments, Pensions, or other emoluments, as well as all grants out of the Admiralty Droits, made to them since the year 1800."

This motion, after some discussion relative to the income from Hanover, was agreed to.

Mr. Protheroe then intimated his intention to give notice for a call of the House, which was fixed for the 24th of April.

On

On April 14th the order of the day for going into a committee on the Message having been read, Lord Castlereagh moved that the committee be deferred till to

morrow.

Mr. Brougham, Mr. Tierney, and Lord Folkestone, spoke with great disparagement of the ministers; but in the end, Lord Castlereagh's motion was agreed to without a division.

On the 15th the Speaker having left the chair, and the House forming itself into a committee, Lord Castlereagh rose for the purpose of drawing the attention of the members to the message of the Prince Regent. He began by stating to the House the great change that had taken place in the early part of the present reign, by which all those branches of revenue which had formerly been at the uncontrolled disposal of the crown, were surrendered into the hands of that House to be administered for the public benefit. This circumstance necessarily threw the reigning family into a state of dependance upon the House of Commons for such assistance as their wants required; at the same time the House were to consider themselves as only discharging that duty to the crown which a just view of the interests of the country prescribed to them. His lordship, coming down to the duke of York's marriage with the princess of Prussia in 1792, affirmed that on no principle of reasoning it could be maintained that the duke was then as near the crown as the duke of Clarence must be considered to be at present. The duke of York having no descend

ants, and the Prince Regent having lost his only child, the duke of Clarence, according to all the calculations of probabilities, was at present nearer to the succession to the throne, than the duke of York was in 1792. Taking this into consideration, ministers, in proposing that the duke of Clarence should receive what parliament had given to the duke of York twenty-six years ago, when the value of money was much greater than at present, had treated the question as one purely British, and had been actuated by no motive that they need hesitate to avow.

With respect to the junior branches of the royal family, ministers had no precise rule to go by, as in the case of the duke of Clarence, but it was their wish to keep the expense within the narrowest limits. They had thought it would be right to add 12,000l. to the existing income of such of their royal highnesses as should marry with the royal consent, by which their income would be raised from 18 to 30,000l. per annum. Out of the 12,000l. proposed to be granted, it was intended that, as in the case of the duchess of York, 4,000l. should be deducted and settled as pin money on the royal brides. He would ask if ministers were guilty of an improvident act in proposing an addition of 8,000l. to the income of the royal dukes on their marriage, and if, without such an augmentation, their means would be sufficient to carry them and their families on without the reproach of being in debt. Such were the reasons which had influenced the Prince Regent's