by the Apothecaries Company to the allegations of the petitioners. He did not yet know the nature of the representations that would be made by the company; but he wished, as much as any man, that the evil, if it were of the kind, or to any thing like the extent, stated, should be remedied. SILK TRADE.] Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald said, he had a petition to present from the Silk-weavers of Coventry, complaining of the state of their trade. Though he could not concur in all their views, he felt bound to say, that they were much more reasonable than those of many others engaged in the same trade: for, however anxious these petitioners were for protection, they were willing to acquiesce in any more satis factory course that government might chuse to adopt. As there was a notice standing for Thursday, given by the hon. member for Coventry, on this subject, he would take that opportunity of stating the views and intentions of his majesty's government upon the subject. quences must ensue if a stop were not put to the mischief. There were not fewer than two hundred and fifty medical practitioners, who had taken out their diplomas in the manner described, and who were now resident in the north of Ireland, where they exercised the profession of physicians, surgeons, and apothecaries, rendering themselves, by their necessary assumption of the last-named calling, liable to the penalties which it was in the power of the Apothecaries' Company to inflict. It was said to be the object of the Apothecaries'hall in Dublin, to put these two hundred and fifty gentlemen under an annual fine or mulet of 201.-the sum demanded for a license; and thus to acquire a revenue of 5,000l. a year at their expense. What the Apothecaries' Company aimed at was, not to prevent unskilful persons from practising as apothecaries, but to benefit themselves in a pecuniary point of view, and keep up their monopoly. They never inquired if a man were skilful or not, but whether he was able to pay the penalty. When he paid it, they sent him a certificate of practice without any examination. It appeared perfectly ridiculous that persons capable of acting as physicians, surgeons and apothecaries in the army and navy-who had retired on half-pay, and who were sufficiently skilful and intelligent in their profession to be of the utmost service to the community-should not be qualified to act as apothecaries without license from a body of men such as the Apothecaries' Company. Yet that was the situation in which two hundred and fifty practitioners in the north of Ireland were placed, and from which they prayed to be relieved. The petitioners deprecated the monopoly, and the unjust taxation imposed by the Apothecaries'-hall. He called the attention of his noble friend to the subject which he conceived to be one that could not be passed over without investigation. No time should be lost in taking the matter up. The subject was one which called for the interposition of the House, not only for the sake of the medical profession, but for the sake of the inhabitants of the country, more particularly of the north of Ireland. Mr. Fylar begged to state, that this petition was signed by six thousand persons. He was quite prepared to go into the inquiry on Thursday evening, and would do so fully with the permission of the House. SCOTCH BREWERS.] Mr. Hume presented a petition from the Brewers of Dundee, complaining of the depression of their trade since the reduction of the duties on whiskey. They stated, that almost every trade was in a better condition in Scotland than theirs. He thought their case deserved the attention of the House. The duty, which was formerly 5s. had been reduced to 2s. 6d., but it remained at 78. in Eng land. The consequence was, that in Scotland spirits, which used to sell for eight, nine, ten, and eleven shillings a gallon, were now selling for six and seven shillings, and beer was daily more and more going out of consumption. quantity of beer brewed in 1822 was two thousand four-hundred barrels; in 1824, two thousand one hundred; in 1825, one thousand eight hundred; and, in 1826, Lord F. L. Gower assured his hon. only one thousand five hundred; thus friend, that he had not overlooked the gradually, but rapidly decreasing was the matter. He had put himself in communica- quantity of beer consumed. It was surtion with the authorities on the other side prising that government should suffer the of the water, for the purpose of ascertain-duties on beer and spirits to vary so greatly ing whether any answer could be made in the three countries. In Ireland there was The statements. JEWS.] Mr. Hume presented a petition from the Inhabitants of Callan, in the county of Kilkenny, praying for the repeal of the laws disqualifying the Jews from their civil rights, on account of their religious opinions [a laugh]. He thought this a serious question, and so did the petitioners, who, in their desire to promote the prosperity of their country, stated, that they had reason to believe, that a great deal of capital would flow into it, and promote the industry of the people, if the existing restrictions on the Jews were removed. Nothing could be more unjust than to deprive a man, whatever his religious opinions might be, of any part of his civil rights. The subject, he trusted, would occupy the attention of his majesty's government. At present, there were many severe laws on the Jews. no duty whatever on beer, and while the [had sustained an entire loss of their produty on spirits in England was seven perty in the negotiations between the twoshillings, it was only 1s. 8d. in Scotland. powers, notwithstanding the assurances He was sorry the chancellor of the Exche- of protection which they had received quer was not in his place to attend to these from the British government. The go vernment and East India Company were large gainers by the disposition which had been made of this settlement, and therefore they were bound to see the people fully protected; whereas the compensation which was now offered would not amount to a tithe of their ruined property. To understand this, the committee would allow him to mention that, after the capture of the Molucca islands, a monopoly of the spice trade was engrossed by the Dutch, and all Europe dealt with them for productions of that nature. The consequence was, that they were able to keep up the markets of that article, and to raise the price sometimes one or two thousand per cent. In fact, when their monopoly was broken in upon, the prices fell eight hundred per cent, and the articles continued for many years to be sold at that reduced rate. The British government being desirous of establishing a settlement for the production of spices in some part of their eastern territories, Bencoolen was fixed upon as the only place where the culture of such produce could be practised with success, and these individuals planted nutmegs and other spices to a great extent, under the strongest promises of protection from the govern COMPENSATION TO PROPRIETORS OF BENCOOLEN.] The House having resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, to which the Miscellaneous Estimates were referred, the chancellor of the Exchequer moved, "That 22,500l. be granted to his majesty, to make compensation to the Proprietors of Bencoolen, for losses sus-ment. Now it was known that nutmegs tained by them on the surrender of that Settlement to the king of the Netherlands." Mr. Hume wished to call the attention of government to the circumstances on which this vote was proposed. When the subject of the treaty by which this colony was to be given up was formerly discussed, he had protested against the colonists being delivered up without some stipulation for their protection: and he was answered by the late Mr. Canning, that he agreed with him, that whatever loss should arise to the colonists, the House would be bound to make compensation to the suffering parties. As to the chancellor of the Exchequer, no blame certainly attached to him for the manner in which he had brought forward this vote, in pursuance of what had been determined upon; but still he must say, that this proposed compensation was, from its deficiency of amount, an act of gross injustice to the people of Bencoolen, who required ten or fifteen years growth, before they could be made productive. The planters went to very great expense in the expectation which they were encouraged to entertain that, at the end of the ten or fifteen years, they would be allowed to reap the benefit of their labour and expenditure, And now, after laying out two or three hundred thousand pounds, it was proposed to give them a sum which would bear no sort of comparison with the capital which they had expended. In the papers before the House there was an admission by the Board of Control, that the parties had sustained a total loss of their property. A valuation was made of the amount of that property in 1821, and it was estimated at 80,000l. In 1825, when the colony was transferred, the fixed property alone was valued at 130,000l. and the increasing value of the crops in succeeding years would give some idea of the extent of the injury sus no arrangement had been entered upon, and when no improper interested motives could be supposed to influence the parties in considering the amount of compensation to be awarded. It was necessary to reflect, that all this loss was not occasioned by the cession of the colony; and it should be calculated how much of the loss would have been sustained if the treaty had never taken place. For himself, he only acted in the fulfilment of an arrangement agreed upon by persons fully conversant with the circumstances of the tained by the proprietors. In 1821, the crop of nutmegs was worth 59,000l. In 1823, it was worth 69,000l., and, in the next year, 89,000l. Other spices increased proportionately in value. He had no interest, direct or indirect, in the colony; but, for the sake of public justice, he wished that the parties should receive something like a compensation for the total destruction of their prospects. It was proposed to give them 22,500l. although their property had actually been valued at 130,000l. For these reasons, although he did not often propose to in-case, and willing to make every fair.comcrease grants, he should, on the present occasion, feel himself justified in recommending that the vote should be increased to 130,000l. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would take the hardship of the case into his consideration, and, if possible, do something for the unfortunate sufferers. Mr. Sykes confirmed the statement of the hon. member, and said that he knew, from particular circumstances, how great was the loss of the settlers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that as the two hon. gentlemen seemed to imagine that he had a discretionary power in this case, it was necessary he should undeceive them. It was true that Mr. Canning had said, that every fair compensation should be made to the parties. It appeared, from the papers on the table, that, in the compensation which was awarded, he perfectly concurred. When the matter recently came before the Treasury it was not on any question as to the amount of that compensation. The only question which he had to decide was, whether or not the parties ought to receive interest, from the time of the compensation being awarded to them. He felt it a matter of justice that they should have that advantage; and he had, therefore, decided that they should receive the amount awarded to them in 1826, with interest from that time. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that it was very difficult to ascertain the degrees of loss sustained on an occasion such as the present. Without meaning to cast an imputation in any quarter, he could state it as a fact, that estimates of the value of property were apt to be far greater and more favourable to the individuals after an arrangement, than if they were taken antecedently. It was, therefore, thought fairer to get the valuation at a time when pensation, and who, on consideration of all the particulars had come to the conclusion which was the foundation of the present vote. Mr. Hume gave the right hon. gentleman credit for the liberality and justice of giving these poor people interest, but contended, that it was not just to pay them only according to a valuation made several years ago, and long before their property attained its present value. Mr. Wynn defended the propriety of the amount awarded. The planters were, he said, not entitled to full compensation for their losses from the British government, for those losses were produced by other events as well as by the cession of the colony. For instance, they could not justly demand compensation for the depreciation of their houses, nor for the withdrawal of the convicts, of whose labour they were enabled to avail themselves gratuitously until they were sent to another colony. It should be considered, that their property would have become reduced in value, even if the transfer had not taken place, and the colony had continued in our possession. It had not been found fair to exceed the valuation of 1821; which, indeed, he understood to have been made rather favourably than otherwise to the interests of the parties. If it should be asked why further examination had not been made, he would remind gentlemen, that it would have been necessary to send out commissioners; and it was thought better, both as regarded the public and the individuals, to approximate as nearly as possible to a fair valuation, than to incur any delay, or to add the expense of a commission, which must, of course, come out of the pockets of the parties. Mr. Hume again begged that the right hon. gentleman would reconsider the matter, and give the sufferers at least one-half of their just claims. At present they were scarcely about to receive onefourth. : The resolution was agreed to. : BRITISH AND SPANISH CLAIMS.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved, "That 200,000l. be granted to his Majesty, to enable his Majesty to fulfil the stipulations of a Convention with his Catholic Majesty, entered into on the 28th day of October 1828, for the settlement of certain British Claims upon Spain, and of certain Spanish Claims upon the United Kingdom." The right hon. gentleman gave a detailed account of the various attempts made by Mr. Canning and others to compel the Spanish government to recognise the claims of British subjects, as a preparative step towards the payment of the Spanish claims upon the British government. After very protracted negotiations, it was at length agreed, by the Treaty of 1823, that these claims should be subjected to a commission, composed of British and Spanish subjects, in equal numbers. These commissioners accordingly proceeded to an examination of the claims, and it then appeared that the number of British claims upon the Spanish government amounted to three hundred and thirty-one, and the sum claimed 2,369,4701.; and that the number of Spanish claims upon the British government were ninety-nine, and the sum claimed 1,292,9917. It happened, however, that the commission, as had been foreseen, divided upon the nature of these claims, and that all the Spanish commissioners were ranged on the one side, and all the British on the other. In this case it had been provided by the Treaty, that the matter was to be referred to arbitrators; and that if they failed to come to an agreement, then the point in dispute was to be decided by lot. This reference to arbitrators, with the consequence which was likely to follow after all, of settling the claims by lot, and the changes which took place in the Spanish government, prevented any further proceedings being taken, until the arrival of count Ofalia in this country. The conferences were then renewed; but when it was found that the Spanish government was bound to pay by inscriptions in the Great Book of Spain, which Great Book had ceased to exist, it might VOL. XXI. no great well be supposed there was anxiety to have recourse to such a source of payment. The question for the House to consider now was simply whether, under the circumstances, the sum ultimately agreed upon was a fair and just compensation for the different claimants; and he conceived, that if they looked to the amount to which these claims had been reduced on each side, they would find, that the sum now agreed to be paid was a tolerably equitable adjustment. It was found upon examination of the different claims made by British subjects upon Spain, that a sum of 616,000l. was admitted as the amount of valid claims; that 318,000l., were held to be doubtful, and that claims to the amount of 1,334,000%. were held to be totally inadmissible. There being then 616,000l. admitted, and 318,000l. doubtful, it was supposed that if the Spanish government would pay a sum of 900,0007, that sum would have been a fair and equitable compensation for the claims of British subjects on Spain. That sum was accordingly agreed upon, and there was the best reason for believing, that it was a satisfactory adjustment, because it received the concurrence of all those interested in the payment. It was also agreed, that the sum of 200,0007. should be paid as a compensation for all claims of Spanish subjects upon England. The House would therefore see, that in the result a larger sum, in proportion to the whole amount was allotted to the claims of British, than was awarded to the demands of Spanish subjects. It was necessary to state, however, that the sum of 200,0007. which they were now called upon to vote, was not intended to be paid over to the king of Spain, but was to form a portion of that sum of 900,000l. which the Spanish government had agreed to pay, and to be handed over to the commissioners, to be distributed as the third instalment on the payment of 900,000%. It was satisfactory to know that two instalments of 200,000l. each had already been paid by the Spanish government; which, with the sum now to be voted, would make 600,000l., and that the payment of the remaining 300,000l. had been secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to the parties interested. Under these circumstances, he hoped the committee would see there was no objection to the vote of 200,000l. which he now required to fulfil the terms Q of the Convention on the part of the British government. Mr. Baring said, that if the government of this country was called upon to make any compensation to the subjects of Spain, it must be for seizures which were illegal; and it would be very satisfactory to know, before they voted a sum of 200,000l., what were the seizures for which they were called upon to account. He was also disposed to think that the government of this country inflicted a very great hardship upon the subjects of the king of Spain, when it compelled them to substitute their claims upon the government of this country for a claim upon the king of Spain-a sovereign who was very well known not to take much pains for the equitable adjustment of the demands upon him, and who was not very remarkable for keeping faith with his subjects. This, he repeated, was a very great hardship upon the Spanish claimants, and tended manifestly to defraud them of their demands upon the government of this country. The right hon. gentleman said, that the claimants upon the Spanish government were satisfied with the compensation which had been awarded them. He hoped the right hon. gentleman's declaration would prove correct, and that parliament would not, in the case of the Spanish claimants, as in others, be compelled to take into their consideration the petitions of those who would seek for compensation, long after all payments had been made under the Convention. petition had been, indeed, put into his hand that very morning, from a person who complained of injuries suffered by this Convention; and, although he disapproved of this practice of canvassing the support of members on particular questions, he could not avoid observing, from this circumstance, that the satisfaction of the claimants was not so great nor so general as the right hon. gentleman imagined. The example, too, of other cases of this description shewed that great care ought to be taken before the money was apportioned. The French claimants were even at this moment numerous, and the House recollected the claim advanced by a baron de Bode, which was under discussion last session; and which, for any thing he knew, might be again brought under their notice. He therefore thought, it was the duty of the right hon. gentleman to be satisfied that A the consent was as general as he asserted it to be. The Chancellor of the Exchequer begged to say, that there could not be the slightest question as to the right of the Crown of this country to negociate with the Spanish government on behalf of the claims of its subjects, and to enforce these upon its attention; and that there was as little doubt of the right of the king of Spain to enter into a negotiation for the settlement of the claims of its own subjects. Upon the subject of the compensation to be paid to Spanish subjects, it arose principally from seizures made by the subjects of this country during the American war, either of property which was divided among the captors or destroyed; and there could not be the least question that the government was bound to make it good. The hon. gentleman had objected to the proposition for making the subjects of the king of Spain creditors of that sovereign; but he would contend that the government of this country was bound, in a Treaty of this description, to presume the king of Spain to be disposed to satisfy the claims of his subjects, in the same manner as the king of England was prepared to satisfy the claims upon his government; and when the hon. member proceeded to say, that it was a hardship upon the Spanish creditors of this government to make them creditors of the Spanish government, he was bound to observe, that unless the British government had forced the government of Spain into the Convention, of which that transfer of claim was the necessary consequence, the hardship would have been transferred to British subjects, and their demands upon the Spanish government must have remained wholly unsatisfied. ་ Mr. Baring would just put this case to the right hon. gentleman. Suppose we pay the amount of these claims, taking them to be bona fide ones, over to the king of Spain, and that he should fail in his engagement to his subjects, to pay them-suppose that, under such circumstance, a subject of the king of Spain brings an action against the British government in the High Court of Admiralty, and that the judge decides in favour of the claimant, could this government put in as a plea against the demand, the arrangement which had been made with the king of Spain? Could any payment which we had made to a third party be |