"My Lords consider that according to the cus. tom of the service the captors are entitled to a grant of money for their services." very The Treasury replied that they did not see that there were any grounds for a grant of public money; but that it was in the power of the captors, with the consent of the Admiralty, to go into court to make good their claim. The Admiralty, although in doubt whether, after such a length of time, the court would entertain the application, gave their sanction to it. Subsequently, however, the Queen's Advocate gave his opinion that it would be inexpedient for the Government to interfere in the matter at all. Thus these gallant men were placed in a situation most repugnant to a sense of justice. He presumed, that as the amount of the claim was about equal to the estimated surplus in the Exchequer at the end of the financial year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was afraid to grant the money, lest there should not be a shilling left. Matters were, anyhow, in a very unsatisfactory state, but some expression of opinion on the part of their Lordships might induce the Government to do that which would relieve the Admiralty from the dishonour which accrued from our officers and men being-to use a popular phrase-'choused' out of their rights. He would therefore He and as the President of the Council would, on the part of the captors; but when he no doubt, defend the Treasury, their Lord- looked into the matter, bearing in mind ships would be informed of the reasons the Queen's Proclamation and the Act of which could be urged on either side. It Parliament, it seemed to him that they was right to say that the Admiralty had were fairly entitled to the prize. The done its best to induce the Treasury to Proclamation of the 1st July, 1854, degrant a sum of money, and the conduct of clared that it was the intention of Her the noble Duke had been thoroughly loyal Majesty to assign the benefit of all prizes towards the service. The opinion of the taken during the war to the captors, and Admiralty was stated in a letter from Mr. the Act of Parliament, passed in the same Romaine, dated October 19th, 1861- year, gave effect to that announcement. It therefore appeared to him that the military and naval force employed in this operation was entitled to prize in some shape or other. The Queen's Advocate, whom he consulted on the subject, pointed out the great difficulties which would be created by allowing the captors to go into a Prize Court after such a lapse of time, as it would give rise to a great many other claims, and as the question might be complicated by claims which might be raised on the part of the French and Turkish Governments. Concurring in this opinion, he therefore thought it would be the best way to apply to the Treasury to make a grant of money in lieu of the prize. represented the case as strongly as he could to the Treasury. But they took a different view of the subject-they did were sufficient not think that there grounds to justify them in proposing a grant in lieu of prize. He was not able to ascertain what were exactly the grounds of that decision. As it took place in November, 1861, it could not have been owing to that financial pressure at which his noble Friend hinted. It was due, no doubt, partly to that spirit of economy which it is the duty of the Treasury to enforce. As he had at his option only two courses, and not those three of which they sometimes heard, he resolved to allow the captors to take the matter before the Prize Court, so that any claim on the part of the captors might be fairly tried. Before doing so, however, he again communicated with the Treasury; but their reply was not very decided, and he therefore thought proceedings might go on such as he had indicated. After a short time the Queen's Proctor wrote to him, protesting against this step, stating that it would be a serious embarrassment to the Government to proceed with the matter. He had made some inquiries, and he believed the agents had put the value at the highest; but, without regard to the amount, he thought that in principle the officers had a right to move "That there be laid before this House, Copy of Correspondence between the Board of Admiralty and the Treasury Board and the Queen's Proctor, on the Subject of Prize Money claimed by the Army and Navy for the Capture of Kertch and Yenikale." THE DUKE OF SOMERSET said, that he did not hear anything of this claim until about six years after the affair at Kertch-that was, he first heard of it in the summer of 1861, whilst the capture of Kertch occurred in 1855-and could not find that any previous application on the subject had been made to the Admiralty. Such being the case, he was of opinion that there had been some neglect have their claims fairly considered. He | interference to prevent proceedings in the thought that the mode in which the Ad- Court of Admiralty. On the 14th of Nomiralty tried to meet their claims was fair, vember the Admiralty asked whether the and he regretted that the course first Treasury meant to express an opinion that proposed by the Admiralty had not been proceedings for condemnation should be adopted. After the strong letter from the allowed to go forward. The Treasury, in Treasury the Admiralty could not allow answer, repeated almost word for word the the matter to go into a Prize Court, a previous letter, and expressed an opinion course to which there were, no doubt, many that there were not sufficient grounds to objections, and he imagined that the cap- prevent the captors taking any proceedtors must now endeavour to induce the ings which might be open to them. The Government to reconsider the question, and Queen's Proctor then applied to the Adpropose a Vote out of the public funds. miralty to know whether he was to proceed to adjudication. The Admiralty sent the letter to the Treasury on the 27th of December, 1861, and on the 11th of March, 1862, the Treasury wrote that it was a question peculiarly for the decision of the Board of Admiralty. The Admiralty then gave authority to the Queen's Proctor to proceed; but, unfortunately, a formidable letter from the Queen's Advocate to the noble Duke, of the 29th of March, induced the noble Duke to alter the course which he originally intended to pursue. In a letter addressed to the Treasury on the 31st of March, 1862, the Admiralty said that, the applications for a grant of money having been refused, they did not consider themselves justified in withholding from the captors permission to take proceedings in a Prize Court; to which, on the 4th of April, the Treasury replied that the circumstance of their Lordships having refused such a grant did not warrant the proceedings commenced by the Queen's Proctor, and that the responsibility of allowing those proceedings to continue must rest with the Admiralty. The Board of Admiralty, however, were afraid of encountering this responsibility, and accordingly on the 10th of April they wrote to the Treasury, and said that before revoking the authority given to the Queen's Proctor, they would be glad to know whether the captors were to be informed that no grant would be made, and no proceedings allowed in the Admiralty Court. To this an answer was made that the Treasury felt that they ought not to be called on to decide upon an alternative course; that if the Admiralty had submitted the grant of a specific sum to the captors, it would have been the duty of the Treasury to consider and decide upon the proposal, but that they were not to be required to decide upon the adoption of one of two courses. Upon this he could not help thinking that the noble Duke had departed from the line of conduct which his own sense of justice had LORD CHELMSFORD said, he felt obliged to say that the case of these captors was extremely hard. They had been bandied about from department to department until they were dropped on the ground, and no helping hand was stretched out to lift them up again. There could be no dispute as to the rights of these persons, because those rights were founded upon an Act of Parliament, which was as plain as any language could be, and which declared that their title should accrue after final adjudication of articles seized as lawful prize to Her Majesty in the Court of Admiralty. These coals, stores, and other articles were taken possession of by Her Majesty's Government, and appropriated to the public service, and all the difficulty which had arisen since was owing to no previous condemnation having been made. The captors naturally supposed that the Government would compensate them by a grant of money equivalent to the value of the prize, and they therefore did not move for condemnation, and they did not bring their claim before the Admiralty until 1861. When the question was first stirred, the Queen's Proctor recommended no proceedings for adjudication, but a grant of money from the Government, because the stores had been used for the public service. The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) took a very just and fair view of the case; but having no power to give a grant of money, entered into correspondence with the Treasury, in which, with all respect to the noble Duke, the Admiralty did not get the better of the Treasury. The correspondence commenced on the 19th of October, 1861, when the Admiralty asked whether it was expedient to allow the captors to proceed to adjudication of these articles as prize, or whether the Treasury would grant such a sum as to them might seem fit? The Treasury replied that there did not seem to be sufficient grounds for previously induced him to take. On receiving this last letter from the Treasury, the Admiralty declared that it had been decided that after so great a lapse of time no grant of public money could be recommended to Parliament, and further that on the ground of the capture having been a joint one by the army and navy, and having been made in conjunction with the French army and navy, they did not consider it expedient to allow steps to be taken in the Court of Admiralty with a view to condemnation. Now, adequate provision was made in the Act of Parliament for cases where there was a joint expedition of the army and navy, and where our forces were engaged with those of our allies; and therefore no possible difficulty could exist upon this score. The noble Duke had faithfully, zealously, and sincerely endeavoured to obtain from the Treasury that to which he thought the captors were fairly entitled-namely, the grant of a sum of money; but when he found there was no hope of obtaining justice from the Treasury, he must have known that the only other mode by which they could make good their claims was by an adjudication of prize in the Admiralty Court, because until adjudication the property in the prize was not vested in the captors. Therefore, in declaring that he would not allow the Queen's Proctor to proceed for condemnation, he shut both doors against the captors, and deprived them of that which was their unquestionable right. In his opinion the captors had a very strong claim, and he thought they had been very hardly used. LORD COLCHESTER said, that nothing was so dangerous as to break faith with a body of men like our soldiers and sailors, and in this case they appeared to have been juggled out of prize money to which they were well entitled. EARL GREY said, that considering the importance of the subject, it ought not to pass without some further explanation. This was the first occasion on which the fact had been brought before Parliament that those who were responsible for carrying on the Government of the country were divided upon a question of extreme importance; that they were not prepared to come to an agreement upon it; and that, leaving the matter unsettled, they were ready to consent to the production of a hostile correspondence between two great Departments, which correspond ence showed that one Department thought Her Majesty's naval and military forces had been exposed to great injustice, while the other seemed to have determined that such injustice should not be redressed. Nothing of the same kind had ever taken place before, and he, for one, was utterly at a loss to understand how the Government could have permitted such a correspondence as that which had been quoted to night to be laid on the table of the other House, and how they could reconcile it to themselves not to come, as a Government, to a decision one way or the other upon so important a question. EARL GRANVILLE said, this question had never been before the Cabinet at all. He was therefore not prepared to go into the merits of the case; but he must say, that as a general rule, especially at a time when there was a loud cry for economy from all sides, it was not much to be regretted that the Treasury should show a disposition not easily to admit claims which, after all, the persons who were most interested had refrained from making for a period of six years. The matter had not been made a Government question; but he expected to be able, when the noble Earl brought forward a more important Motion than the present, to state the course which the Government would pursue. THE EARL OF DERBY said, he was quite sure, whatever might be the feeling in that or in the other House of Parliament-whatever desire they might have for the observance of economy-and he was one of those who were deeply interested in the principle of the strictest economy-he felt quite certain that no one thought that that economy ought to be practised at the expense of justice and good faith. Here was the Board of Admiralty admitting in the most distinct manner that the present claim was one under the faith of an Act of Parliament and the Queen's Proclamation; that it was not a matter merely of right or favour, but of the strictest justice. Nevertheless, owing to the difference which had arisen between the Treasury and the Admiralty, it was rendered impossible for an important class of persons to obtain the compensation to which they were entitled by a grant from Parliament, or to be permitted to establish their legal rights in a court of law. difference in question had already been productive of grievous injustice, and, if continued much longer, it could not fail to excite great dissatisfaction in the army The He was astonished to hear have done at once but for the circumstances to which I have referred. House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Ten o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS, and navy. Motion agreed to. CASE OF MR. EDWIN JAMES-HIS QUESTION. LORD CHELMSFORD rose to call attention to the case of Mr. Edwin James; and to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to allow him to re tain his Patent as one of Her Maiesty's Counsel? THE LORD CHANCELLOR : My Lords, in consequence of a Notice which has been placed on the paper by a noble and learned Lord, I have to state to your Lordships that Mr. Edwin James was disbarred by a resolution of the Society of the Inner Temple in July last. He gave notice of an appeal to the Judges, as he had a right to do, and that notice necessarily suspended the power of acting upon the order to disbar him. I have now received a communication, in which it is stated that the appeal to the Judges has been utterly abandoned, and will not be followed up. The order of the Society of the Inner Temple disbarring Mr. James was complete and effectual, but it left the patent which the Crown had graciously in former times granted to Mr. James unrevoked and apparently in full force. I do not think it right that there should remain on the record of grants of honour by the Sovereign letters patent giving dignity and place to Mr. Edwin James, and therefore I shall immediately take steps to have the patent superseded-which I should MINUTES.]-PUBLIC BILLS.-1° Parochial Build- 3o Consolidated Fund (£10,000,000); Compa- RELIEF (IRELAND) (No. 2) BILL. [SIR ROBERT PEEL.] Clause 21 (Paid Officers and others incapable of serving as Guardians). MR. COGAN proposed an Amendment in line 17, by the addition of the words, "with the approval of the board of guardians;" the object being that the Poor Law Commissioners should not have the exclusive power of dismissing officers. The should not be eligible for re-election for clause provided that officers dismissed five years. Amendment proposed, In page 9, line 17, after the word "office," to insert the words "with the approval of the board of guardians." there inserted." Noes 54: Majority 25. MR. SCULLY then proposed another Amendment, at the end of the clause to add "Provided, however, That the disability conseto dismissal for a criminal offence." quent upon dismissal from office shall apply only Amendment proposed, In line 20, at the end of the Clause, to add the words "Provided, however, That the disability only to dismissal for a criminal offence." consequent upon dismissal from office shall apply there added." The Committee divided: - Ayes 25; Clause, as amended, agreed to. Clause 22 (Burial Expenses of Persons. Clause 23 (Irish Poor Law Commission further continued, 10 & 11 Vict., c. 90). dying unknown). The clause authorized the guardians of each union to bury the body of any person unknown who should be found dead within the union, and to charge the expenses to the union. SIR EDWARD GROGAN moved an Amendment To leave out all after "that" to the end of the clause, and insert "the relieving officer of the union, with the sanction of the guardian or one of the guardians of the electoral division in which such person shall be found dead, shall proceed without delay in the burial of such dead body, giving notice to the guardians of his proceedings therein, and of the expenses incurred by him as soon thereafter as may be practicable in each case, such expense in each case not to exceed seven shillings and six pence." Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. SIR HERVEY BRUCE moved another Amendment At end, add "such expense in each case not to exceed ten shillings; and that the guardians of each union in Ireland shall provide for the burial of the dead body of every person dying or found dead within such union whose family or connections are (in the estimation of the guardian or one of the guardians of the electoral division in which such person shall die or be found dead) unable through poverty to bury such dead person, and shall charge the expenses of such burial on the poor rates of the union or of the electoral division, according as such person would have been charged on the rates if he or she had received relief when alive; Provided, That the relieving officer of the union, with the sanction of the guardian or one of the guardians of the electoral division in which such person shall die or be found dead, shall be enabled to proceed at once in the burial of such dead body, giving notice to the guardians of his proceedings therein, and of the expenses incurred by him as soon thereafter as may be practicable in each case, such expense in each case not to exceed seven shillings and six pence." MR. H. A. HERBERT said, that a short time ago a labourer died on his estate. He sent for the son, and told him that he wished the man to be buried respectably, and therefore he would pay the expense; and he authorized the son to send in the charge to him, and he would pay it. The funeral took place, and the bill came in. The items were so much for coffin, &c.; and then came "Whisky and tobacco, £14 Os. Od." LORD FERMOY strongly opposed the Amendment. That the guardians should be able to judge of the circumstances of the family in all such cases was quite im possible. No one with a knowledge of Ireland could sanction the proposal. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. COLONEL GREVILLE moved an Amendment to the effect that the Chief and Under Secretaries of Ireland shall cease to be members of the Irish Poor Law Commission. He could not understand on what principle they were members of the Commission. When the Poor Law was first established in Ireland, only one of these officers was a member of the Commission. The result of their sitting on the Board was, that they had frequently to review, and to sit as judges upon, orders emanating from themselves. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, he could not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Mem.. ber. He thought it was desirable that there should be a representative of the Poor Law Board with a seat in the House of Commons, as was the case in England. MR. M'CANN said, there was no necessity for having the Under Secretary a member of the Board. MR. MORE O'FERRALL said, that Ireland was unfortunately governed by boards, and he thought it desirable that the Members of the Government, who had to review the acts of these boards, should not be members of them. LORD NAAS thought it advantageous that both the Chief and Under Secretaries should be members of the Board. SIR GEORGE GREY said, he believed, as far as his right hon. Friend's personal convenience was concerned, he would be glad to be freed from the duties attending the office; but he thought it was, on the whole, desirable that he should be a member of the Commission. MR. SCULLY complained, that the whole of the five Poor Law Commissioners were Protestant, and four of them Englishmen. MR. BRADY said, the Under Secretary had attended the Board only nine times in four years. COLONEL GREVILLE said, he had no objection to withdraw that part of his Amendment which referred to the Chief Secretary. But he had a very strong opinion that a Roman Catholic should be a member of the Board, and he wished to have an expression of the opinion of the Government. SIR ROBERT PEEL said, that like his right hon. predecessor in the office which he held, he should have no objection to see a Roman Catholic a member of the Board; and when a vacancy arose |