Rebate% itttU Prorettringd in Parliament. THE PENSION-LIST.•
In the House of Commons, on Friday last, Mr. SPRING Rica rose to redeem the pledge he gave in bringing forward the Civil List resolu- tions, by moving for a Select Committee " to inquire how far pensions panted in virtue of 1st William IV. c. 24, and charged on the Civil List, and in virtue of 2d and 3d William I V. c. 116, and charged on • The interest attached to the debates of Friday the 8th December, renders it Asemeary to give a fuller sketch of it than the time and the space at our disposal per. anted at the close of last week, the Consolidated Fund, ought to be continued ; having due regard to the just claims of the parties, and to economy on the public expendi. Lure." The words of this motion were exactly the same as those of Mr. Harvey's motion, withdrawn at the instance of Mr. Rice. This course, Mr. Rice said, he took for the purpose of avoiding any ground for mistake or misrepresentation ; but, without the qualification implied in the words " due regard to the just claims of the parties," he could not certainly have adopted it. Mr. Rice gave a brief history of the Pen. sion-list. In remote times, pensions were conferred without control of any sort on the inclination of the Sovereign ; and it was not till the reign of George the Third that Parliament interfered effectually to prevent the unlimited bestowal of grants and pensions by the Crown. In 1782, Mr. Burke introduced his bill on Economical Reform, in which the amount of pensions was limited, and the principle recog. nized that desert or distress should alone confer a claim to be pensioned. Between 1782 and 1829, there were many discussions on the Pension. list. In 1880, the whole of the Civil List being referred to a Select Committee, a new arrangement was made with respect to pensions; and at the same time, in the Report of the Civil List Committee, the right to inquire into the claims of the pensioners was reserved; for although it was declared that it was inexpedient to disturb pensions then upon the list, it was added- " These observations, however, do not apply to the grant of future pensions on the Civil List if granted with a distinct notice to the individuals receiving them that they are not only legally terminable on the demise of the Sovereign by whom they have been granted, but that they are liable to be revised or discos. tinued on the settlement of a new Civil List, there can be no obstacle to the reconsideration at that time of the then existing Pension-list."
By adopting a report containing these words, Mr. Rice contended that Lord Althorp had sanctioned the inquiry into the Pension-list which he should propose. Mr. Rice dwelt upon this point some time ; arguing that the Report of Lord Althorp's Civil List Committee by no means justified resistance to inquiry, or was intended to shield the pensioners from a full investigation of their claims at a subsequent opportunity. He was not pledged to strike off a single pension without just or adequate ground : the terms of his motion showed that. It would also be incumbent on the parties objecting to a pension, to prove the unworthiness of the recipient. He did not believe that gentle. men would refuse all inquiry. They could not vote so large a sum as 140,000/, a year without some investigation. Were his motion rejected, it would go forth to the country that Parliament would allow any Minister to do what he liked with the Pension-list, without inquiry : for himself, he was firmly convinced that the effect of inquiry would be to dispel many delusions. Such had been the consequence of the investi- gation of the sinecures. The labours of the Committee would be conducted in a gentlemanly spirit, and without any disposition to en- force a pitiful, pettifogging economy. Sir Robert Peel would oppose his motion ; but he put it to Sir Robert, who had some experience of the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether be could venture to ask the House to grant annually 150,000/. a year, unless he submitted to an inquiry as to its disposal. He hoped to receive the votes of several gentlemen opposite ; for he found, that when this question was formerly before the House, among the supporters of a revision of the Pension-list were Sir George Sinclair, Mr. Rickford, Mr. Plumptre, and Alderman Copeland. It might be said that he bad changed his course, and those gentlemen might change theirs but, without stop- ping to defend his own consistency, he would say, that consistent or not consistent, an opportunity was now offered to gentlemen fresh from their constituents with pledges of economy on their lips, to redeem those pledges. He concluded by moving for his Committee. Sir -ROBERT PEEL said, that if the motion involved merely a ques. tion of temporary policy, he might feel himself justified in ransacking past votes of individual Members, and in referring to pledges given on the hustings ; seeking some means of avoiding a direct von !, or by a ve- hement protest, instead of argument, avoid a decision altogether. But this question involved higher considerations, and he cared not whether it were a favourable opportunity or not for bringing parties to a col- lision. He was determined, in satisfaction of his own feelings, and in vindication of the eternal principles of justice, by his vote at least to prove the sincerity of his own convictions. He would appeal to facts, to reasoning, arid to authority, to determine whether or not this propo. sition were founded on justice. But first, he would beg the House to consider the probability of profit to arise from the inquiry. (" Oh, oh I") Profit ! he did not mean the paltry chance of gaining a few
miserable thousand pounds, but to the moral profit a great country would derive from the detection of abuse, the establishment of a
higher standard of public virtue, or bringing to punishment those who
had profligately squandered away the rewards set apart for public ser- vices. The Pension-list was said to be very unpopular ; but he would remind the House, that where justice was at war with popularity, the
resistance to injustice became a paramount obligation. In deliberating on the course, which on the whole might best retard or advance a par- ticular measure, considerations of popularity were to be overlooked;
but where the question to be decided involved the sacred principle of justice, unpopularity—temporary, fleeting unpopularity—really con- stituted an additional reason for stripping off the mask of specious and
plausible pretence which might veil the discovery and elucidation of truth. The total number of pensions on the Civil List, in respect of which any Minister who had been First Lord of the Treasury
survived and could now personally answer, was confined to 39 granted within thirty years. The Report of' the Civil List Com- mittee of 1830 admitted, that, in reliance on uniform preceding
usage, family settlements had been made, and arrangements of various kinds concluded by many holders of pensions, which it would be abso- lute injustice to disturb. Sir Robert quoted a passage from a speech
of Lord Althorp on the Civil List on the 4th February 1831, which proved how entirely that Minister concurred in the declaration that in- justice would be done by disturbing the then existing Pension-list.
" The House," said Lord Althorp, " had a legal right, but he doubted its equitable right, to consider whether those pensions should be taken away." 'l'he first pension on the list was granted in 1769. Between that period and 1834 there had been eleven Prime Ministers respon- sible for the grants that bad been made ; arid of these only three sur- vived—Lord Sidmouth, Lord Ripon, and the Duke of Wellington. Were those Ministers who resisted inquiry in 1830, on the grounds stated in their Report and by Lord Altborp, ready now to it stitute an inquiry, when so many of the Ministers who could have stated the reasons for the pensions they granted, were no more? Would they take advantage of the lapse of years to affix a stigma on the statesmen now mouldering in their sepulchres? Mr. Burke had been quoted by Mr. Spring Rice ; but Mr. Burke declared that " the Kii g was ap- pointed by the Constitution sole judge of merit : " and Sir Robert quoted a celebrated passage from Burke's speech on Econcmical Re• form, which stated in strong language the impolicy, inconvenience, and injustice of an inquiry instituted with a view to revoke even unmerited pensions. He referred to the circumstances under which the Whigs came into office in 1830, and the decided opposition they gave to a re- vision of the Pension-list. But, Mr. Spring Rice, with intrepidity never equalled, had argued that the Report of the Whig Civil List Committee sanctioned a general inquiry into the Pension-list, because it admitted that future pensions should be granted subject to inquiry ! Lord Althorp had resisted inquiry on the principles of eternal justice, when casting about, as Mr. Rice now was, for supporters, and fearing a minority, or at least a small majority. He was warned by Mr. (now Lord) Portman to beware lest he should lose the support of men who had hitherto voted with him : but what was the noble answer given by Lord Altborp, who knew as well as anybody that the Pensic,n.list was unpopular ? He declared that he would not take advantage of a tech- nical point of law to do what he believed in his soul to be unjust; and would not submit to the decision of a Committee, or of the House, or of any power, if that submission involved an act of injustice— These pensioners then (continued Sir Robert) saw revolutions in the Govern. meat—saw one Minister retiring for supporting their continuance, and suc- ceeded by another who declared they were entitled to their pensions during their lives, and who would stake his political life on the question. They found a Committee reporting, a Government proposing, and a Legislature sanctioning in 1800 the continuance of these pensions. To many they might he of great importance. Every one had a right to anticipate the future liberality of Parlia- ment and alienate their pensions, and many might have so disposed of theirs. Ile would ask, then, was it fair, was it just, now to say they should be dis- csntinued ?
On questions of policy, every Minister was entitled, and on convic- tion he ought, to change his course ; but there was a difference be- tween a question of policy and one of justice— lPolicy may assume the camelion hue of great vicissitude, but justice cannot do so. That which was politic in 1830 may be impolitic in 1837 ; but that which was justice in 1800 cannot become injustice now. The changes in policy were sometimes rapid, but he apprehended that these changes bad always been made on conscientious principles. Policy might be changed, but justice could not ; and if in 1830 Ministers had retired, who admitted that there might be a strict legal right to strike off pensions, but saying that they would not avail themselves of technical points of law, since certain acts which might be legal were not always equitable, he apprehended that the complexion of that case was not altered since, except in this respect—that what might be doubtful ustice in 1830, might be made a matter of certainty in 1837 by an act of egislation.
He would now quote the opinions formerly expressed by Mr. Spring Rice. In 1834, that right honourable gentlemen had stigmatized the inquiry into the Pension-list proposed by Mr. Harvey, as "most fruit- less, most painful, most disgusting." If it were painful and disgust- ing in 1834, let nqt the House be betrayed into it in 1837. Had not the dowagers, with whom air. Harvey would doubtless make merry, a right to expect that whosoever supported a motion for inquiry into the Pension-list, Mr. Spring Rice at any rate would oppose it ? Sir Robert supposed the case of a military officer, who in great need had wished to raise money on his pension, and was told by his attorney that it would expire on the demise of the Crown—would not the officer be justified in referring to the declarations of Lord Althorp and Mr. Spring Rice, for proof that though his pension would legally expire, no advantage would be taken of that circumstance, but that it would he continued to him during life ? In 1834, Mr. Rice had described the proposed inquiry as most painful to the subject of it, and to him who had to conduct it : but, if painful to the feelings in 1830 and 1834—if disgusting, and unjust then—would it not be better to un- dergo some unpopularity now, and refuse to violate what their own consciences must declare to be the dictates of justice ? It should be remembered, that pensions in former days were not conferred as the rewards of official service. It was unjust to apply the test of modern times to the former recipients of royal bounty— The understanding was, that it was a legitimate application of the pensions to provide for those whose rank was exalted, but who possessed not the means of maintaining the honourable decorum of their station. It was also consi- dered Pea that a Minister of the Crown might provide a moderate allowance for those who had acted in a confidential capacity under him. Ministers had acted oil that understanding ; and when all the circumstances of the lives of public men in this country were taken into consideration, it seemed ungene. rous to blame such a proceeding with too much severity. But would it be just now, when those Ministers were in the grave, to seek to deprive their confi- dential secretaries, whose services might not have been such as were strictly called public, of the allowances they received ? * * * When the late Sovereign ascended the throne, it was Parliament's advice that he should re- spect the usages of his predecessors. William the Fourth had descended to the tomb of his ancestors, and was succeeded by our present Queen—whom may God long preserve—in the bloom of youth. Almost all those pensions were granted by her grandfather and her eldest uncle ; and Parliament would have thought it unjust if King William the Fourth had departed from the uniform preceding usage, and had either revised or discontinued those pensions granted by preceding Sovereigns. Let them remember that their youthful Sovereign Was by the Constitution the fountain of justice, of privilege, and of favour. They had offered to her their respectful assurance that they would make ample provision iu the Civil List for her comfort, and for the dignity of her station. I. them, then, by their interference that night, prohibit, that her gratitude for their liberality, and her thankfulness for that provision, should be embittered by the reflection that she, of all British Sovereigns, was to be the first who should be subject to the harshness of departing from the uniform preceding usage, and of disturbing those family settlements and pecuniary arrangements which used to be made in reliance on preceding usage, and which reliance the House of Commons had convected into a perfect confidence in their liberality by their own acts and proceedings. Sir Robert concluded by moving a series of resolutions, to this effect. A Select Committee on the Civil List was appointed in 1831, on tl.e motion of Lord Althorp: it reported, that the uniform usage in all previous settlements of the Civil List had been to continue the pensions on the Civil List ; that to discontinue those pensions, would be to disturb family settlements and pecuniary arrange ments, made in reliance on an adherence to invariable custom, and to create great pecuniary distress; therefore the Committee recommended, that pen- sions granted up to that time should not be disturbed, but that subse- quent pensions were to he granted with liability to revision and recon-
sideration. Parliament made provision to enable the Crown to con-
tinue all the pensions. Subsequently the House of Commons passed resolutions expressing an opinion that pensions ought to be confined to the reward of civil service, or literary distinction, or special service to
the Crown. This course was calculated to justify increased confidence in the continuance of the then existing pensions ; and whatever harshness or injustice there might have been in discontinuing pensions on the accession of the late King, would on the present occasion be greatly aggravated, not only by the lapse of time and the intervention of a whole reign, but by the direct sanction given in 1631 by the Crown and the Parliament to an expectation that the principles then acted on, so far as applicable to the then existing pensions, would be thereafter adhered to. Besides these circumstances, it was advisable to make such provision as should enable the Crown to continue the pensions continued on the accession of his late Majesty, or which were granted by his la e Majesty.
Lord ELIOT seconded the amendment. It was supported by Mr. Act.,vso, Captain :Poop, Colonel SIIIIIIORPE, Sir CHARLES DOIT.LAS, Mr. MILNES, and Sir EDWARD SUGDEN ; and opposed by Mr. WARD, Mr. WHIaRAHAM, Mr. PLumrritt:, Mr. PEND.tatts, Mr. HANDLEY, and Lord EBRINGTON.
Mr. HARVEY spoke at great length in favour of inquiry. From this speech we extract a few of the to telling passages. lie wished to conduct the inquiry with delicacy towards the pensioners-
" I think the parties ought to be invited, or rather requited, in terms, of course, as delicate and respectful as possible, to state the grounds upon which they rest their claims to be reinstated upon the Pension-list. Let the request be delivered by private hand, in by some liveried attendant of the court—do it with all the respect, all the deference to which these high personages are en- titled; but call upon them in some way or other, to state the grounds on which the grant was made originally—whether it was granted to them individually, for service rendered, and if so, request them to specify its nature. And if the grants have been made for services not rendered by themselves, but by some near relative, surely there is not so much ungrateful oblivion as to prevent them from. calling to mind those ancestral virtues to which they are indebted for their present pay. And if it should happen that sonic individuals were [slaved upo the list in past times solely and exclusively upon the ground of charity—if it should be found that the circumstances which justified the original grant, un- fortunately for the individual, still continue—and if it should further appear that the grantee has nothing else whereupon to subsist, has no near relative, no father, no mother of title and affluence no brothers, no sisters rolling in wealth, boastful of their titles and proud of ;heir possessions,—if he should appear to be one of the deserted of mankind, scarcely knowing his origin, disinclined to say what he believes of it, having no connexions that can be called legitimate,— if upon the list there be found any unfortunate wanderers of this kind, though there may be some extraordinary evidences in their features to tell the tale of their origin, yet 1 for one would say, pity their sorrows and continue them upon the Pension-list. When I see the noble lord opposite ( Lord Stanley), who has a right to be proud of his title and property, apparently sneering at these sug- gestions, I am a little surprised that he has not called together men like himself for the purpose of looking over this list, and of providing a fund from their own vast resources for the support and maintenance of their own poor relatives. Allow me to tell the noble lord, that hereditary sneers are not natural eloquence, and that whatever in private life. may be our differences in point of rank and fortune, we are all equals here as Representatives of the People. Moreover, the noble lord will allow me to tell him, that there are examples, though of a lowly kind and amongst a despised class, which it would be no discredit for him to imitate. Are there nut funds of every kind—trades' fonds, widows' funds, funds of every variety—to aid and support mankind front the cradle to the tomb, all of which have their rise and owe their continuance to the honourable and independent spirit which actuates the humbler classes, and renders them dis- dainful of deriving assistance from any other than their own resources? Have not these Linda been sanctioned and protected by acts of Parliament ? There are upwards of five thimaand f them in the country. Is it not the object of your bo.oted Poor-law Amendment Act to foster and encourage them? Allow me to tell the noble lord, that he may learn something from • the simple annals of the poor.' " ( Great cheering.)
It had been urged by Sir Robert Peel, that it would be unjust to call for explanation of a pension, where the Minister who granted it was no longer alive to state his reasons : but were parochial paupers allowed the benefit of a similar excuse when pleading for a continuance of an old allowance?
A poor woman who has been receiving two shillings a week shall be told by the Guardians that she can no longer have this relief, and is asked under what circumstances it was originally granted to her. Oh,' says she, • it was granted to me twenty years ago by old Brown the Church. warden. (Laughter and cheers.) I was at his funeral fifteen years ago. Lord love you, do riot deprive use of it.' What do the Guardians say to this ? 'You were very lucky in having such a Churche arden as Mr. Brown: there is a different race mkt% (Great laughter and cheering.) We must have some little conversation with you, my good old lady. You look strong and hearty ; can't you go out to charing?'—' Why,' says she, ' I do sometimes go out a charing : now and then I get sixpence a day, and once or twice 1 have got a shilling.' Don't you think if you were to go a little more about the parish, you could contrive to get more? You must learn to be more active, to he more industrious; you must seek to maintain yourself; our anxiety is to in- fuse into your mind the moral, the high sense of the eternal principles of justice. But you say that you are frequently afflicted, and that you find it impossible, except when the weather is very fine, to go out charing even for the few times you speak of: have you got a son or a daughter ?' • Yes, thank God,' says the poor old creature, I have a son and a daughter." Are they your own children ?'—[That, said Mr. Harvey, amidst great laughter and cheering, is a question I shall not put in the Committeed—• Are they your own ?'— ‘ Lord love you, Sir, whose do you think they are?' Well, then, what is your son?" Oh, he is a lad, and as good a lad, though I say it, as any mother ever had.' And what does he earn?' Fifteen shillings a week.' • And
what does your daughter do?' • She is married.' Ilas she any children?
• Yes; two pretty babes.' And what is her husband?" journeyman ourneyman
carpenter.' And what does he earn?' ' Why, when be is at full work, be earns a matter of five-and-twenty shillings a week.' Then,' exclaims the
indignant Guardian, with wonder in his eye and stern displeasure on his brow, • why, my good woman, how can you have the impudence to come here, and ask for the continuance of the relief that old Brown gave you, when you have a boy and a girl, of whom you are so justly proud, the one earning fifteen abil- bp a week, and the other having a husband whogets twenty-five shillings a li week ? Get away, you hussey !' (Great cheering.) Such would be the pre. Moment of many of these pensioners, if we were to inquire into the real cir- cumstances of their case. I will venture to say that there are many men and women upon this list. who, if asked as to their relatives, and what was meant by their having attached to their names the appellations of ' honourable' and ' right honourable,' of lady," dowager,' cud ' dame,' after recovering from the first surprise occasioned by the impudence of the inquiry, would tell you that they had a long line of ancestry, who had their origin with the Planta- genet' and those who came over from Fairy Land. Yes, they would tell you shat there was no Monarch from Harold to the present day with whom they were nut in some way connected. Some of them would be so proud of their superior blood—of having in their veins none but the beat blood— that I very much doubt whether they would not be disposed to carry their pretensions even further than the ancient and noble house of Stanley.
And if you inquire further—if you say to these persons, If such be your con- nexions with living titles, have they survived their inheritances?' what would be the reply? Assuming the attitude, and speaking in the tonesof injured dig. nity, they would say,' No, Sir, the noble lord or the noble duke, who is my relation, is rolling in wealth, has the largest estates in the county in which I dwell, commands the representation of that county, and has two Conservatives at this time in the House of Commons.' Are we, then, to he told by those who passed the Poor-law Amendment Act, to improve the condition and give a high moral tone to the labouring community—are we to be told that the only ex- ample you are prepared to set to the humbler classes, fur whose welfare, moral and physical, you have so carefully, so wisely, so generously provided—are we to be told, I say, that the ouly example you arc prepared to set them of your virtue and sincerity, is to make them, the poor and humble, labour for the maintenance and support of these your relatives and friends!"
Mr. Harvey concluded with an appeal to the Conservative party, many of whom had gained their seats by avowing hatred of the Poor- law, and sympathy for the sufferings of the poor,now to prove that there was something better than base hypocrisy in those professions-
" Though you may now be proud of your artificial condition, of your high rank and lordly, possessions, recollect that the humblest of those to whose pre- judice these injurious distinctions exist, that they are the heirs of those pro- mises, and are destined to share the same rewards with the richest and proudest amongst you : remember, ye proud of the earth, that von must pass with the humblest of the despised through the same tomb, to that scene where honest poverty will find acceptance, under that eternal principle of justice which pro- claims the equality of mankind." (Loud and long-continued cheers.) The remainder of the debate was comparatively unimportant. Lord STANLEY, who spoke with unusual vehemence, and apparently under the influence of highly-excited passions, devoted himself chiefly to proving, by quotations from the speeches of Mr. Spring Rice and Lord John Russell, that those Ministers were deeply pledged to resist the very motion which they now supported. Even so lately as April 1836, Lord John Russell had declared that the inquiry could only gratify private malignity, and that all the advantage which could possi- bly be derived from it was most contemptible—agreeable only to paltry pique and despicable motive. Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. SPRING RICE replied. The former did not attempt to prove that be was consistent in supporting the pre- sent motion ; but maintained that the public had a right to inquire into the disposal of so large a sum as that annually expended in pensions. Mr. RICE contended, that by the insertion of the words " having due regard to the just claims of the parties," the present motion was rendered materially different from those he had formerly opposed. On the division, the numbers were—
For the Committee 295
For Sir Robert Peel's resolutions 2:33
Majority 62 THE CIVIL LIST.
On Monday, the Report of the Committee was " considered," and resolutions in conformity therewith voted by the House. On Tuesday, the resolutions were "reported," and a bill brought in, and read a first time. On Wednesday, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be " committed " on Friday.
Last night, the Order of the Day baying been read, Mr. HARVEY moved an instruction to the Committee, to protect the right of Parliament to inquire into and appropriate the revenues of the Dutchics of Cornwall and Lancaster. This motion he supported by an elaborate speech, full of details, which our present space prevents the mention of. He took the opportunity of pointing out the extrava- gance of the proposed Civil List ; and severely reproved Ministers for their utter abandonment of those principles of economy which they were wont to profess in Opposition. At the conclusion of Mr. Harvey's speech, the SPE A ER stated, that as the revenues of the Dutchies of Cornwall and Lancaster were vested in the Crown, it was incompetent for any Member to introduce a bill interfering with them in any way, without the consent of the Crown. Mr. CHARLES BULLER and Mr. HOME hoped that this merely formal objection would be removed by Ministers. The SPEAKER restated the objection ; and not a word came from the Trea- sury bench. Mr. WARBURTON suggested, that the debate should be adjourned to Monday ; by which time Ministers might obtain the consent of the Crown. Hereupon the SPEAKER stated another objection : by the regulation entered into by the House on the 24th of November, no amen:talent could be moved on the Order of the Dav except one for taking the nextOrder of the Day. More talk ensued; but Mr. ABER- CROMBY stiffly adhered to the letter of the rule. Mr. Harvey's motion dropped • and the question was put that the Speaker should leave the chair. Mr. CHARLLS BULLLR then moved that the bill be committed on Monday ; and it would seem that this motion satisfied the Speaker's conscience, on the point of order for, under cover of it, a long debate followed on the subject introduced by Mr. Harvey. Mr. BULLER and Sir CHARLES LEMON spoke learnedly on the subject of the Dutcby of Cornwall ; with respect to which, however, the words of Coke, quoted by Mr. Buller, seem to be as applicable now as when they were first spoken—" the Dutch). of Cornwall is a great mystery." Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. SatING Rice contended that the House could not expect more than Ministers promised,—namely, to introduce bills for the regulation of the estates in question. This promise, Mr. HARVEY truly remarked, was worth little from a Go. vernment with a bare majority in the Commons and a feeble minority li the Lords. Mr. Harvey also brought the question of money home to the Government, by offering to add to the Civil List grant as much as the Government would declare the Crown wow got from the Dutchies, provided the property were fairly given up : with the view, no doubt, to secure for the country the sums accruing from the increasing value of the property and the savings to be made by better management. No reply was made to this offer; and the House divided ; rejecting Mr. „Buller's amendment, by 184 to 52. Mr. Timms ATTWOOD moved "another amendment ; which the Speaker decreed to be inadmissible, and then he left the chair.
The House being at length in Committee, two amendments were moved : one by Mr. HUME, to reduce the sum total of 385,0001. by 50,0001.—rejected, by 199 to 19; the other by Mr. HAWES, to strike off 10,0001.—rejected by 173 to 41. The discussion produced nothing calling for especial remark, except a strong protest from Mr. Gaol's against the base doctrine put forth by Lord John Russell, that the respect entertained by the House for the Queen must be measured by the amount of the money they voted to her ; and the boast of Mr. SPRING RICE, that, according to Mr. Finlaison's calculations, the Pension-list would be reduced 33,7781. in twenty years, by the new plan of granting the fixed sum of 1,2001. a year in pensions. "There!" exclaimed Mr. Rice, "now, who can say that the Queen's Civil List is larger than William the Fourth's ?"—leaving out of view that au addition of 10,0001. a year will amount to 200,0001. in twenty years, without computing interest. Mr. GROTE was not affected by Mr. Rice's eloquent and moving appeal; but, when the clause empowering the Queen to grant the 1,2001. in pensions came on, moved that the Committee report progress. Ultimately he was prevailed upon to withdraw his motion, on the distinct promise of an opportunity to bring the 1,2001. forward on Monday. The remaining clauses then passed, as well as the schedules; and the Committee rose. The House meets to-day at twelve o'clock to receive the report; and on Monday the bill is to be read a third time.
PROVISION FOR THE DUTCHESS OF KENT.
On Monday, Lord MELBOURNE communicated to the Lords the following message from the Queen. " V. R.—Her Majesty taking into consideration the provision made by law for the support of her Royal Highness the Dutchess of Kent, bet Ali)esti's beloved Mother, recommends this subject to the care and attention of their Lordships, and relies with full confidence on the zeal and loyalty of the House of Lords to adopt such measures for the future provision of her Royal Highness as her rank and station, and her increased proximity to the Throne may seem to require." On Tuesday, the message having been read, Lord MELBOURNE moved an address to the effect that the House was ready to promote her Majesty's wishes. The precise mode in which Parliament would act, must, of course, be discussed in the first instance by the Com- mons ; but in the mean while, it would be proper for the Peers to return an answer to the Queen's message. Lord Melbourne also spoke in complimentary phrase of the virtues of the Dutchess of Kent, and the debt of gratitude which the nation owed her.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said, it was unusual to return an answer to suck a message until the House was put in possession of the measure is which they were asked to concur. Lord MELBOURNE said, that the course be proposed was adopted in 1831, when a provision for the Princess Vicroete was required.
The Duke of WELLINGTON observed, that there was no difference of opinion as to assenting to the address. When it was recollected how much advantage the country had derived from the attention of the Dutchess of Kent for so many years to the education of her royal daughter, he was sure no Member of the House would throw any obstacle in the way of making the proposed provision.
Lord MELBOURNE reminded the House, that by agreeing to the address they were not pledged to any specific measure.
Lord BROUGHAM had no objection to the address, so far as it ex. pressed attachment to the Queen and her illustrious family ; but he could not beforehand give concurrence to any measure which might be sent from the Commons. They were not assembled merely to pay com- pliments to any one, however exalted or meritorious; and he deemed it right, before promising to vote arty money, that the House should be told what the Dutchess of Kent's real income was— Looking merely at the statutes, it was impossible to understand whether her actual income at the present moment was 16,0001. or 22,0001. Though the letter of the act made it the latter amount, yet the spirit of the act would seem to decide that it was the former amount; for though the addition made in 1831 was 10,0001., yet only 4,0001. of this amount was granted to her Royal Highness absolutely for her own use during her own life, the other 6,0001. being granted to her Royal Highness dUring the joint lives of herself and the Princess Victoria, expressly granted in consideration of the additional expense which devolved on her Royal Highness in respect of the case, educe- tiuo, and maintenance of her illustrious daughter. The natural interpretatioa was, that the 600/. should cease when the Princess Victoria ceased to be this charge on her illustrious mother. It was, therefore, obvious to him, that in whatever additional provision was now made for her Royal Highness, they must take into consideration this 6,100/. and look upon it in the light of an addition to her Royal Highness's own income ; for the purpose to which it had formerly applied had now ceased. The secession of her Majesty had practi. cally added 6,0001. a year to her Royal Highness's income; and this circum- stance must be closely borne in mind in whatever further augmentation was contemplated in that income. It might, for aught be knew, be highly proper and necessary to increase her Royal Ilighness'a income far beyon l even this additional 6,000/. ; but the House should be careful how, without due inquiry, it pledged itself to the affirmative of that proposition—how they placed them- selves in a position from which it might hereafter be impossiele to draw back. Her Royal Highness tire Dutchess of Kent was Queen.nuother- ljteoerd.Munotreee—" No, not Queen-mother, but the mother of the Qt n,, Lord BROUGHAM humbly bowed himself before his more experi- enced corrector— He confessed he was but rude in speech, but ill vcrasd in terms of courtly etiquette. His noble friend had so much more recently been accustomed to the language of courts than be had—was so much more of the courtier—his tongue was so well hung, and framed and attuned to courtly airs—he was so much better acquainted with the motions of those who glozed and fawned and bent the knee in courts—that he could not pretend for a moment to compete with the noble viscount in such matters, or to pretend to any thing like the same ac- curate knowledge of courtly phraseology. He, however, knew the difference between a Queen-Alother and the mother of a Queen, perhaps as well as this noble viscount. The expression had slipped from him. Welt, her Royal Highness stood in the chore and endearing relationship of mother to her Ma- jesty ; and before any further provision were made for her Royal Highness, it might be well to ascertain whether, after providing for the due support of the royal dignities out of the revenues ordinarily made available for such a purpose, no surplus would remain for other purposes. In the absence of any informa- tion on these points—in the absence of any intimation of what was specifically proposed—he considered the House should pause ere it pledged itself.
Lord MELBOURNE had no wish to withhold information on the point alluded to by Lord Brougham. After a careful examination of the Acts of Parliament bearing upon the subject, the Law Officers of the Crown had come to the conclusion that the Dutchess of Kent was en- titled to the whole of the 22010/. a year, although part of it, namely 6,0001., was originally intended to defray the cost of the Princess Vic- toria's education. It was intended to propose an additional sum of 6,000/., making the total income of the Dutchess of Kent, 30,000/. a year. The grant did not seem extravagant; and he really could not see why the House should not at once agree to the address. As to the other remarks of Lord Brougham— Ile had certainly taken the liberty of suggesting to his noble and learned friend that he was committing an error in his statement, which was certainly not entirely immaterial or of trilling importance. There was on this subject a very considerable difference between the Queen-mother and the mother of the Queen ; and he had taken upon himself to make an observation to that effect to his noble and learned friend ; who instantly observed that he was not accus- tomed to gloss and flatter, and added something about a tongue better hung. He did nut understand any thing about hanging a tongue with reference to this matter ; but this he would say, and he begged his noble and learned friend to understand, that when he spoke of glaze and flattery and bending the knee, be knew no man in this country, be he who lie might, who could more glow and flatter and bend the knee than his noble and learned friend; and he felt totally unable to compete with him, when he had an opportunity, or when he found any occasion to exercise it.
Lord BROUGHAM rejoined : and first on the least important of the two points to which Lord Melbourne bud referred— He positively and solemnly denied, and he called upon the noble viscount to produce his proofs, that he ever in his life did, or that he ever at any time of his life was capable of doing, or that it was any part of his nature to do, that which the noble viscount hail imputed to him, or which the noble viscount had unprovokerlly been pleased to throw out against him, he said, utterly without
any provocation. He had said, in as good-humoured a tone as possible, and in
as perfectly an inoffensive manner as man could, something about the Queen- mother ; when the noble viscount said it was not the Queen-mother, and this with a certain accent and manner as much to taunt him, and to say he did not know the language of the court as well as his noble friend did. Now, so tar
from pretending to know this language, he at once said that his tongue was not so well attuned to court airs as his noble friend's. He, however, said nothing about hanging a tongue. Ile did not say—but lie might have said—that the noble viscount's tongue was better attuned to court airs, ay. and to new court
airs—airs with variations—than his was. (Laughter.) Time noble viscount bail been pleased to make certain charges against him, when his noble friend
must know, when he reflected on the matter—or whether he reflected on it or not, he must know—that such observations were altogether inapplicable to him. He owned that he was much surprised. Indeed, much as he was of late accus- tome to be astonished, he was astounded at the language of his noble friend. He repeated, that the insinuation that he ever, in the discharge of his duty, !topped to gluze, or bow, or cringe, or flatter any individual, and above all any
inmate of the court, was utterly, absolutely, and totally without foundation. It was iin insinuation which many around him knew to be without foundation. This was notorious to all who heard him. it had further been insinuated, that if he had the opportunity he would stoop to the acts and excel iu the practice. If he wanted the opportunity, he had it then ; but he never had stooped to them, and he never would, for be had always disdained to do so. All those who knew any thing of his conduct in the discharge of the duties of the office that he held, were well aware that he never availed himself of any occasion to injure another, or abuse the confidence of those acting with him, nutwithstand- ieg the opportunities he might have had.
But with respect to the future provision for the Dutchess of Kent— He would content himself then with entering his protest against the House pledging itself to follow any specific course. His noble friend had taunted him by desiring hint to divide the House: lie knew that this would be needless, for if he did so he should probably have nobody to tell. Ile should probably stand alone, even it the augmentation had been proposed to be 24,000/. ; but still, he must protest against the House being pledged to any course without the fullest information. In point of fact, the additional allowance proposed to be given amounted to 14,0001. His noble friend said that the present allowance to the Dutchess of Kent was 22,000/. ; but it should be recollected that 6,0001. of this amount was voted for the additional expense that would be incurred for the education of the Princess Victoria, which charge had ceased. In addition, therefore, to this sum, it was now proposed to make a new grant of 8,0001. a year. Some noble lords might probably think that there could not be too large a grant : they, of course, would nut think 14,0001. a year in addition too much.
The address was agreed to, and the House adjourned.
On Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL communicated to the Commons a message from the Queen similar to that delivered by Lord Melbourne to the Peers. On Tuesday, the House went into Committee upon it; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
Mr. SPRING RICE rose with "deep anxiety," and prayed the Corn- 'settee to give a favourable consideration to the gracious recommenda- tion of the Crown. Mr. Rice then delivered a long and desultory speech on the subject of the Dutchess of Kent's preeminent virtues ; the provision formerly made for her and the Princess ; the late Duke of Kent's pecuniary embarrassments; the assistance she received after Ithe Duke's death, to the amount of 3,0001. a year, from her brother Leopold ; the generosity of King Leopold in giving up a large portion of the income settled upon him on his marriage with the Princess Char- lotte; and above all, the very reasonable amount of the income pro- posed to be settled on the Dutchess of Kent. He concluded by moving that an additional stun, not exceeding 8,0001. a year, be paid out of the Consolidated Fund to the Dutchess of Kent.
Mr. HUME did not think that the Dutchess of Kent's increased proximity to the Crown justified the grant. The provision for the Dutchess was already very liberal. As a proof of national gratitude, 8,0001. a year was a paltry sum ; and it would tend to render the Dutchess of Kent unpopular. He regretted that the proposition bad been made by Ministers.
Sir ROBERT Nests spoke in favour of the grant.
Colonel Sunman thought, so great an economist as Mr. Spring
Klee might have et stpned the consideration of the giant etas.' ne took into account the charges front which the Dutchess of Kent's income would be relieved by the accession of her daughter to the Throne.
Sir FREDERICK TRENCH did not think the income proposed too large ; and wished, moreover, that the Dutchess of Kent's debts, if she had any, should he paid.
Mr. FINCH disapproved of the uncalled-for introduction of the sub- ject of the Dutchess of Kent's debts. Her Royal Highness might well say "save me from my friends ! "
Sir ROBERT PEEL could not concur with Sir Frederick Trench's suggestion about payment of the Dutchess's debts ; but approved of Mr. Rice's proposition. Sir Robert then spoke in the most compli- mentary terms of her Royal Highness's virtues and exemplars conduct—
On all occasions when the Hatchets of Kent's conduct had been brought
under the consideration of Parliament, he had expressed in the strongest terms
his sense of the gratitude due to her Royal Highness for her superintendence of
the education of the illustrious Princess who was the natural object of her
care. She had devoted herself in the most exemplary manner in which a mother could to that important national charge. When retirement was best suited to the age of the Princess, she consented most cheerfully to the most rigid seclusion. When the Princess had arrived to a more advanced age, and it became of importance to introduce her to the society of the leading men of all parties, and likewise to acquaint her iu same degree with the manners o the world, there were no bounds to her liberal, but nectessatily immoderate, hos- pitalities.
He earnestly hoped the vote would he an unanimous one.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL followed in the same strain of compliment; and trusted that the money would be voted cheerfully and willingly.. The Dutchess of Kent would not be gratified by any grunt of money which tended to produce the least dissatisfaction.
Sir FREDERICK TRENCH had no intimacy—scarcely an acquaintances with the Dutchess of Kent; but if a further sum were necessary to her Royal Highness, he regretted that Ministers had not had the courage to ask fur twenty or fifty, ay or a hundred thousand pounds more!
Mr. WYNN was as grateful as anybody to the Dutchess of Kent la- the care she had token of her illustrious daughter; but he could not admit that an addition to her income was required. The excuse was " increased proximity to the throne"— Now, it should be recollected, that of the sum of 22,000/. granted to her Royal Ilighucss the Dutchess of Kent, a considerable portion was specifically granted to defray the expenses of the education of the Princess. These ex. penses no longer existed. The income of the Dutchess of Kent now exceeded aim of any of the Princes of the Blond Royal. The Duke of Sussex had a smaller income, and the Dutchess of Gloucester had an income of only 15,0001. He could not see in what respect the situation of the Dutchess of Kent differed from that of any of the other members of the Royal Family, or why she should be called upon for a larger expenditure. He certainly felt many objections upon principle to the present grant; hut, ulster the eitcunistances, he would nut offer any opposition.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN said, that if the grant of 8,000/. were em- bodied in a separate bill, Mr. Rice would fluid himself embarrassed by the separate Acts of Parliament ; and he sugeested that an enactment for the entire income of ;30,0W/. had better be taken.
Mr. RICE said, at present he merely asked for a preliminary resolu- tion in Committee.
The resolution was agreed to, and the House re=amed.
On Wednesday, the report of the Committee was brought up by Mr. BERNAL. The resolution having been read, Mr. BERRIES said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to have overlooked the grants already made to the Dutchess of Kent, and the mariner in which they bud been made. He contended, that, on the principle cessante ratione ccssat leg, the 6,000/. granted for the education of the Princess Victoria could no longer be paid to the Dutchess of Kent.
Mr. SPRING RICE replied, that it was not without due consideratior. he had come to the conclusion that the grant in question had been made for life ; but if it should turn out otherwise, it would be easy to fill up the blanks in the bill so as to insure to the Dutchess 30,000/. a year.
Mr. GROTE said, that this grant would not give satisfaction to per- sons whose opinions he had had mum opportunity of consulting or to the country generally— When he found that 22,0001. had been already given to her Royal Iliglinces, lie owned that he saw no ground for the additional charge of 8,0001. a year ou the country. If he could allow himself to be swayed by feelings of personal respect for the character of the Dutchess of Kent, he should not consider the proposed sum, or even a greater, too large; but those were feelings which ought not to influence a grant of the public money, and they never had hem made the lending considerations in grants of that kind. Ile thought that the proposed amount was the less called fur at a time when her Royal Highness was was relieved from the additional charge which the suitable education and main- tenance of her illustrious daughter had brought upon her. If he could pre. sums to offer any advice to the members of the Royal Family, it would be, that I they should allow the charge of their incomes to be as light as possible en the public ; and in saying this, he was sure that he expressed the feelings which were generally entertained through the country. On these grounds, lie should object, wheu the time carne, to the amount of the grout.
The resolution was agreed to. Subsequently, a bill founded upon it was brought in, and read a first time. On Thursday it e ae read a second time, and ordered to be committed 011 Friday.
ACCESS OF PARENTS TO CHILDREN.
Mr. Sergeant TALrocau moved, on Thursday, for leave to In-login a bill "to provide for the access of parents, lia ieg spit from each other, to children of tender age." He stated the;existing law on this subject. The custody of all children front the hour of their birth be- longs to the father ; and not only may the mother be prevented from watching over them in sickness, but she may be even denied a sight of them. In case the mother should make any resistance to this unna- tural proceeding, she may be imprisoned, under a process of contempt issued at the instance of the husband, till she yield or till she die. Mr. Talfourd quoted a number of cases in which the Ism had the harsh operation be ascribed to it. The last case was decided by all the
Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench ; leaving no doubt therefore as to the law on this subject. That decision, reluctantly but honestly pronounced, appeared to Mr. Talfourd to rest on a rotten or artificial process of reasoning-
" The father is by law entitled to the custody of his child ; all other custody, unless sanctioned by him, is ilhgal. The illegal custody of a chile incapable of personal choice is tantamount to its impristnanent ; and as the writ of habeas corpus lies to deliver the subject from illegal restraint, it lies to take a baby from the breast, to deliver it into the freedom of such custody from the prison of its mother's arms. I cannot help attributing the tone of some of the judgments, which may seem counter to the strength of the feelings which it was necessary to subdue, to the fear, that if nature were suffered to interpoee, the chain of argument would be wavered, and the legal spell dissolved."
His object was not to take children from the custody of the father, NA to confer on the mother the right of access to them. Mr. LEADER, in seconding the motion, dwelt upon the hardship Oecasioned by the existing law to the weaker sex ; and expressed his earnest hope that all parties in the House would aid in affording that protection which too many of their countrywomen claim at their hands.
Sir EDWARD SCGDEN feared that the bill would present a motive to induce separations between husbands and wives. In the cases cited, the fault had been uniformly on the bide of the father ; but those acquainted with life must be aware that riot unfrequcntly the mother was to blame. He gave notice, that on a future occasion he should take the sense of the House on this meanie.
Leave given to bring in the bill.
CASE OE THE GLASGOW WEAVERS.
Mr. HARVEY presented a petition, on Tuesiley, from Glasgow, signed by 20,000 persons, praying the House to take into consideration the case of five poor citizens put in confinement by order of the Law Officere of the Crown in Scotland. This petition, having reference to the trial or liberation of pelaons in confinement, culled for the attention of the Mouse— It appeared that, in June last, eighteen persons, engaged in the weaving of linen, were apprehended, elmiri;ed with conspiracy, for the purpom of unduly raising the price of wages. They were also charged with combining to administer ills al o.rths, and with being implicated in tut peiperration of a niurfier which took place in Glasgow. being undergoing a long exannuation, five of those persons were sent to prison under this very to: ions and compli- cate' charge. The teinaining thirteen were let out on bail. These live indivi- duals had been imprisoned from June up to that moment. On the 24th Octular, they received notice that they would he tried on an indictment—an indictment, be it remembered, which oecui,iiel forty-Mile long f dio pages, con- taining almost countless counts, and spreading over a long.protracted period of time. Of this compliceted expensive indictment they had to take a copy, which had on the back of it the waves of ninety witnesses. These parties had to pre- pare fur their trial and defence; which they received notice, on the 24th October, was to tele place on the 10th November following. Conscious, as tbey Said, of their innucenee, though pour in circumstances, ignoraut of the law, and overwhelmed by these et:IN:he:Lod prim:mil:1;gs, they determined at once to throw aside the means of pri,tection by.tleity, which the law of that country afforded them, end to challeuge kn.-tent trial. Having no funds of their own, an I but few frinee, they made an apptal to their own order, the winking classes. Theee classes dii not iii tantly respond to their call ; but referred the circumstances of the cluee to a cenimittee, in order to lei s.ti.tied that they were not only legally but metally innocent. BVIIT, so in their milels, they felt it their duty to ell upon the v.-Irking classes of every (lest:, iptimi through-out the *ciliary to come turw.ad and throw their siire:d fryer thoir opmes-ed fellow- -Aurkroeir ; tool thus, lit tlireqr times, when it was. well lino...61101:J labour was not ove! pail!, hull W.I., the iiitLiA' lie,Vription; :hat the sue, of 500/., greatly to their ryas remitted ■ir Edinburgh. 3 hat money WLI barely sailicieet to pay the exieinees of their defence against the cem. plicatiel proceeding.. in retr.irdog counsel, in preparing emit erica, and conveying toeir numerous witnesses to Edinburgh, at which place the fatal was to be. lie was told that, in addition to the necessity inquiry into what ninety witnesees, whew 1131111:8 wt re reeertled upon the inithrtme..t, might have to say in support of their charge—no small labour eur those wl.o were e.etoleseionally engaged — no snrll cost to these who Lad to pay it—theei p rules lad to take to Edin- burgh fifty witnesses for their exculpation, perfectly prepared to repudiate the charge and sustain their innecence. On the lOrh of Nuverrili.m the trial was to take place; when they received some intimation from the prosecutor that it would stand adjourned till the -ith of December. This was the power which he understood the Law Office.-3 of the Crown had in that country, and in this instance had exercised. Lie an, elied dots% the courage of the men, and ex- hausted all their means; and they had bccu again obliged, bi.t out with similar success, to make another appeal to their fellow citizens to meet the trial, which was to come on on the 4th of December. To a cert....in extent they did se, and Roc prepared for their trial on the 4th of Der-mil:LI; but a short time pre- viously, they received another coninothicatin tram the Law Officer of the Crown, that this indictment was out lieu to Lc tried, but that another indict- ment would he prepared, and that such indietineet was to he tried on the Sd of January next. Now these were the simple circumstances of tire case.
After some remarks on the hardship of the case, Mr. Harvey called iron the Lord Advocate to explain why the trial had been delayed, and to state when it would come on.
Illualtav (the Lord Advocate) sail, that every part of Mr. Harvey's statement admitted of a sufficient reply— The charge against the Glasgow- weavers wa+ one of the most serious nature,— a charge of awateeination, the result of a conspiracy carried on by an association which Lad subsisted dining a ouleler of years, and which had during that time es:educe:I similar offeuces—tm association bowel together by secret oaths, and zupported by a systeur of intinrhlation so powerful and well-compacted as to Tender the procurieg of evidence to commit almost impossible. It being a charge, then, of so serious a nature, it became the duty of the public proneutor to carry forward the prosecution by all the moues in his power ; • taking care that no unnecessary expeass wile incurred, and no imilecessaryliardships in- flicted on tl.e prisoner., but that every possible advantage coneistent with the due maintenance of public justice should be affulded them. There had been great delays undoubtedly, but the law reyaiiail them. If they could have been tried at half an hour's notice, it would have been then call el u great hardship that so short a time was allowed. For his own part, Le was very much disposed to shorten the time. lie would say that two or three days were quite long eteugh, and it would lie a great cunvciiience to the t,ublia prosecutor to have the time el el tenth ; hut a bleat outcry ould certainty be eui,ed at such a pro- pueition ; for it would be said that the public prosecutor was pouncing on the prisoners at a short nutlet: to snit his own culiveuieuce while by the law of the county. they were cut.tltd to tiften day,' notice. In the preeent instance, great delay ted hears caused, in cousequeece of the extreme difficulty of getting the *':e4;!:.1; y it.futin..tka. It was the duty of every public prosecutor to make the evidence as complete as he could before proceeding to trial. On the day when this trial should have come on, he received information-that very important fur. ther evidence had been discovered—that there were other witnesses who would throw great light on the matter. It therefore became his duty to gain time, for the purpose of ascertaining the value of this new evidence, and, if necessary, of causing a new indictment to be preferred ; because, according to the law of Scotland, no winless could be examined whose name was not in the indietment. It accordingly became necessary to raise new criminal articles, in order to afford the opportunity for examining these witnesses. That was the reason why, in discharge of his duty, he had thought himself bound to move for further delay.
Mr. PRINGLE, being acquainted with Scottish law, could assure the House that Mr. Harvey had made out no case for its interference.
Mr. O'CONNELL bad no doubt that the accused parties were inno- cent of the murder; but there was a system of combination which must be investigated, or the guilty persons would never be got at.
INCREASE OF THE NAVY; POWER OF RUSSIA.
Mr. THOMAS ATrwooD, on Thursday, moved the two following resolutions- " That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty will he graciously pleased to make such additions to the Royal Navy, as the vindication of the national honour, and the protection of the national interests, under the present circumstances of Europe, may require, assuring her Majesty, at the same time, that this Hope will cheerfully make good the neces. saryexpense which may be incurred. 4 That an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to lay before this House copies of all communications which have taken place between her Majesty and the Russian Government, respecting the naval armament at Cronstadt, the war between Russia and Cir. cassia, the affair of the Vixen, and the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi."
Mr. Attwood supported his motion in a long speech, which caused some amusement in the House. He insisted on the great increase of the Russian fleet ; for which, and its admirable state of discipline, he Wad the authority of Captain Crawford. The British Navy was totally inadequate to the defence of the country— He would assert that the People of England lust autumn bad not the power of preventieg the Russian navy from coming with a broom at their mast-head and entering the mouth of the Thames, and burning Sheerness. It was very disagreeable to him to have to bring these painful truths before an assembly of Englishmen. A distinguished sailor had told him, that, as a last resource, they might cut away the buoys at the mouth of the Thames, and that then the Russian navy could not enter the Thames, or, at all events, they would not be able to pass Tilbury Fort.
lie recollected that a Member of this House, now a noble Lord in another place, had said that this country was bound in penalties of eight hundred millions to keep the peace; and another Member had there. upon said that he thanked God for it— He thanked God that he was not behind the honourable Member when be said so, with a Brummagem sledge-hammer in his hand, or the honourable Member would never have thanked God again. (Laughter.) Why, what would the House think of a great fat fool who should go down the Strand with a paper pasted to his back, in which he should declare, "My pockets are full of money, my heart is full of cowardice ; and, let who will attack me, and beat me, and rob me, I will never lift a hand in my defence." And yet such was the announcement that the Whigs, aided by the Radicals, made for poor Eng- land. He believed that of all the patties which distracted England at this mo- ment, whether Tories, Whigs, or Radicals, the Radicals were the worst eueiuies to their country. (Cheers and laughter.) Sir EdwAnn CODRINGTON seconded the motion ; and bore testimony to the efficient condition of the Russian fleet. He was of opinion that the naval force of this country had been too much reduced.
Lord PALMERSTON replied to Mr. Attwood. With respect to the ar- =anent at Cronstadt, this country had undoubtedly a right to ask for explanations from Russia. These explanations had been demanded; the reply of Russia was satisfactory ; and there had since been no such exhibi- tion of a Russian fleet in the Baltic. It was not the intention of this coun- try to interfere in the war between Russia and Circassia. The affair of the Vixen had been satisfactorily explained : that vessel had broken through certain customhouse and municipal regulations, which at that time Russia was in a condition, by the law of nations, to enact and en- force. In a case somewhat similar, where Russia was in the wrong._
lie alluded to the detention of the Lord Charles Spencer—Russia had made un apology, and given compensation for the damage sustained by the owners. '1 he treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was a bygone affair. It was a treaty entered into for a limited period, and to meet particular cir- cumstances. The period bad expired, and the circumstances no longer
existed. Besides, the treaty never was one of the recognized treaties of Europe. As to the defenceless condition of this country, he differed altogether with MN Attwood- " I do not think I shall be going too far in assuring the alarmed honourable Member for Birmingham that Sheerness is not likely to be invaded; that there
will be no necessity to cut the navigation buoys of the enact; aud, that if he likes it, he may with confitleuce proceed to his nightly slumbers between this and the first of April next—ay, or this day twelveinunths—without the least fear of being awoke by the news either that the Russian fleet is anchored in the Pool, or th it the crews of their ships were parading the streets of London." (Cheers an 1 laughter.)
Mr. AlACLEAN recommended Mr. Attwood to withdraw his motion, as the subject must again occupy the attention of Parliament. Mr. ATTWOOD, however, preferred that his resolutions should be put and negatived; which was accordingly done.
MISCELLANEOUS.
EDUCATION OF NEGROES. In the House of Lords, on Monday, Lord 13no :GRAN! complained that some returns respecting the condi- tion of the Negroes in the West Indies, ordered at the beginning of the session, were not yet laid before the Ilouse. He was told that be must wait six or eight weeks longer before he got them. Lord GLENELG said there was no disposition to withhold the returns, which should be presented as soon as they could be made out. Lord Ilit000na-4 expected to be able to prove by the papers in question, that parties who had received compensation money for their slaves bad not perfor ned their part of the contract. Lord A tielthEEN wished to know whit. had been done towards qualifying the Negroes for a state of freedo u? What steps had been taken towards educating the apprentice. ? Lord GLLNELG replied, that Mr. Latroche, "a great
+=NOV
traveller," had been sent to the West Indies in the capacity of In. spector, to ascertain what had been done with reference to education. Lord BROUGHAM said, that had he known Lord Aberdeen intended to put that question, he would have prepared himself with an answer. As to one of the colonies, however, he could at once give one— fie had before him two messages, addressed by the Marquis of Sligo to the Legislative Assembly of Jamaica. In the first he found this passage—" I sent you down no less than four measures on the subject of an extended system of education ; and, as no measure on that subject has proceeded from the House of Assembly, can I do otherwise than conclude that you are indifferent to it?" In another message from the same noble lord to the same body, there were these words—" I informed you that the sum of 20,000/. sterling had been voted by the English Parliament for the support of education in the Colonies, with a promise of further assistance : you have taken no steps to make that assistance available." Again, in another part of that message his Lordship said to the House of Assembly—" I have transmitted to you despatches from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, recommending the repeal of the 33d canon, with a a view to facilitate the extension of religious education ; but you have refused to repeal it." There was then, it would appear, no want of funds, at least in Ja- maica, for the purpose of education. Funds had been voted on this side of the water ; and the intentions of the British Legislature were frustrated, and its liberality rendered unavailing, by those to whom we had given so many millions.
Lord GLENELG said the Government at home were not to blame.
GOVERNOR OF LOWER CANADA. In the House of Commons, on Monday, Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, in reply to a question from Mr. LEADER, that Lord Gosford had expressed a desire to resign his situa. tion ; and that lately despatches had been sent to him with liberty to return home. No successor to Lord Gosford had been appointed ; and on the departure of Lord Gosford, the government would devolve upon Sir John Colborne. Lord John also stated, that a" proclamation had been issued against all breaches of the law," not particularly against the holding of public meetings.
GOVERNMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES. In reply to a question from Mr. GLADSTONE, on Wednesday, Sir GEORGE GREY stated, that Ministers intended to introduce a bill for the permanent government of the colony of New South Wales ; and not to renew the temporary act, which, however, would not expire for some time yet.
RATHCORMAC. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT gave notice, that be inten- ded to renew a notice of motion given in 1834, by Mr. O'Connell, but suffered by that gentleman to drop, to inquire into the circumstances respecting the unfortunate affair at Rathcormac. Mr. SHELL pressed Sir Francis to name his day. Sir FRANCIS said, he would take the earliest open day after the recess.
THE IRISH CHURCH. Lord JOHN RUSSELL stated, in reply to Sir GEORGE. SINCI.AIR, that it was the intention of Government to intro- duce an Irish Tithe-bill after the recess. Mr. O'CONNELL asked if Sir George Sinclair really wished to settle the Tithe question ? Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR.-..." Undoubtedly, yes." Mr. O'CONNELL...." It can Only be settled by a plan satisfactory to the Irish People."
Lunt Poon. The bill fur the relief of the Irish Poor was read a second time on Monday, and ordered to be committed on the 16th February.
DISTURBANCE AT BRADFORD. On Monday, after some discussion, a motion by Mr. FIELDEN, for papers and correspondence as to the affair at Bradford, bet veen the military and the people, was agreed to.
DISCUSSIONS ON PRESENTING PETITIONS. Mr. HUME,On Tuesday, presented a petition from Hammersmith, complaining of the inter- ference of the Middlesex Magistrates in elections ; and praying for the Ballot. He was proceeding to comment on the subject of the petition, when Sir STnaTroltu CANNING rose to order, and observed that Mr. Hume transsresscd the rule against making speeches on presenting Spetitions. Mr. HUME would not admit the justice of that rule. Sir TRATFORD CANNING appealed to the Chair. The SPEAKER stated what he understood the rule of the House to be- " Great inconvenience having been felt from the long debates which took place on presenting petitions, various plans were proposed for remedying this evil ; some of which would have taken away the right of petitioning this House. It was then suggested that morning sittings should be adopted. But that was a course of proceeding which the daily avocations of honourable Members rendered extremely inconvenient. For myself, it is perfectly immaterial to me when I discharge my duties to this House. But, after three years' experience, I ant bound to say, that if this plan were adopted I must leave a very important part of my duties unperformed. Therefore it was that this rule was laid down, and, as I understood, approved of and sanctioned by the House, that, upon all petitions which have reference to subjects which are to be discussed by this House, the proper time for considering the subject matter of these petitions is when those subjects are brought before the House. Another rule was, that any Member presenting a petition, and giving notice that he would on an early day bring the subject of that petition under &e notice of the House, may have that petition printed with the Votes. When, however, an individual was personally affected, it is fit that an opportunity should be afforded him of explanation on the presentation of a petition : also, when any matter requires the prompt in- terference of this House in vindication of the rights of petitioners, an exception is made. I can have no interest in the matter beyond the convenience of the House. Unless the rule is strictly adhered to, it is no rule at all. Many things may be said on the presentation of a petition which will lead to no discussion ; but the rule must be adhered to. Of course, however, if the House should in- timate to me its desire that the mule should not be longer adhered to, it will be my duty to obey their decision."
Mr. Huste said, that to the public the new rule was more inconve- nient than the old one. In former years, the reception of petitions occupied the House till eight or nine in the evening; and the rule now laid down had the effect of depriving the people of England of the privilege and advantage of addressing the House.
The SPEAKER said, that there must be the same rule for all petitions ; and lie must have the sanction of the House before he suffered a de- parture from it.
OPERATION OF TIIF. P0011-LAW IN SUNDERLAND. On Tuesday, a long conversation arose on a motion by Mr. Andrew White for co- pies of correspondence 'between the Board of Guardians of the Sun- derland Union and the Poor-law Commissioners in London. It had reference chiefly to the assertion of Mr. Liddell, that in Sunderland alone 200 children bad been left in a state of destitution ; and that . there were rumours that many had been left to starvation by their
mothers. The Sunderland Board had indignantly repelled the state meat ; and Mr. White declared, that since the establishment of the Union, not a single child had been left to destitution in Sunderland.
Mr. LIDDELL complained that be had been misreported. He bad given the Sunderland Guardians credit for good management, and bad only mentioned that relief' was withdrawn from 200 children. As to the starvation of the children, he had merely alluded to it as a rumour, the existence of which he was ready to prove. Though hard pressed for the name of his informant, and charged by Mr. Hume and Mr. Lambton with backing out, Mr. Liddell refused to give further expla- nation, or the name of the gentleman on whose authority his statement rested.
Mr. White's motion was agreed to.
EDUCATION COMMITTEE. Mr. GOULEURN complained, on Tues. day, that the Education Committee contained an undue number of Ministerial Members—the proportion being 10 Ministerialist to 5 Conservatives. The ten Committees appointed this session by the other side of the House consisted of 111 Ministerialists and 48 Con- servatives. Two Committees only bad been named by gentlemen on his side of the House, and these consisted of 15 Opposition Members and 14 Ministerialists—a much fairer proportion. He moved to add to the Education Committee Mr. Pusey, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Acland.
Mr. POULETT THOMSON objected to increase the number of the Committee. There was no desire to make it a party inquiry; but, as the object was to extend education to large towns, it was natural to form the Committee chiefly of the representatives of large towns. He was himself perfectly willing to withdraw. Mr. WAKLEY said, the mode of naming Committees certainly re- quired improvement ; and advised Mr. Goulhurn to withdraw his mo- tion, and bring the subject formally before the House after the recess. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that proper notice should be given of the names intended to be placed on a Committee ; and agreed with Mr. Goulburn as to the disproportion of names on the Education Committee.
Mr. Hawes expressed his- willingness to withdraw from the Com. mittce.
Mr. GOULBURN said, that as the Members for Lambeth and Man- chester were willing to withdraw, there could be no reasonable objec- tion to add the names he proposed. The names of Mr. Pusey and Mr. Acland were substituted for those of Mr. Thomson and Mr. Hawes.
ELECTION EXPENSES. Mr. Hums obtained leave to bring in a bill to define and regulate expenses at elections.
COUNTY- RATES. Mr. HUME moved for leave to introduce a bill to establish Councils for the better management of County-rates in England and Wales. In most respects the measure was similar to that which he had brought forward last year. Colonel WOOD would not oppose the bill, but intimated disapprobation of it. Lord JOHN Rossi:sr- regretted that the bill was substantially the same as the measure of last session. He had hoped that it would have been considerably modified. He wished the measure to be of the simplest kind- lle should limit himself to this—that a certain number of members of the Board of Guardians should be elected, in cider to meet and consult with the Finance Committee of Magistrates on the subject of the expenditure of the county ; and he should mellow to give them only the same power, and exactly the same power, which was now exercised by the Magistrates with regard to the finances of the county. From the outline of the bill of the last session, it seemed necessary that many offices of different kinds should be created ; which would necessarily have led to an increase of county-rates. He thought that any bill on this subject should give to the ratepayer some power in matters of finance, but that it should extend to them no other part of the authority now vested in the 3Iagistracy.
If Mr. Hume would not remove much of the machinery of his bill, be should himself feel bound to introduce a measure of a much simpler kind.
Mr. AGLIONDY said, that the introduction of this bill would not pre- clude Lord John Russell from bringing in a better bill. The details of Mr. Hume's measure might be improved, but be strongly approved of its principle. Mr. SANFORD thought the subject had better be left in the hands of Government.
Leave given.
PAYMENT OF RATES; ADMISSION Ok' FREEMEN. On WedneSday, the bill introduced by Lord JOHN RUSSELL respecting the payment of rates and taxes by Parliamentary electors, and the stamp-duty on the admission of freemen, was read a second time. The bill provides, that electors " who had paid their rates up to the 5th of April the first year they became possessed of the franchise, would be excused for suc- ceeding years up to the Ilth of October, if; through any inadvertence or forgetfulness, they had neglected to pay at the prescribed period." It also abolishes the stamp-duty now paid on the admission of freemen to the franchise.
IRISH SYSTEM OF EDUCATION. Mr. Sergeant JACKSON asked Lord Morpeth, whether any steps would be taken to remove the conscien- tious objections of Protestants to the present system of education in the Irish National Schools ? Lord AIORPETII was happy to state, That steps were in contemplation, and in the progress of adoption for meet- ing those objections to the present plan to which Mr. Jackson act:se:I. It was proposed that the reading of the Scriptures should take place in a separate pact of the school, when the parents of the I:Mali-en expressed a wish to that effect, and when such a change could take place without overturning the fundamental principle on which these schools were established,—that was, of admitting no instruction contrary to the wishes and conscientious opinions of the parents. There were other changes which he should notice on another occasion.
KING OF Has:oven's Pes:stoN. Mr. SPRING RICE, having been questioned by Mr. Hume, said that the 6,000/. a year granted for the education of Prince George of Comberlaud would now cease ; but that the pension of the King of Hanover, like King Leopold's, was granted for life, and Ministers had no intention of abolishing it. Mr. Hunt: then gave notice, that on the 1st of February he should move for leave to bring in a bill to deprive the King of Hanover of his pen- *ion. It never could have been the intention of a British Parliament that the Duke of Cuinherlend should retain his pension alter ascending the throne of a foreign kingdom.
Ficrermos VOTES. On the motion of Mr. Honsume, a Select Committee was appointed to continue the inquiry, commenced last ses- sion, into the creation of fictitious votes in Scotland.
PENSION-LIST COMMITTEE, On Monday, Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR gave notice, tbat unless Mr. Harvey were nominated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should move to put him on the Pension-list Committee ; also, if it appeared that a majority of the Members pro- posed as the Committee were hostile to the inquiry, lie should move to substitute such Members as would make a majority favourable to the inquiry.
RECOVERY OF TENEMENTS. Mr. AGLIONBY, on Wednesday, moved the second reading of a bill introduced by himself to facilitate the recovery of tenements. It consisted of two parts,—the first had reference to tenements rented under 201., and the second to tenements rented over 201.
He proposed that the landlord whose tenant held over should go before the Magistrate and make the declarations set forth in the bill to guard the interests of the poorer tenants. The effect would be, that the Magistrate, before he exercised his jurisdiction, would be satisfied that certain notices had been given to the tenant. The Magistrates would be the tribunal from first to last. It was his intention that the Magistrates should be satisfied of two facts,—one was that the relation between landlord and tenant did exist, and the other was that it existed in law no longer. He did not wish to throw on the Magistrates the responsibility, of deciding minute and difficult questions of title : if a pies. tion of that kind arose, they would dismiss the case to a higher tribunal. If the landlord falsely declared as to his title, an action would lie against him ; the object of this provision was to protect the Magistrate. As regarded the division of the bill relating to tenements above 201., the landlord might bring an action of ejectment, and call on the tenant to give sureties for the costs of the action. Ile grounded this proposition on the Fifth Report of the Common Law Commissioners. A power was left to the Judges to determine whether the parties should be allowed to give bail for the costs. The tenant would be called on to show cause why he should not give bail, or why the landlord should not have judgment entered up. He moved the second reading of the bill.
Mr. JERVIS said that the bill was a landlord's measure, and drew a cruel distinction between the rich and the poor. It subverted the whole law of ejectment, and outraged all the notions of tire poorer classes respecting the relation of landlord and tenant. He moved to put off the second reading for six months.
Sir R. Roan (the Solicitor- General) approved of the bill.
Sir EDWARD SCGDEN opposed it ; for it violated all the principles of legislation as regarded mutual remedies. Mr. CcTLAR Feneussox, Lord SANDON, Sir HARRY VERNEY, and Mr. BROTHERTON wished the bill to be read a second time. Mr. WAKI.F.V spoke in favour of the amendment. Finally, the bill was read a second time, without a division.
COPYRIGHT. Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD obtained leave, on Thurseay, to bring in a bill to amend the law of copyright. It is substantially the same as his bill of last session as respects literary works ; bat does not deal with the fine arts, which are to be made the subject of a second bill, should the first be carried.
DIusucleae BOUNDARIES. A bill was introduced on Thursday, on the motion of Air. Vi..iitiox Satin', to settle the boundaries of mu- nicipal boroughs in Englund and Wales.
SCOTCH LICENSING SYSTEM. Mr. DENNISTOUN obtained leave, on • Thursday, to introduce a measure to amend the law relating to spirit- licences in Scotland. His object was to do away with the necessity of annual applications fur the renewal of licences, so that one licence should be sufficient till objection was made to the holder.
Previous page
