§ On a vote being proposed of 56,127l. for Protestant Dissenting Ministers, French Refugee Ministers, French Refugee Laity, for charitable and other allowances to the poor of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, and others,
Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise, that although in former years there had been always sonic deaths amongst the French refugees, under the new Administration there, appeared to have been no deaths, or, if so, no deduction had been made for them. He begged to remark, also, that this grant had been continued since the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, so that some of these refugees must have continued alive since that time. He further desired to know, why the poor of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields were included in this vote. What particular service had these people performed, that they were to be supported by royal grants?
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that his hon. friend had misunderstood the case. The laity die (and he would find there was a reduction there); the clergy do not diminish, the places of those who died off being filled up by his Majesty. It was true, therefore, that these pensions had been on the list, ever since the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. On consulting the trustees of this grant, who consisted of most respectable persons, among others the Archbishop of Canterbury, he was apprized that the large grant originally made by Parliament had been afterwards commuted for a perpetual pension. The grant to the poor of St. Martin's was very ancient. It had been originally placed in the Civil List, but was now placed in the Miscellaneous Estimates. If upon inquiry that should prove correct, the grant must subsist; if not, it might be by degrees reduced.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, this question had been frequently asked before, and the same answer given. It seemed to be official, and was, like a printed form, handed by the Clerk to the Secretary. Some further explanation ought to be given, and he would recommend his hon. friend to move for returns connected with the subject.
§ Mr. Spring Ricemerely wished to remark, in reply to his hon. friend, that he could convince himself by looking at the Estimate marked No. 3. He would there see, that a considerable reduction had taken place since last year.
§ Mr. George Dawsoncorroborated what the hon. Gentleman opposite had stated, relating to the poor of St. Martin's-in-the Fields.
Mr. Robert Gordonobjected to receiving the same unsatisfactory answer upon all occasions. He was of opinion that further inquiry was necessary.
§ Mr. Spring Ricewas sorry his answer had not been satisfactory. He could only repeat, that this grant to St. Martin's-in-the-Fields was very ancient, and was presented to the poor when the royal residences were erected. The same was the case in Kensington, Windsor, and other places.
Mr. Sadlerthought this was one of the last charges they ought to object to. A small salary to a school-master, for teaching poor children, in the vicinity of the King's palace, was no abuse of the public money.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that much of the Church lands which afterwards came into the possession of the Crown, was liable to certain charges for the benefit of the poor. He thought it probable these charges might be traced up to that origin.
§ Colonel Sibthorpwished to know, if the school-master to whom they were about to vote a salary had any scholars? He had known instances where schoolmasters were paid who had none.
§ Mr. Long Wellesleythought it probable these charges were payable out of the Royal land attached to the palace, and remained chargeable on the property.
§ Mr. Briscoethought it desirable they should know where this school was established, and have all the particulars stated, before a salary was voted to the schoolmaster.
§ Mr. Spring Riceonly knew that this was a charge of 482. for the salary of a schoolmaster; of all other particulars he was ignorant, but he would endeavour to ascertain them.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, the hon. Secretary did not seem prepared to answer questions. Several votes had been passed on which they had not sufficient information. He did not think himself accountable for any vote that passed after midnight, and the 998 question was often put so quickly, that, a Member had no time to object, even if he was inclined to do so.
§ Captain Bolderoobserved, the ground upon which they were called upon to vote this sum was, because it was an ancient grant. He was one who respected ancient, grants, as he shewed by his vote on the Reform Bill.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, his hon. friend ought to be prepared to inform the House why these grants were called for, before they were asked to vote them.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he should find some difficulty in explaining the origin of all these small items. Here, for instance, was a sum of 17s. to be paid to the Churchwardens of Kensington, which had been allowed many years, and he could not account for the causes why they were originally given.
Mr. Humesaid, these grants ought all to be stopped, whenever no good reason could be given for their continuance. He wished to ask the hon. Secretary, whether any of the emigrant pensioners received allowances from the French Government in addition to the pension they received here?
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the Toulonese and Corsican emigrants were not allowed to receive their pensions here, until they had made a declaration that they received none from their own governments. There were other Frenchmen who received pensions, whom it was unjust to subject to such a test, for what they received from others did not alter the obligations imposed upon us by performance of former services.
Mr. Humewished to know, if the services alluded to, had not been rendered to the Bourbons? If that was the case, these persons ought to be paid by them, and the British public be exempt from such payments.
Colonel Davieswas satisfied, that on inquiry it would be found, those pensions were not for services rendered to the British, but for the restoration of what was called the legitimate Monarch to the throne of France. He could not conceive upon what principle of justice we discharged clerks from the public service without compensation, while we continued to pay Frenchmen for services rendered to the exiled family of the Bourbons. He should also like to know upon what principle Protestant refugees were paid; 999 and how, and by what means, they acquired any claim upon this country? They were referred back, indeed, to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the only satisfaction they received was, that it was an ancient grant.
§ Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he had already given all the information in his power, and if they were to return again to the charge, and try back, they would never get through the public business.
§ Mr. Huntsaid, they were not acting fairly by the hon. Secretary; he was not to be blamed for these charges; that rested with the former Government, and former Parliaments, which had from time to time allowed them to pass without explanation.
Mr. Robert Gordonin reply, to the hon. Gentleman, who had asserted that the blame of these giants rested upon the old Members—begged to say, he had moved that they should be referred to a Committee of Inquiry, and in that he was supported by all the present Ministers. Had that inquiry taken place, these grants would no more have been heard of.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that an early opportunity ought to be taken, to inquire into the particulars of these minute grants.
Sir Francis Vincentdid not think the public business ought to be delayed, in consequence of the absence of individual Members, from private arrangements.
§ Vote agreed to.—House resumed.