Commons Sitting of 21 December 1837

MINUTES
Bills. Read a first time:—On the motion of Sergeant TALFOURD, Custody of Infants On the motion of Mr. LYNCH, Married Women; Municipal Boundaries.
Petitions presented. By Mr. H. FLEETWOOD, from the Handloom Weavers of Preston, for relief.—By Mr. LEADER, from Westminster, in favour of the Dorchester Labourers.—By Mr. WAKLEY, from Finsbury, against Lord John Russell's Declaration.—By Mr. GROTE, from Illeringham, Suffolk, for Vote by Ballot.—By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, from Edinburgh, for Vote by Ballot; also from the Senatus Academicus of Edinburgh, against the Privileges of the College of Physicians.—By Mr. HUME, from Glasgow, for Vote by Ballot, Short Parliaments, and a system of National Education.

HANDLOOM WEAVERS.
MR. J. Fieldenthen rose to bring under the consideration of the House the petition which he had presented on the 11th December, relative to the condition of the Hand-loom Weavers. Amongst other facts stated in the petition it was set forth that the petitioners, owing to extremely low wages, suffered great distress, and that this distress had been more severe in the present than in any former year. In Manchester alone there were
1404
computed to be at least 6,000 weavers, some of whom had been visited by persons appointed for that purpose. The results of the inquiry made by the visitors were, that 876 families whom they had visited, containing 3,274 persons, depended for support on the income of 1,740 looms employed. The average earnings of these looms did not exceed 332 1. 6s. 3d, weekly, leaving an average of 2s. ½d. a week to each person, and deducting Is. 2d. a week for rent, fuel, soap, and candles, the average for the support and clothing of each person per week would be only l0½d. or 1½d. per day. It was now five years since this subject had been brought under the notice of Parliament, and though the distress of these persons was admitted to be great, no redress whatever had been afforded them. This subject had been considered by successive Committees of the House, and it had been admitted by the report of one of these Committees in 1834, that this distress was by no means exaggerated, but existed to an extent that was scarcely to be conceived or credited, and that these individuals bore their sufferings with unexampled patience. In that House the people were not properly represented, and it was to the refusal to attend to their wants and remove the evils that pressed upon them that they were to attribute the calls that were making for an extension of the suffrage. It could scarcely be said that they lived in a Christian country if all sympathy for human suffering was to be suppressed. It had been proved before Committees that these men worked from twelve to fifteen hours a day, and yet they were unable to support themselves by their labour. The articles which were produced by these operatives were of a description principally consumed by the rich and wealthy, who could afford to pay a remunerating price for the labour that produced them, and a great quantity of these articles were exported to foreign countries, to be exchanged for commodities that contributed to the comfort and luxury o the wealthy classes. Notwithstanding the patient demeanour of these persons, their grievances remained unredressed. If this indifference continued, he would at the risk of being considered factious, take steps that would force the case of these persons on the attention of the Government. If some redress was not afforded he would feel bound to get up and oppose every vote of

1405
money that was proposed. That might be a course open to blame; but if redress was not afforded, or some attention bestowed on this subject, that course he was determined to take. There was not one of these weavers that did not contriute to the taxation of the country, and if the situation of these men did not receive attention he would take every opportunity that the privileges of the House afforded to force that attention. All the facts respecting the distress of these suffering classes had been clearly established before a Committee, of which the right hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. P. Thomson) was a member, and he did think that that right hon. Member had not done his duty towards those people by not directing the attention of the Government to the sufferings they endured. One of the reports of a Committee recommended a bill to be brought in, which would have the effect of relieving those distressed weavers. That bill was brought in by the hon. Member for Lanark, and it was met on the part of the Government by a direct negative, and was not allowed to proceed. In the course of the last Session the matter was not lost sight of. A motion was made in July last for an address to the Crown for a commission to inquire into the condition of the distressed operatives in the manufacturing districts. That address was voted six months ago, and yet not a single commissioner had been sent forward, though the operatives were dying for want of food. It showed that the Government were indifferent to the condition of the working people; but he could tell the House that no Government could carry on their business who were indifferent to the distresses of the working people. He would like to know why this inquiry had not proceeded? If a vote of that House was good for anything it ought to be acted upon. The Government that would act in this way could not have his confidence, for he thought after the vote of the House that that inquiry ought to have been proceeded with, and they should have ascertained what redress could be afforded. Something should be done. They must either raise the wages of these operatives to a scale that would afford them the means to live, or they must do what would lead to the same effect, namely, reduce the taxation that pressed on the necessaries of life. He thought that they ought to have aminimum of
1406
wages. The existence of distress could not be disputed, and they ought to decide how relief could be afforded without injuiry to any other class of society. Without this the Government could scarcely feel satisfaction to themselves, and they would give no satisfaction to the country. The hon. Member concluded by moving the following resolution:—
"That there is in this kingdom an immense body of hand-loom weavers suffering unparalleled distress, and that that distress arises from the present unforeseen low rate of wages that these weavers are paid for their work, and from the heavy taxes imposed by this House on food and the other necessaries of life, a sufficiency of which these wages are inadequate to procure; that the work which a large pro. portion of these weavers execute consists of articles indispensably necessary for the personal comfort and convenience of the higher and middle classes of society, or of articles exported to other countries in exchange for luxuries for the use of these classes; that it is, therefore, the interest and duty of the Representatives of the people in this House immediately to devise and enact such laws as shall raise the wages of the hand-loom weavers to a scale adequate to maintain them comfortably, or else so to reduce the taxes imposed on the necessaries of life, and to alter the modes of collecting those taxes, so that no part of the wages paid to these weavers shall be abstracted from them by either direct or indirect taxation, further than shall be necessary for the exigencies of the state."
Mr. Hesketh Fleetwoodseconded the motion. Seeing that the commission had issued some months, he did hope that the President of the Board of Trade would be enabled to make such a statement as would give to the hearts of the poor handloom weavers that comfort of which the smallness of the wages they at present received deprived them. During his canvass he had had an opportunity of seeing the distress which pervaded this class of persons. In the place which he had the honour to represent were found numerous families working for sixteen hours a day in damp places under ground. He had seen one poor woman giving her children bread in a hot stale; and on his asking her the reason, her answer was that she did so because a less quantity sufficed to satisfy the cravings of hunger for the time. He did not see, however, how an increase of wages could be effected by legislation; but at the same time, with regard to taxation, he thought that those who possessed property and who devised the means of

1407
taxation, ought to be anxious, and take care not to aggravate the distress which prevailed among the poorer classes of their fellow-countrymen.
Mr. Mark Phillipsassured the hon. Member for Oldham that the petition which he had brought under the notice of the House had not escaped his (Mr. Phillip's) attention. He was not in the House when the motion for an address to the Crown for the appointment of a Commission was agreed to, but he did not hesitate to say if he had been present (and his not being so was occasioned by severe indisposition), knowing what he did on this subject, that he should not have been found amongst the supporters of that proposition. He begged to say that the hon. Member for Oldham could not more deeply deplore and commiserate the unfortunate situation than he (Mr. P.) did himself, and, in order to put himself in the possession of facts, he had applied for and received statements from Manchester which differed materially with the allegations contained in the petition; and those facts he had obtained from those who employed the greatest number of operatives in that town. Manchester was divided into four districts, from one of which districts he had the report made by the overseers, by which it appeared that while in August last there were 275 families out of employ, on the 15th of the present month there were only seventy six. So far, therefore, there was a discrepancy between the statement contained in the petition and these returns. He admitted that great manufacturing distress among the hand-loom weavers prevailed throughout the country, and he knew, as stated by the petitioners, that in Manchester it prevailed to a greater extent than in former years; he knew that such was the fact; and why? it was in consequence of the stale of the American market; that was the cause of the distress. He, for one, should always be anxious to forward the views of the petitioners when he was satisfied that good could be done; but at the same time he must say he could not see any possible good that could result from the interference of the Legislature in order to maintain prices during a depression in trade. Supposing that a minimum of wages was established, what would be the effect? Why, that those who wished for the establishment of such a principle would be the first to break it,—such would be the case of the hand-loom weavers, who
1408
themselves were so anxious for its adoption. And why? Because there was no class of the operative portion of the community by whom a depression in their trade was so soon and immediately felt as the hand-loom weavers. The moment the market was depressed the masters said they had no more work, and that the operatives must wait until things came round, and the consequence would be, that they would offer their services for less than the minimum in order to obtain work, and thus break through the principle they were so anxious to see adopted. Such would be the inevitable result. But there was a remedy, and that was an alteration in the corn-laws. He had always, in that House and out of it, declared his opinion to be in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws. He took his seat in that House, which he considered a privilege, as an heir-apparent, looking to the possession of a landed estate; but he should feel ashamed if on that account he could neglect the interest of those with whom he was so intimately connected as he was with the hand-loom weavers, or that of the community at large. But sure he was, that it would be impossible for the manufacturers of England to compete with those of the Continent, or of America, unless there was a change in the corn-laws. The time was fast approaching when this question must be considered. He should be ready to lend his assistance in effecting a reduction of taxation, and more particularly that of the tax on bread, which so deeply affected the interests of the working classes of the community. He wished to draw attention to the bank system, which certainly did not work well at present. During the late commercial panic much evil was occasioned by that system, connected with the depressed state of the weavers. In his opinion an inquiry into the prices of labour compared with the state of the currency might be very advantageously entered upon by the commission appointed to investigate the condition of the hand-loom weavers. He perfectly concurred with the hon. Member for Oldham as to the admirable conduct of the hand-loom weavers. If any distinct manner of relieving them could be pointed out, it would give him great pleasure in adopting it, but he did not see any. In the proposition made by the hon. Member he could not acquiesce.
Sir Eardley Wilmotobserved, that

1409
during the five years that he had been in Parliament he had advocated the cause of the hand-loom weavers. There were many thousands of them in a state of starvation. They did not ask for charity; what they asked for was a fair compensation for their labour. By other machinery goods were produced at a third of the rate at which the hand-loom weavers could produce them. If the laws could not be altered for the purpose, something should be done to relieve them. It was impossible, however, to employ them in other labour. They were quite unfit for agricultural labour. The hand-loom weavers formed a large portion of his constituency, and he had intended to present a petition on the subject of their distresses. That petition had not yet reached him; but soon after the recess he hoped to have an opportunity of presenting it. In the mean time it was his duty to state that the hand-loom weavers were in a dreadful condition; and that if something were not done it was impossible to foresee what might be the consequences.
Mr. Hindleyobserved, that there seemed to be a general agreement on two points: the first was the existence of great distress, the second was the patience with which it was borne. He was persuaded that it was impossible to exaggerate the distress. He had himself paid considerable attention to the subject; and he firmly believed that the distress was to an extent of which the House was little aware. He thought, also, that they were all agreed on another point. He wished to argue the matter calmly and dispassionately. It appeared to him that they were agreed on the difficulty of finding a remedy for the evil. If such a remedy could be discovered he was persuaded that it would be most cheerfully adopted. The remedy proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham was a fixed rate of wages. To that he (Mr. Hindley) strongly objected. He had said, when an application was made to him in Manchester on the subject, that he could not acquiesce in any such proposition. The effect of a fixed rate of wages would be to prevent manufacturers in times of distress from giving them any work at all. The hand-loom weavers did not desire charity. All they desired was justice. If the Legislature could not benefit them, at least it should avoid doing them injury. It had been said that they ought to go into the factories. How was this practicable, when
1410
Government had sent down commissioners, Messrs. Mummeridge and Baker, to force the agricultural labourers of the neighbourhood to enter into competition with them. In vain did the poor hand-loom weavers make application at the factories for employment for themselves or for their families. The only result was, that they lost their time. Not so the agricultural labourer. A contract was entered into for them by the commissioners. But was it fair to transport another class of labourers into competition with these unfortunate persons? The causes of the existing distress were quite evident. The first was the present state of our Corn-laws. It was a shame to ask the hand-loom weavers of this country, paying double the price for their corn, to compete with the weavers on the Continent. He hoped that the Commissioners who had been appointed to investigate the subject, would mention this cause of distress in their report; and he hoped the House would deal with it without reference to any private interest or consideration. Another cause of the distress, was machinery. It was impossible, at this time of day, to go back on that subject. No doubt could exist of the great social advantages which the human race had derived from the invention of machinery. He hoped, however, that the management of it would be so conducted as to render it an amelioration of the first curse which had been pronounced upon mankind. Another cause of the distress, was the influx of the Irish poor. There were vast numbers of the Irish poor in Manchester who contended for bread with the English weaver. He by no means objected to their right to do so. On the contrary, he thought we ought to make them welcome, and by every means to better their condition. Yet, certainly, the effect of their coming and entering into competition with the resident weavers, was to increase the distress of the latter, and to render their condition almost as low as that of the Irish. But what must be the effect upon them, if the proposed Irish poor-law were passed? By four clauses of that law, they were going to make beggary a crime in Ireland, subject to various terms of imprisonment. What would be the effect of that? It would force numbers of the Irish out of their country; and they would come hither, enter into more severe competition with the English weavers, and increase

1411
their distress. It really would be very hard upon this industrious class of our population, if, being unable to find a remedy for their grievances, they were to adopt a measure which must materially aggravate them. From what had fallen from the hon. Member for Manchester he (Mr. Hindley) collected that that hon. Gentleman intended to agree to the motion of the hon. Member for Oldham, for the hon. Member for Manchester acknowledged the justice of the second proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham, that the distress was, in a great measure, owing to the heavy taxation to which the food of the weavers was subjected. To that point he wished to pin the hon. Member for Manchester and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, as he conceived it impossible to remedy the evil without attending to it.
Mr. Philip Howardsaid, that unquestionably much of the distress was attributable to the introduction of machinery. But it must be considered, that the handloom weavers enjoyed greater liberty than the power-loom weavers, and could choose their own times of labour. He rose, however, to express his sympathy for the distress which they were suffering. At the same time he did not think that to repeal the corn-laws, and thereby to throw a great deal of land out of cultivation, would benefit the. Undoubtedly great differences of opinion existed; but in his judgment any material alteration of the corn laws would be productive of very general inconvenience. When the report of the Commission appointed to investigate this question came to be laid on the table, the House would be better able to come to a satisfactory decision upon it. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Oldham would, for the present, withdraw his motion.
Mr. Darbyalso trusted, that the hon. Member for Oldham would withdraw his motion; the fir t part of which appeared to him (Mr. Darby) to be totally inexpedient. It would be impossible to reduce the taxation in such a manner as to afford the hand-loom weavers the relief they required, without, at the same time, withdrawing the protection justly afforded to other classes of the community.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonhoped that the hon. Member who had brought forward this motion had done so rather for the purpose of giving hon. Gentlemen an opportunity of
1412
expressing their sympathy for the objects or it, than with any intention of dividing the House upon it. He should feel it his duty to move the previous question on the hon. Gentleman's propositions; for he was unable to assent to them. One of those propositions stated facts of which the House had at present no knowledge; the other recommended a species of vague relief that it would be impossible to afford. It was very easy for any man to gain a great character for humanity by dwelling on the harsh and severe conduct of Government, or of that House, by representing that they were unwilling to inquire into distress, or to apply to that distress a remedy; and by intimating that he alone was disposed to commiserate and to relieve the distressed. He utterly denied the existence, on the part of that House, or on the part of Government, of an indisposition to consider the distress of any portion of the people; or to apply to that distress a remedy, if a proper and adequate remedy could be discovered. Why did not the hon. Member for Oldham propose some distinct and specific remedy which might be fully and fairly discussed? Why did he not make some direct proposition on which all might express their sentiments and stand a chance of coming to a just and practical conclusion? He repeated, that there was no indisposition on the part of the House, that there was no indisposition on the part of Government, to take into consideration any specific proposition on the subject, and to adopt it if it should seem likely to be beneficial. But what was the hon. Member for Oldham's vague proposition? That as the House had rejected fixing a minimum of wages, they should lower the general taxation in such a manner as to exempt, the individuals in question from contributing to it. He should like to see that proposition put into a definite shape. How could that be accomplished? Was it to he provided that persons who did not earn such or such wages were to pay no taxes? To attempt that object would be to alter the whole system of our taxation. A large portion of that taxation, all, for instance, which came under the heads of customs and excise, was indirect. How, with reference to those taxes, could such a proposition as that which he had described be carried into effect? But, upon the strength of making such a proposition, the hon. Member for Oldham exclaimed to the weavers, "My friends, I am the only person who wishes to relieve you; others are hard-hearted, and

1413
will not take your case into consideration," Now that was mere delusion, although he did not think it would take, which he felt ought to be exposed, and therefore he would take the liberty to expose it. The hon. Member for Oldham said, that it was his duty, both as the Representative of Manchester, and as holding the situation in the Government which he had the honour to hold, to satisfy the wishes of the individuals who were the subjects of the motion. Now, he would not yield to the hon. Member for Oldham in the sincerity of his desire to relieve the unfortunate persons in question, if any rational or practicable mode of furnishing that relief could be devised. But he did not believe that any legislative measure could be adopted by which that relief could be afforded. It was on that ground that he had opposed the appointment of a commission of inquiry. He had opposed it because he thought it likely that the appointment of such a commission would raise delusive expectations which it would be found impossible to satisfy. Not seeing that any good could be derived from such a commission, he had opposed its appointment. The House, however, had decided otherwise. The evil he had apprehended had occurred: but the responsibility rested not with him but with the House. [A Member: With the last House.] With the last House. The commission having, however, been appointed, he should do everything in his power to render it effective: and he hoped that the result of the report of that commission would at least set the question at rest. The commissioners were exceedingly anxious to make their inquiry as comprehensive as possible; but as the hand-loom weavers were scattered over almost every county in the kingdom, the progress of the inquiry must necessarily be slow. The House, however, might rest assured that they would proceed with all the dispatch that the circumstances of the case would admit of, and that all the information it might be in their power to collect, would be communicated without loss of time. He denied that the distress of this class of operatives arose either from foreign competition or from the general use of machinery. The same distress existed amongst other classes of operatives where there was no foreign competition; and as to machinery, he believed that the effect of it was rather to increase than to diminish the demand for manual labour. The real cause of the distress of the hand-loom weavers was their
1414
being too numerous. Under all the circumstances, he thought that the only course the House could pursue would be to wait for the report of the commissioners. If that report suggested any remedy for the relief of this class of persons, he should be most ready to support it.
Mr. Wakleycould not concur in the concluding recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. It might very possibly happen that three or four years would elapse before the Commissioners made their report. In the meantime, according to the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman, these people would be left to starve. The real object of the Commission should be to inquire into the remedy, not the cause, of the distress. The cause was well known. The remedy, though the House had not temerity enough to make the confession, could only be found in the repeal of the corn-laws, and the imposition of a tax upon property. The only relief for the poor was to take the burden of taxation from their shoulders, and to place it upon the shoulders of the rich.
Mr. George F. Youngdiffered from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He thought, that as a Commission had been issued, it was only proper, before any decided step was taken, that the House should wait for the report of that Commission. He, for one, therefore, could not support the present motion, a motion which he hoped the hon. Member for Oldham would see the propriety of withdrawing.
Mr. Humealso expressed a hope, that the hon. Member would withdraw the motion. The distress which pressed so heavily upon the hand-loom weavers, arose from the high price of food in this country as compared with any other country in Europe. The Government had the remedy in their own hands, but were afraid to adopt it. Repeal the corn-laws, and there would be no distress amongst the weavers. But there was no hope of such a step being taken. The agricultural interest was too strong, had too great a preponderance in that House; and the noble Lord, the Home Secretary (Lord John Russell), had declared that he looked upon that preponderance as one that ought to exist. The words used by the noble Lord on an early evening in the Session, were to this effect, "He was aware, at the passing of the Reform Bill,

1415
that it would give a preponderance to the landed interest, and he should object to any alteration of the suffrage which might tend to lessen that preponderance." Instead of there being no legislative remedy for the distress of the hand-loom weavers, he contended that there was a legislative remedy. Let them have an honest House of Commons. He did not wish to say anything offensive, or otherwise than this—that they ought, at least, to be most anxious not to legislate for their own advantage. He wished to see the people's House legislate for the benefit of the people at large. But as long as he had been in the House, it appeared to him that legislation had gone on for the benefit of the few, and not of the many.
Colonel Sibthorpthought, that the agricultural interest paid more towards the taxation of the country, than any other class of the community. He deemed it necessary to make this observation in order that it might not go forth to the public, that those who represented that particular interest, were indifferent to the sufferings of any other class in the state.
Mr. Matthias Attwoodconsidered that the subject of the Corn-laws had been improperly introduced into this discussion. He believed that the Corn-laws were not the cause of the distress which prevailed among the manufacturing classes, and therefore that the repeal of those laws would not relieve that distress. On the contrary, he thought the repeal would be attended with a greater weight of suffering than such a measure was calculated to remove. He knew how reluctant the House was, to entertain questions of this kind, and how very difficult it was, for any hon. Member to bring any question under the consideration" of the House which involved nothing of a personal or of a party nature. For this reason, therefore, he felt the more disposed to give his support to the motion of his hon. Friend. They had been told to wait for the Report of the Commissioners, but he conceived it was vain for them to wait for that. All the facts that were capable of being ascertained by the Commissioners were, already sufficiently well known. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade had spoken of the extensive reduction that had taken place in the taxation of the country. Now, upon that subject, he would refer the right hon. Gentleman to an authority which he was sure would
1416
not be disputed—he alluded to the evidence of Lord Ashburton taken before the agricultural committee in 1836. At the close of a very lengthened examination that noble Lord said, "He would maintain that there had, in fact, been no reduction of taxes from the period of the war to the present day." He would vote for the motion, because in doing so, he considered he should be expressing his opinion, first, that extensive distress existed among the hand-loom weavers, and, in the next place, that the House were desirous to discover a remedy for that distress.
Mr. Laboucherecould not refrain, after hearing the last observation of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Attwood), from troubling the House for a few moments. The hon. Gentleman had said, that he considered in voting for the motion, all that he was expressing was his opinion, first, that extensive distress prevailed among the hand-loom weavers, and next, that the House were desirous to discover a remedy for that distress. Now, this being the opinion of the hon. Gentleman as to the effect of the vote he was about to give, he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the House to what was the nature of the question before them, and to show how very far beyond those two propositions stated by the hon. Gentleman, they would go if they voted for the present motion. He would first of all, however, remark, that the House during the last Session of Parliament, had given a strong proof how anxious they were to meet the distress complained of; for they actually adopted an address to the Crown that a Commission might be issued to inquire into the nature and extent of that distress. He begged to say, that in his judgment the House did not on that occasion take a prudent or well-advised step in pursuing that course; for he believed there was always the greatest danger when any one branch of the legislature took upon itself to investigate any particular and local case of distress, inasmuch as it gave rise to expectations which, in all probability would only result in disappointment. But he would now remind the House what were the terms in the concluding part of the motion before them. The motion stated, "that it was the duty of the representatives of the people in that House, immediately to devise and enact such laws as should either raise the wages of the distressed weavers sufficient to maintain them

1417
comfortably, or reduce the taxation on the necessaries of life, and alter the mode of taxation so that no part of the wages paid to the hand-loom weavers should be extracted from them, by either direct or indirect taxation, and that a new system of taxation should be introduced, so as to leave untouched the necessaries consumed by the working classes." Now he had a great deal too much respect for the intelligence and good sense of these weavers to believe that ninety-nine out of every hundred of them could possibly read with a serious countenance, such a proposition as this. To suppose that any system of taxation could be devised, consistently with the financial state of this country, so as to leave untouched the necessaries purchased by the wages of the working classes was such a mere delusion that one could scarcely conceive it possible for any person seriously to imagine it.
Sir C. B. Veresaid, that the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Oldham had put his motion in such a form, as not to admit of those who wished to do justice to the poor hand-loom weavers, to give him their support. He would, therefore, advise the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his motion; and he hoped to see the question brought forward again in a manner that would not permit of its being put down.
The House divided: Ayes 11; Noes 73: Majority 62.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, W.

Hallyburton, Lord

Attwood, M.

Morris, David

Browne, R. D.

Wakley, T.

Cayley, E. S.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Fleetwood, P. H.

Tellers.

Freshfield, J.

Fielden, J.

Godson, R.

Hindley, C.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir Charles

Denison, W. J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Dennistoun, J.

Alsager, Captain

Dick, Q.

Anson, Col.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Baker, Edward

Eaton, R. J.

Baring, F. T.

Ellis, John

Barnard, Edward G.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Barrington, Viscount

Goddard, A.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Grey, Sir G.

Blair, James

Grimsditch, T.

Borthwick, Peter

Hastie, A.

Broadwood, Henry

Hayter, W. G,

Chalmers, P.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Copeland, W. T.

Hobhouse, T. B,

Courtenay, P.

Hollond, R.

Darby, George

Hope, G. W.

1418

Howard, P. H.

Style, Sir C.

Hume, J.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Kemble, Henry

Tancred, H. W.

Labouchere, H.

Thomson, C. P.

Lennox, Lord George

Tollemache, F. J.

Macleod, R.

Tracy, H. H.

Macnamara, Major

Troubridge, Sir T.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Tufnell, Henry

Paget, Fred.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Pechell, Captain R.

Vigors, N. A-

Perceval, G. J.

Warburton, H.

Philips, Mark

Whalley, Sir S.

Richards, Richard

While, A.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Wood, C.

Rose, Sir George

Wood, Sir M.

Round, John

Wyse, Thomas

Salwey, Col.

Yates, J. A.

Sibthorp, Col.

Young, G. F.

Smith, Robert V.

Tellers.

Stanley, E. J.

Parker, J.

Stewart, John

Steuart, R.

DUCHESS OF KENT'S ANNUITY.
Mr. P. Thomsonthe Order of the Day for the Committee on the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill was read.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the chair being put,
Colonel Sibthorpcomplained of the conduct of the hon. Secretary for the Treasury towards him as regarded the amendment which he had given notice of on this Bill, and said, that he believed it to be the intention of her Majesty's Government to throw it altogether over. On that ground, though he had been requested by the "smooth device" of the hon. Secretary to postpone his amendment, for the convenience of the Government, he should not do so, as they would not promise him a day for its discussion. They deserved not the slightest indulgence at his hands, and they should not have it. He would do his duty. If the public were satisfied, so would he be.
The House in Committee.
On Clause 1,
Colonel Sibthorpcame forward to propose his amendment. He said, that when the House of Commons was called on to grant a sum of 30,000 l. a-year to "her Royal Highness Maria Louisa Victoria, Duchess of Kent," he, as one of the guardians of the public purse, felt it to be his duty to express his opinion on the subject, and to inquire wherefore was that sum granted. It came down to that House as a recommendation from her Majesty, on the advice of her Majesty's servants in the Government; and no doubt her Majesty had been told by them that such a grant

1419
would be at once agreeable to the feelings of the people of this country and available from its pecuniary resources. And it was not in any spirit of disrespect to her Majesty's commands, or of irreverence towards her recommendation, that those observations which he should make on the subject matter of that grant were conceived, or his opposition to it offered. Who did this measure in reality come from? Ostensibly from her Majesty, but in reality from her responsible—he would rather term them dangerous—advisers—from those men who so loudly professed economy in their expenditure of the public money, and put forward reduction as their principle, but who, he was free to say, practised neither the one nor the other in the slightest degree during the period they—unfortunately, he should add—had held the reins of government. No one was more willing to admit the excellent qualities of the Duchess of Kent, and he had no doubt that she had fulfilled her maternal duties in the most exemplary manner, but he thought that she had, after all, done no more than she ought to do as a mother, and the country had a right to expect; and if she had not fulfilled those duties as she had done, the country would have had every right to censure her. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued that they were, by the proposed arrangement, only giving the Duchess of Kent 8,000 l. per annum additional; but he denied it, and asserted that, if they looked to former grants, they would find it would be an addition of 20,000 l. He contended that the grants for the education and virtual support of the Princess Victoria had virtually ceased and become lapsed by her accession to the Throne, and that the Duchess of Kent might now (as far as any reasons of State existed to the contrary) retire into private life; and he had no doubt that her Royal Highness herself entertained the wish. As to precedents, it should be remembered, that in the reign of George 3rd the members of the Royal Family, actually nearer to the Throne than the Duchess of Kent, wore allowed much smaller incomes. His six sons were only given 60,000 l. amongst them, and his five daughters 13,000 l. The former certainly had much greater establishments to support than the Duchess of Kent. The hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench had expatiated on the limited allowance hitherto enjoyed by her
1420
Royal Highness; and he certainly must admit, that if it was right to allow her 30,000 l. per annum now on account of her proximity to the Throne, it was mean and niggardly in them to restrict her to 22,000 l. hitherto. It was rumoured that there were certain debts incurred in the education of her Majesty still undischarged, to the payment of which this additional grant was to be devoted. If this were the case he could not help saying, that it would have been more straightforward to have brought forward that matter openly, and he would have been one of the first to have aided the re-payment. It was also asserted that there was a sort of private arrangement, that some workings were going forward in foreign lands as well as at home, where he could plainly see that hon. Gentlemen were acting upon a principle well understood in one part of her Majesty's empire, viz., "scratch me and I'll scratch you." The grant was evidently concocted and supported by those who were only anxious to secure power and place, and who, he trusted in heaven, would only hold them for a short time. It was a measure obviously prepared to please those by whose will and pleasure they continued to sit on the Treasury Bench. If they were going to grant this 30,000 l. he wanted to know where it would go, and to whom it would go? He should now move, "That it shall be lawful for her Majesty to give and grant, by letters patent under the Great Seal of Great Britain, to her Royal Highness Maria Louisa Victoria, Duchess of Kent, for the term of her natural life, for the adequate provision of her said Royal Highness, a certain annual payment or annuity of 22,000 l. of lawful moneys of Great Britain, in lieu of the proposed grant of 30,000 l.
Sir S. Whalleyfelt some reluctance to the grant, and would most probably have supported the gallant Colonel's proposition but for the line of argument by which he supported it. He assured the hon. Gentleman that he was no party to the scratching system of which he spoke, and was quite surprised that a man of his gallantry should insinuate such motives where a lady was in the case.
Colonel Sibthorpassured the hon. Member that he did not apply the axiom to the Royal Personage alluded to, but to those who scratched her Majesty's Ministers, in hopes of getting something in return.
Mr. Finchasserted that instead of merely granting an increase of 8,000 l., they were actually giving an increase of 14,000 l. Looking at the entire arrangement, and the circumstances under which the additional grant was proposed, he could not reconcile it with his duty to his constituents to accede to it. He must, therefore, give his vote to the gallant Colonel.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 67. Majority 48.

The AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Kemble, H.

Alsager, Capt.

Lowther, Visct.

Attwood, W.

Richards, It.

Attwood, M.

Round, John

Barrington, Visct.

Tollemache, F. J.

Broadwood, H.

Wakley, T.

Darby, George

Warburton, Henry

Dick, Quintin

Wyse, T.

Fielden, John

TELLERS.

Finch, F.

Sibthorp, Col.

Grimsditch, Thos.

Hume, J.

The NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Macnamara, Major

Baker, E.

Maule, W. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Mildmay, P. St. John

Berkeley, hon. H.

Morpeth, Visct.

Borthwick, Peter

Morris, D.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Chalmers, P.

Paget, Frederick

Courtenay, P.

Parker, J.

Denison, W. J.

Pechell, Capt.

Dennistoun, John

Rice, T. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rich, H.

Duff, James

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Dundas, Frederick

Russell, Lord John

Ebrington, Viscount

Smith, R. V.

Ellis, John

Steuart, R.

Fergusson, hon. C.

Stewart, John

Fitzalan, Lord

Stuart, Lord James

Goddard, A.

Style, Sir C.

Grey, Sir G.

Surrey, Earl of

Hallyburton, Lord

Talfourd, Sergeant

Hastie, Archibald

Tancred, H. W.

Hawes, B.

Thomson, C. P.

Hayter, William G.

Tracy, H. H.

Hindley, C.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Tufnell, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Holland, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Hope, George W.

Whalley, Sir S.

Howard, P. H.

White, A.

Howick, Visct.

Wood, C.

Labouchere, H.

Wood, Sir M.

Lennox, Lord G.

Young, G. F.

Lushington, C.

TELLERS.

Lynch, A. H.

Stanley, E. J.

Macleod, R.

Baring, F. T.

Clauses of the Bill were all read and agreed to. The House resumed.