HC Deb 05 July 1837 vol 38 cc1801-5

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, on moving the Order of the Day for the adjourned debate on the Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the case of the late Speaker and the Officers of the Houses of Parliament, who suffered by the fire of the former Houses of Parliament, and to report on the same, said that, on a former occasion, he had made that motion, to which he hoped the House would now give its general consent. The Committee he sought to have appointed with a view to ascertain the facts of the case of all those officers who now asked for compensation. He begged again to repeat, that by proposing this Committee, he did not wish to affirm the expediency or necessity of granting the compensation asked for, but merely with a view to be informed of the facts of which he was himself, and of which it was quite clear from what took place last night, hon. Members on both sides of the House were not at present in possession. With a view to that information merely, he had moved for the Committee.

Mr. Warburton

said, he felt bound to move, as an amendment, that the debate be further adjourned to that day month. It was impossible, that hon. Members at this period of the Session, and on the eve of a general election, could attend properly upon the Committee, whose inquiries would be most extensive. Hon. Members were now either occupied in their Own elections, or engaged in assisting the election of their Friends, and it would be impossible to do justice to the subject. An expiring Parliament was not remarkable for its wisdom, and as there was no hurry, inasmuch as no grant could be made this Session, he thought that this matter ought to be left to the decision of the new Parliament.

Mr. Shaw

supported the motion for the appointment of the Committee. The period of the Session ought not to be considered, for he was sure, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had stated on a former occasion, that the inquiry would not take more than a day. He thought, that the right hon. Gentleman was in some sort pledged to the course he had taken, and it would be most unreasonable not to follow it up.

Mr. Hume

put it to the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), whether the proceeding to this inquiry (even admitting it to be necessary) at this period of the Session, was not at variance with the course he had prescribed ten or twelve days ago, when the noble Lord stated that he would not go on with anything that the public service did not require. He was of opinion, that the country ought not to be called upon to compensate any individual for a loss which he himself might have covered by an insurance; and that principle had been recognised in the Dublin Custom-house Bill, and in the refusal of Government to assist the sufferers from the fire at Leith, with respect to whom the hon. Member for Greenock had a motion on the books; and these very claims had already been before the Treasury, and refused by the Secretary to that department. The matter had been allowed to lie dormant for two years and a-half, and it might well stand over for three months longer.

The Chancellor of Exchequer

had never heard any statement with more surprise than that made by the hon. Member for Middlesex. The hon. Member was entirely in error, for it was not his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury who had rejected the claim, but he himself. The inquiry could not occupy more than a few hours, as the facts would be found to lie in a very narrow compass. The only question with regard to the insurance was whether it would have been legally payable. He had his own opinion upon that point, but he would not express it on the present occasion. In proposing this Committee he did not think that he was in the slightest degree pledging himself to a money vote. It was his wish to have hon. Members on the Committee of all parties.

Sir Francis Pollock

had heard with surprise the objections started by the hon. Member for Middlesex to the appointment of this Committee, because the hon. Member had formerly recommended the very course now proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He rested the claim of the late Speaker on the fact, that the fire originated, not in any negligence of his own or of his servants, but on the negligence of the servants of the public, and at a distance from his residence. As to the question of insurance, he contended that the Speaker was not bound to insure against any such risk. If a merchant had insured his vessel against fire, and that vessel had been run down by some other, he might justly go to the party who had done him the injury and demand compensation of him, independent of any insurance he might have effected with the underwriter. He considered that there was a moral obligation on the House to meet this claim, and he should be ashamed if it were delayed for another Session.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if this Committee should report in favour of the claim, a vote of money would be granted this Session?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thought not. It would be an unusual course to adopt at this period of the Session, all the supplies having been voted. Whether it might be made the subject of one of the sessional addresses, he would not take upon himself to say without consulting higher authority.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell

would put another question on the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. If the money could not or would not be voted this Session, what possible advantage could arise from the appointment of this Committee, or what inconvenience could result from the postponement of the question to the next Session? The appointment of the Committee after the answer of the right hon. Gentleman would tend only to excite unpleasant suspicions. The question for consideration was the amount of loss sustained, and that could not be correctly ascertained without going into the question of insurance. The right hon. Gentleman had asked under what circumstances had this case been brought forward. He knew nothing of it until last evening, when observing a large muster of hon. Members, an unusual thing on a supply-night, he enquired the cause, and was told that it was in expectation that the claim of the late Speaker would be brought under consideration. That was the first time he had heard of it.

Lord John Russell

thought this was a case for a Committee rather than for a general discussion in the House. As a great many hon. Members on both sides of the House had spoken in favour of the claim, he thought it but right that an examination into the facts should take place. That being the case, few would deny, he presumed that it would be better that such inquiry should be made now than in a future Session. The subject would occupy but little time, there were only a few leading points to be considered. The hon. Member for Kerry had asked whether the grant would be made this Session if the Committee were to Report in favour of the claim, and his right hon. Friend had answered in the negative; indeed, if it were practicable, it would hardly be fair to those hon. Members who had left London to press for the grant immediately, at the same time, it would be most ungracious to Lord Canterbury to shut the door of inquiry into the facts on which the claim was grounded.

Mr. Aglionby

did not think this was the proper time for the appointment of such a Committee, and therefore, he should oppose the Motion. In his opinion the inquiry, instead of lasting only a few hours, would occupy many days. If the Committee were appointed, would it not be necessary to go into every fact connected with the case? For one, he should not be satisfied with a mere expression of opinion.

Mr. Jervis

said, if the question was only whether the fire originated in the House of Commons or in the Speaker's House, they might as well grant the money at once, for there was nothing to inquire into. Though they might all be agreed as to the propriety of appointing a Committee, he thought it ought not to be appointed at the present time.

Sir T. Fremantle

thought it was unreasonable in hon. Members so resist the appointment of the Committee, after the declaration by the right hon. Gentleman that he would not take advantage of any report that might be made by the Committee this Session.

Mr. T. H. Duncombe

said, his only objection to the appointment of a Committee was, that it was totally unnecessary. He, for one, was prepared to vote the money. The case had been fully made out, after a sufficient inquiry into all the facts of it, before the Privy Council. Why, then, delay any longer to do that which was only an act of right and justice to a meritorious servant of the public? He believed that any niggardly economy in making compensation for losses sustained by a calamity brought on by the servants of that House would be despised by the public at large.

Mr. Wallace

said, he had given notice of a Motion to obtain compensation for some parties who had suffered extensively by a fire at Leith, in which a large quantity of sugars was destroyed. The duty had been paid on those sugars, and the drawback had been refused; would the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer refer that case to the Committee along with the claim of the late Speaker.

The House divided on the question:—

"That the debate be further adjourned till that day month."—Ayes 23; Noes 68: Majority 45.

List of the AYES.
Blake, M. J. Jervis, J.
Bowring, Dr. Lennox, Lord G.
Bridgeman, H. Lushington, C.
Brocklehurst, J. Mosley, Sir O.
Brodie, W. B. O'Connell, M. J.
Chalmers, P. Philips, M.
Dennistoun, J. Rundle, J.
Edwards, J. Vigors, N. A.
Fergus, J. Whalley, Sir S.
Gillon, W. D. Young, G. F.
Hastie, A. TELLERS.
Hector, C. J. Warburton, H.
Hume, J. Aglionby, H. A.
List of the NOES.
Alsager, Capt. Chichester, J. P. B.
Alston, R. Colborn, N. W.
Bannerman, A. Cole, hn. A. H.
Barclay, C. Darlington, Earl of
Baring, T. Dillwyn, L. W.
Barnard, E. G. Duncombe, T.
Beckett, rt. hn. Sir J. Egerton, W. T.
Bernal, R. Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Borthwick, P. Estcourt, T.
Bowes, J. Etwall, R.
Buller, E. Fazakerley, J. N.
Chaplin, Col. Fector, J. M.
Ferguson, R. Nicholl, J.
Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C. Ord, W.
Freshfield, J. W. Palmerston, Lord
Gaskell, J. M. Patten, J. W.
Gladstone, W. E. Plumptre, J. P.
Goring, H. D. Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Grimston, hon. E. H. Richards, J.
Hogg, J. W. Rushbrook, Col.
Howard, P. H. Russell, Lord J.
Hutt, W. Sanford, E. A.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Lefevre, C. S. Sheppard, T.
Lefroy, A. Smith, R. V.
Lowther, hon. Col. Thompson, P. B.
Lowther, Lord Vere, Sir C. B.
Lowther, J. H. Wall, C. B.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Wallace, R.
Lynch, A. H. Ward, H. G.
Mackenzie, T. Winnington, H. S.
Mangles, J. Wrottesley, Sir J.
Manners, Lord C. S.
Methuen, P. TELLERS.
Morpeth, Visct. Pollock, Sir F.
Murray, rt. hn. J. A. Fremantle, Sir T,

Committee appointed.

On the next Motion the House was counted out.