Commons Sitting of 14 July 1837

Minutes.
Petition presented. By Sir W. MOLESWORTH, from Cambridge, for University Reform.—By Sir Robert INGLIS, from certain Clergymen, for the repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Act.

ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS— LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
The Order of the Day having been read for the consideration of the Lords' amendments to the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Bill,
Lord John Russellsaid, he could only

1909
repeat what he had stated yesterday, —namely, that he disagreed with the clause which had been inserted by the Lords, in regard to the provision of certain appointments for the chaplains of the House, simply on the ground that he thought a provision for the officers was a matter exclusively for the consideration of the Commons, and one with which the House of Lords had no right to interfere. The clause which had been inserted, took the matter entirely out of the hands of the Commons, and implied that the House had been guilty of injustice in not conferring some mark of favour on the three chaplains to which the clause had reference. That was an interference with the privileges of the House which he considered highly improper, and to which he would not submit. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford said, "Accept the clause, and leave the Crown to act upon it or not, as might be deemed proper;" but he did not think that was a fair mode of dealing with the question, and he preferred at once disagreeing with the amendment. With respect to the general question, whether the three rev. Gentlemen ought or ought not to have certain appointments conferred upon them, he should not at present discuss that point; but as the Bill was only suspensory for one year, he would, when the matter was again brought before the House, re-consider his opinion, and give their claims every attention in his power. He did not object to the clause, but only to its insertion by the Lords. The noble Lord concluded by moving, "That the House disagree with this amendment of the Lords."
Sir R. Inglisagreed with the amendment, as he thought the honour of the House, as well as the honour of the Crown, were pledged to what the noble Lord (John Russell) called a favour, but what he considered an act of justice. In 1832, an Address had been sent from that House to his late Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be pleased to confer on the three Rev. Gentlemen some preferments in the Church as a recompense for their services as chaplains of that House. To that Address, Lord Althorp had brought down a message from the Crown, stating that his Majesty would comply with the prayer of the Commons; but since that time no ecclesiastical appointment had been conferred on either of
1910
the rev. Gentlemen. These, then, were the grounds on which he would support the clause. The House had requested the Crown to confer on their chaplains appointments in the Church, the Crown had consented to comply with their solicitation, and further, he was sure that there was not one Member in the House at the time when that compliance was communicated, who would have considered himself justified in opposing any plan for compensating these officers of the House. The only point, however, was, whether the motion for compensation ought to have originated with that House or with the House of Lords? Now, in his opinion the insertion of the clause could not be considered as an improper interference or the part of the House of Lords; for their Lordships had only enabled her Majesty to do what the Commons had solicited and what the Crown had consented to perform; and he would not, therefore, on the authority of any one he saw opposite deem that the Lords had, in this matter interfered improperly with the privilege! of the Commons. It was no compromise of their dignity to do an act of justice and the present could only be considered as a matter of right, and not of favour.
Mr. Humewas surprised at the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, considering the manner in which he generally stood forward in defence of the privileges of the House. In his opinion, the House would do wrong to agree to the amendments of the Lords; but he allowed, that the rev. Gentlemen had a claim to some preferment, and he should be glad to see the House take the matter into its consideration.
Mr. Estcourtfully agreed with what had fallen from his hon. Colleague (Sir R. Inglis), as he considered the claim of the rev. Gentlemen upon the House and upon the Crown, to be of so strong a nature, as to amount almost to the force of a vested right. It should be remembered, that if the clause were rejected, the Crown would be prevented from doing what more than one House of Commons had requested to be done; and, under these circumstances, he should vote for the retention of the clause.
The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 11: Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Alston, R.

Attwood, T.

1911

Bannerman, A.

Lynch, A. H.

Barclay, D.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Bowes, J.

Ord, W.

Brotherton, J.

Pechell, Captain

Campbell, Sir J.

Philips, M.

Chalmers, P.

Roche, W.

Chetwynd, Captain

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Russell, Lord John

Dennistoun, J.

Scholefield, J.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Seymour, Lord

Ellice, right hon. E.

Smith, B.

Fergus, John

Stanley, E. J.

Harvey, D. W.

Strutt, E.

Hastie, A.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hawes, B.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Hawkins, J. H.

Thompson, Colonel

Hay, Sir And. Leith

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H.

Hoskins, K.

Wilks, J.

Howick, Viscount

Young, G. F.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Lambton, Hedworth

Wood, Charles

Lushington, C.

Labouchere, H.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Gladstone, W. E.

Bonham, R. F.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Borthwick, Peter

Patten, J. W,

Callaghan, D.

Williams, R.

Duncombe, T.

TELLERS.

Egerton, Sir P.

Inglis, Sir R.

Elley, Sir J.

Estcourt, T.

The other amendments of the Lords were agreed to.

RUSSIA.
Mr. T. Attwoodrose to put some questions to her Majesty's Government respecting the conduct of Russia towards this Government. He wished the noble Lord who was at the head of the Foreign Department had been present; but, as he was not, he trusted that the noble Home Secretary, or some other Member of her Majesty's Government, would answer his questions, which were: —1. Is it the final determination of her Majesty's Government to submit to the violations of the treaty of Vienna by Russia, in respect of Poland and of Cracow? 2. Is it their determination to allow Russia to receive Circassia as a gift from Turkey, under the treaty of Adrianople, Russia having previously contracted with England to receive "no separate advantage" from Turkey, in the war which terminated in that treaty? 3. Is it their determination to allow Russia to hold possession of the Delta of the Danube, in defiance of the above contract with England? Supposing the above contract on the part of Russia to be waived, is it their determination to allow Russia to receive a gift from Turkey, which Turkey had no
1912
right to give, Turkey never having possessed acknowledged dominion over Circassia? [Laughter.] He could not see what it was that hon. Gentlemen were laughing at. The fifth question was, "Is it their determination to allow Russia to conquer, or possibly exterminate, the Circassians, and thus to get possession of a country which would give her unlimited influence and ultimate dominion over Turkey and Persia, and all the countries of the east? Is it their final determination to submit to the gross and insufferable arrogance of Russia in the affair of the Vixen? Is it their final determination to submit to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, which in case of war between England and Russia, closes the Dardanelles at the mandate of Russia, and thus, on the one hand, prevents England from attacking Russia on her weak point; and, on the other, delivers up the allies and friends of England, an unresisting prey, to consolidate and increase the power of the barbarians of the north?" [Laughter.] There was nothing in the question to be laughed at. The eighth question was, "Is it true that the Russians have now upwards of twenty line of battle ships nearly ready for sea at Cronstadt, within a fortnight's sail of the mouth of the Thames? Is it true that England cannot now produce, within a fortnight, twenty line of battle ships ready for sea at the mouth of the Thames?" He should not trouble the House with many remarks. [Cries of "Put your questions."] He wished to say only a few words.
The Speakersaid, he had already told the hon. Member what was the rule of the House, and it was now entirely with the House to decide whether they would hear the hon. Member or not.
Mr. T. Attwoodthought the House, by their smiles and their cheers, had given him their gentle permission to go on. If the noble Lord wished to pass through the country with flying colours, let him give a full and explicit answer to all these questions. Let the House be told what was to be done with Russia.
Lord J. Russellreally thought that these were questions, if asked at all, might have been asked at an earlier period of the Session. One of them, that relating to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, might have been asked two or three years ago. Upon particular points or questions relating to the general policy of the country,

1913
the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was always ready to give an explanation; but he did not think it possible to answer these questions then in a regular form, because they were questions not relating to facts merely, but leading to arguments. His noble Friend, the Foreign Secretary, would be in his place to-morrow, to answer any questions that might be put.
Mr. T. Attwoodhoped the Secretary to the Admiralty would answer the question respecting the Russian fleet in the Baltic.
Mr. C. Woodsaid, he believed that Russia had a considerable force in the Baltic, and, generally speaking, they were ready to be put to sea. It was not usual to answer questions as to the disposition of the naval force of this country; but this he would say, that whenever and by whatever power this country might be attacked, there was always a sufficient force in England to resist the attack where so ever and when so ever that attack might be made.
Subject dropped.