Commons Sitting of 15 June 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord W. BENTINCK, from Glasgow, against Prisons Scotland Bill; and for Steam Communication with India.—By Colonel VERNER, from Armagh, for an inquiry into the system of education pursued at Maynooth.—By Captain M. BERKLEY, from Gloucester, for amendment of the Libel Law.—By Sir R. DONKIN, from Berwick upon Tweed, against Boundaries of Boroughs Bill.—By Mr. HUME, from Glasgow, Dundee, and other places, for an extension of the Suffrage; and for the abolition of the property qualification for Members of Parliament; and from Marylebone, that they might not be obliged to pay their rates so close as hitherto.—By Sir SAMUEL WHATLEY, from St. Pancras, for the Ministerial plan for the abolition of Church-rates. By Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR, from places in Scotland, for a due Observance of the Lord's-Day.

ORANGE LODGE COMMITTEE.
Sir R. Batesonpresented a petition on the subject of the motion which he brought forward yesterday, that leave be given to the clerk of the Orange Lodge Committee (1835) to attend and give evidence in the Court of King's Bench, Ireland, in the case of Gore Jones v. Hunter and others. He begged hon. Members to recollect that the trial to which the petition referred was to come on in the Court of King's Bench in Dublin on Monday next, and that it could not be postponed. The defendant, he was informed, did not possess the power of putting off a trial
The Speakersaid he had very little more to observe with respect to the present motion, except to repeat what he had said before. It was now for the House to decide whether they would proceed further in this matter or not. It was for them, then, to decide whether or not they would afford increased facilities to the proceedings of Courts of Justice. In all cases where Members consulted him he uniformly gave his advice in favour of their not refusing their aid to the administration of the law. As Members of that House he thought they were bound to give every facility in their power. With respect to the motion then before them, he had only to recommend the House now to determine whether or not they would enforce the strict rule.
Viscount Morpethsaid, he had not the least objection to the motion, and thought that the sooner the House gave its permission the better.
Sir R. Batesonreplied, that after what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite, he should not say another word, further than to observe, that in bringing forward the proposition he had not been actuated by any party motives but by a sense of justice alone. The hon. Baronet made a motion in accordance with the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Humeopposed the motion, considering that no sufficient reason had been shown to induce the House to comply with the prayer of the petition. He thought that they ought not to encourage legal proceedings against persons who might give evidence to that House; the position in which such persons stood was most peculiar, and due regard ought to be had to the circumstances; he therefore objected to the motion.
Mr. O'Connelldiffered from his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex for he thought that the House ought to give facilities to parties who desired to supply evidence on matters of fact, and he requested hon. Members to recollect that in this case the evidence was required for the defence. He was clear in the opinion that the House did possess the privilege of printing and publishing evidence given before it; but, notwithstanding that undoubted right, he was equally clear in the opinion that the present was not a case in which the required permission ought to be refused. Surely if any person had stated that which was false an opportunity should not he denied of contradicting that falsehood.
Mr. Roebuckobserved that the hon. and learned gentleman opposite had said that the libellous character depended on the occasion. He thought that nothing ought to be brought against a man which he said under the protection of the house. One man might say to another, "You said something against me." The other replies, "True, but it was said under compulsion." The House, which exercised the power of compulsion, ought to protect those who gave evidence before it on matters in which the nation had a great interest.
Motion agreed to.

ADMISSION OF LADIES.
Mr. Grantley Berkeleyconsidered it his duty to press this question not only on account of its merits, but also because resolutions in favour of it had been formerly come to and reported to that House, and he did not think these should be set aside by evasion and delay. He called on the House to assert its just prerogative, and carry these resolutions into effect; for if they did not they would afford a precedent for setting aside other resolutions of more grave consideration. The subject was so well understood that he need not enter further into it. One circumstance in this case certainly appeared rather odd, and that
1482
was, that numbers who formerly opposed it had now so widely changed, that while he would have been satisfied with a grant of 280 l., they were disposed to grant 400 l., for what purpose he could not see, unless to create enemies to the measure. He thought, however, no one would object to set apart a portion of the gallery for the ladies. As to the presence of ladies being objectionable, he would ask, when they had a bouquet of flowers in their chamber, did they not find the air sweeter? He would move an "address to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to give directions for the immediate carrying into effect the recommendation of the Select Committee appointed in 1835, relating to the best means of setting apart a portion of the strangers' gallery for the admittance of ladies, both in the present and the new Houses of Parliament."
Captain Chetwyndthought the measure reflected great credit on the gallant mover, and he had no doubt it would be carried by a large majority. A Committee had been appointed who reported in favour of the ladies, and their recommendation when proposed to the House, was rejected by the smallest majority. On a later occasion the House agreed to the resolution proposed by his gallant Friend. He trusted that resolution would be adhered to by a reformed Parliament. It was urged against the measure, that ladies had no desire whatever to attend; but could that be said with truth, when, in the old House, they condescended to sit down in a place called the lantern—a treatment quite disgraceful on the part of the House; and if the ladies were ready to sacrifice their comfort to gratify their curiosity by viewing the proceedings of the House secretly, how much more gratifying to them would it be to be allowed to do so openly: another objection was, that the presence of the ladies would lengthen the debate, and induce Members to enlarge on subjects, and cause consirable delay. But he thought hon. Members would be less likely to talk nonsense in the presence of ladies, and secondly, he was convinced that those personal and severe animadversions which he regretted so frequently took place in that House would be considerably abated, if not altogether avoided. Their admission, therefore, would tend to facilitate rather than retard the business of the House,

1483
Ladies were admissible into the other House of Parliament, whose rights and privileges he should be always ready to advocate and support; but if their Lordships should lay claim to a greater degree of gallantry than that House, he should feel very jealous of them. With these views he begged leave to second the motion of his gallant Friend.
The House divided:—Ayes 92;—Noes 116: Majority 24.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lefroy, Anthony

Bagshaw, J.

Lennox, Lord George

Ball, N.

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Baring, F. T.

Maher, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Miller, W. H.

Barron, H. W.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Nagle, Sir R.

Berkeley, hon. C.

O'Connell, D.

Bernal, R.

O'Connell, J.

Bewes, T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bish, T.

O'Connor, Don

Blake, M. J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Boldero, H. G.

Parrott, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Brady, D. C.

Pechell, Captain

Bridgman, H.

Polhill, Captain F.

Brodie, W. B.

Poulter, J. S.

Brotherton, J.

Power, J.

Buller, C.

Richards, R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Robinson, G. R.

Chapman, L.

Roche, W.

Chichester, A.

Roebuck, J. A.

Clayton, Sir W.

Ruthven, E.

Cowper, hon. F.

Seale, Col.

Crawford, W. S.

Sheil, R. L.

Darlington, Earl of

Sibthorp, Colonel

Dick, Q.

Smith, B.

Divett, E.

Strickland, Sir Geo.

Dundas, J. D.

Talbot, J. H.

Eaton, R. J.

Thomas, Colonel

Etwall, Ralph

Thompson, Colonel

Fenton, J.

Tulk, C. A.

Fergusson, R. C.

Twiss, H.

Freshfield, J. W.

Vigors, N. A.

Gaskell, Daniel

Villiers, C. P.

Gaskell, James Milnes

Wakley, T.

Goring, H. D.

Ward, H. G.

Grattan, H.

Wason, R.

Grote, G.

Westenra, H. R.

Guest, J. J.

Whalley, Sir S.

Hawkes, T.

Whitmore, T. C.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W. A.

Hogg, J. W.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Humphery, John

Berkeley, G.

Jervis, John

Chetwynd, Captain

List of the NOES.

Angerstein, J.

Bailey, J.

Arbuthnott, H.

Barclay, C.

1484

Bentinck, Lord W.

Mackenzie, T.

Blunt, Sir C.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Borthwick, Peter

Mactaggart, J.

Branston, T. W.

Mangles, J.

Brownrigg, S.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Marsland, T.

Burrell, Sir C.

Maule, hon. F.

Chaplin, Colonel

Maunsell, T. P.

Chapman, A.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Chisholm, A. W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Clive, Edward Bolton

Mosley, Sir O.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Packe, C. W.

Cole, Viscount

Parker, M.

Collins, W.

Patten, J. W.

Conolly, E. M.

Pattison, J.

Corbett, T. G.

Philips, G. R.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Ponsonby, J.

Crawley, S.

Pusey, P.

Crewe, Sir G.

Rooper, J. B.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Ross, Charles

Dugdale, W. S.

Rushout, G.

Dundas, hon. T.

Russell, C.

Ebrington, Viscount

Russell, Lord John

Ellice, E.

Ryle, J.

Elphinstone, H.

Sanford, E. A.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Scott, J. W.

Fergus, J.

Seymour, Lord

Ferguson, Sir R.

Sharpe, General

Ferguson, R.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Sheppard, T.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Sinclair, Sir George

Folkes, Sir W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Forster, C. S.

Stanley, Lord

Fremantle, Sir T.

Stanley, W. O.

Goulburn, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Stuart, V.

Graham, Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Grey, hon. Col.

Thomson, C. P.

Hamilton, Geo. A.

Tooke, W.

Harcourt, G. S.

Trevor, hon. A.

Heathcote, G. J.

Verney, Sir H.

Herries, hon. J.

Vivian, J. E.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Walker, Richard

Hodges, T. L.

Wallace, R.

Hope, J.

Warburton, H.

Houstoun, G.

Wemyss, Captain

Howard, P. H.

West, J. B.

James, W.

Weyland, Major

Johnstone, Sir J.

Wilbraham, E.

Irton, Samuel

Williams, R.

King, E. B.

Williams, Sir J.

Knight, H. G.

Wodehouse, E.

Labouchere, H.

Young, G. F.

Lemon, Sir C.

Young, J.

Longfield, R.

Lowther, J. H.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Loch, J

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Stanley, E. J.

LETTER CARRIERS.
Captain Polhillrose to move, that the petition of the Two-penny post carriers, which he had presented on the 14th of April, be referred to a Select Committee. The nature of that petition was already known to hon. Members, whose support as well as that of the Go-

1485
vernment he hoped it would have. The petitioners were a body of men who underwent very great hardships, for which they were badly remunerated. During the severe weather of last winter, for instance, they had not only performed their own but a considerable portion of the general postman's duty, for which extra labour they had not received any compensation. Now, he was of opinion that they should be paid a higher salary than the general postmen, and that their numbers should be increased. They were obliged to work twelve hours a-day during six days of the week, for which they were paid but 20 s., without being able to enjoy their meals at home. Then with regard to superannuation, they had nothing to look to in their old age, after having been worn out in the public service, but the retiring pittance of 9s. a-week,—a sum he conceived to be quite insufficient. Under these circumstances he hoped the Government would take the subject into consideration.
Lord Seymouropposed the motion, and observed, that comparing the pay of the twopenny-post carriers with that of many other classes of persons in the same sphere of life, it was quite sufficient. They had this advantage besides, which many others did not enjoy—that during illness, they were paid 11 s. a-week, and for extra duty 4s.
Mr. F. Baringthought, that that House ought not to encourage applications for an increase of salary from parties who had their own office to go to in the first instance. If they found that their complaints were not attended to by the Postmaster-General, then they might be justified in appealing to that House. The salary paid to the twopenny letter-carriers in the year 1800 was much lower than it was at present. In 1812, it was raised to its present amount, a period, it should be recollected, at which the price of labour and provisions was much higher than it was now.
The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 35: Majority 16.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lowther, J. H.

Bonham, R. F.

O'Connell, D.

Crawford, W. S.

Perceval, Col.

D'Eyncourt, C. T.

Scholefield, J.

Duncombe, T.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Forbes, William

Trevor, hon. A.

Gaskell, James Milnes

Vigors, N. A.

Hamilton, G. A.

Wakley, T,

1486

Wallace, R.

TELLERS.

West, J. B.

Polhill, Capt.

Williams, W.

Sibthorp, Col.

List of the NOES.

Baines, E.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Baring, F. T.

Parrott, J.

Barnard. E. G.

Philips, G. R.

Bewes, T.

Plumptre, John P.

Blake, M. J.

Rice, T. S.

Bowring, Dr.

Richards, R.

Brodie, W. B.

Roebuck, J. A.

Brotherton, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Callaghan, D.

Stanley, E. J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Stuart, V.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Thompson, Colonel

Fergusson, R. C.

Thornley, T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Verney, Sir H.

Hindley, C.

Vivian, J. E.

Howard, P. H.

Walker, R.

Humphery, J.

Warburton, H.

Knight, H. G.

TELLERS.

Mosley, Sir O.

Seymour, Lord

O'Brien, C.

Parker, J.

HANWELL LUNATIC ASYLUM.
Mr. Gaily Knightrose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Asylum for Lunatic Paupers at Han-well. If it could be shown that sufficient attention was not paid to the management of the lunatic paupers at that establishment, it was the duty of the House to institute an inquiry into the circumstances of the case. It appeared by the returns, that a much smaller number of the persons received at the Hanwell Asylum were cured than at any other similar establishment in the kingdom. Indeed, the difference was frightful, and demanded investigation. And even the returns of the numbers cured at Hanwell were fallacious. In the Report made by the medical superintendent to the magistrates, it was stated, that out of 1,290 patients admitted, 260 were discharged cured; hut it afterwards appeared, that of those 260, a number had been discharged as cured over and over again; and that, at the very moment when the Report was made, twenty-seven of them were, uncured, within the walls of the asylum. The deaths, also, were more numerous than in similar establishments; in fact, there were only half the number of cases, while there were twice the number of deaths at Hanwell than at any other establishment of a similar kind in the kingdom. The expenditure had also been lavish. From the beginning, the greatest improvidence had been manifested. The building had cost 224,000 l.; and great improvidence had been shown in the manner in which

1487
the funds had been raised for the erection and the subsequent increase of the institution. Under all the circumstances, he considered it to be exceedingly desirable that some Parliamentary inquiry should take place; and he moved, therefore, for the appointment of a Select Committee for that purpose.
Sir G. Stricklandseconded the motion. At the same time, he hoped that the result of the proposed inquiry might be more favourable than was to be inferred from the statements which had been made by the hon. Mover. One reason for his entertaining this expectation, was the very high character which he had heard in all quarters of Dr. Ellis. He was very unwilling to believe, unless inquiry should show it to be so, that that character was not well founded.
Mr. C. Barclaythought it highly desirable that an inquiry should be instituted not only into the asylum in question, but into that of all institutions of a similar description in the kingdom. Although quite unconnected with the county, he had paid a visit to the Hanwell Asylum, and he thought it would appear that, at least, some of the statements which had been made with respect to it were exaggerated. The comparatively small number of cases was mainly attributable to the circumstance that a great number of incurable cases were sent to the institution. Out of 600 cases he understood that 500 were incurable. It appeared to him that the establishment was well conducted. He had gone round the apartments; and the House would, perhaps, be surprised to hear, that out of 600 inmates 400 were employed in their various trades as shoemakers, carpenters, &c. He was sure, that a Committee would meet the wishes of the country at large, and of the county of Middlesex in particular.
Mr. Wakleyknew nothing personally of the Hanwell Asylum; but he had heard, from all quarters, that it was conducted in a more scientific manner than any other institution of a similar kind in the kingdom. The motion of the hon. Gentleman was expressed in a very loose manner. "A Select Committee to inquire into the asylum for lunatic paupers at Hanwell." Into what? Into the financial or the medical management of the asylum? If into the latter, why not extend the inquiry to other institutions of the same description, that the treatment of that which appeared to be the most successful might be
1488
generally adopted? It was too late to enter upon so extensive an inquiry in the present Session, as it was next to impossible that a satisfactory result could be obtained; but he wished the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his motion, and bring it forward in that enlarged shape at the commencement of the next Session.
Colonel Woodregretted the absence of the two Members for the county of Middlesex. He did not often agree with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but he agreed in every word that had fallen from him on the present occasion. If the inquiry were limited to the Hanwell institution, it would be filing a bill against the managers of it. The inquiry, if entered into at all, should be into the condition of all the institutions of a similar kind in the kingdom. The quarter from which the proposition proceeded was an odd one. It proceeded from the vestry of the parish of St. George, Hanover-square. Now, it was the treatment of the pauper lunatics belonging to that parish which had led to the building of the asylum at Hanwell. Two pauper lunatics who had been sent to a private asylum by that vestry, appeared before the gentlemen composing it, and proposed, if they were assured that they should not be sent back to the same asylum, to prove how they had been treated. He would not state the name of the asylum to which he alluded, but it appeared that these pauper lunatics had been chained down in it, almost in a state of nudity, from Saturday to Monday, with scarcely any attention during the whole of that period. On inquiry, it appeared that there was a ward in that asylum of which the physician knew nothing. So shocked was the vestry at the disclosure of these circumstances, that their first impression was to remove all the pauper lunatics of the parish from the asylum in question; but the other private asylums were so crowded that it was found impracticable to obtain the necessary accommodation. This led to an inquiry into the number of pauper lunatics in Middlesex, and he was sorry to say, it appeared, that there were 1,100. A bill for the erection of county asylums for pauper lunatics was introduced by the hon. Member for Cricklade; and the consequence was, that the magistrates of Middlesex built the asylum at Hanwell. In the first instance, it was calculated for only 300 patients; but it was afterwards enlarged

1489
to contain 600. In the county of Middlesex, however, there were at present between 900 and 1,000 pauper lunatics. He was quite sure, that if his hon. Friend had visited the Hanwell Asylum, and had compared the management of it with the management of other institutions of a similar kind, he would not have made his present motion. If the active and excellent magistrates, such as Colonel Clitherow and others, who exerted themselves greatly in superintending the Hanwell Asylum, were thus to be dragged before a Committee above stairs, and overhauled, it would deter every body from engaging in such useful labours. He believed that lunacy was a malady from which as many persons could be recovered as from any other malady; but then it could be only by proper treatment; and they could not experience so much attentive and careful treatment in any private asylum as at Hanwell. He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would withdraw his motion, and remodel it for an early period of the next Session.
Lord John Russellsaid, he must confess that the reasons which had been alleged; in favour of the appointment of this Select Committee, when taken and compared with the answers which had been given with respect to this asylum, did not afford sufficient ground for this motion. The hon. Gentleman had not adduced any facts of gross mismanagement or of inferior treatment in the establishment at Hanwell. He thought it would not be desirable to limit the inquiry into this particular asylum. The law which had been passed allowing these lunatic asylums to be built in various parts of the country had hitherto worked most beneficially. The want of these houses originally had led to a state of things which he might term most disgraceful to the country. Now, the Act of George 4th, and the inquiries of the Commissioners of Poor-law might very possibly form the foundation of some further proceedings on this question; but he did not think, that under existing circumstances, there was anything to call on the House to appoint a Select Committee in this case; and, therefore, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would not insist on this inquiry.
Motion negatived.

COMMISSIONS.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, the increase of Commissions appointed by his Majesty's Government had gone on to an alarming length, and the expense to the
1490
country had increased in a corresponding ratio; and yet, from what he learned, it was the noble Lord's intention to continue it. By a return which he had moved for in the year 1836, it appeared, that the expenses of these Commissions amounted to no less a sum than 553,556 l. 2s. This was the amount of the original return. Since then another return had been made by which it appeared that ten Commissions had been added to the former number; that upon the whole there were forty-nine Commissions at present in existence; and that altogether, there were 367 paid Commissioners, clerks, &c. The cost of one Commission which was still going on was very great. They had the Ecclesiastical commission, the Irish poor commission, the Poor-law Commission—the expense of these amounted to 38,46l l. The whole expense of these Commissions amounted to 561,333 l. is. 8d. The Record Commission, which had cost the country half a million, had left the Records in a worse state than they were before. It was the duty of the Government, who proposed (but who did not practise) economy, to make this inquiry. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the present state of the various public commissions, with a view of considering how far it may be expedient and practicable to make an alteration in the number, and consequently diminution in the enormous expenses of the same.
Mr. Francis Baringopposed the motion. A Committee of Inquiry must be quite unnecessary, all the facts connected with the existing Commissions being already before the House. The hon. and gallant Member had not brought any direct charge against any particular Commission, but had confined himself to a general complaint against all, and had said a good deal about jobs, yet the only job to which he particularly referred was that of the Record Commission, which, if it were a job at all, was a job that had existed ever since the days of Mr. Pitt; the Record Commission having been appointed by that famous statesman.
The House divided.
Ayes 20; Noes 74; Majority 54.

List of the AYES.

Archdall, M.

Fielden, J.

Blackstone, W.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Bonham, R. Francis

Halse, James

Chichester, A.

Harcourt, G. S.

Eaton, R. J.

Longfield, R.

1491

Mackinnon, W. A.

Trevor, hon. A.

Maunsell, T. P.

Walter, J.

Palmer, R.

West, J. B.

Perceval, Col.

Polhill, F.

TELLERS.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Sibthorp, Col.

Smyth, Sir H.

Forbes, C.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Murray, J. A.

Attwood, T.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Baines, E.

O'Brien, C.

Baring, F. T.

O'Brien, W. S.

Baring, W. B.

O'Connell, D.

Bernal, R.

O'Connell, M.

Bewes, T.

Parker, J.

Boldero, H. O.

Parnell, Sir H.

Bowring, Dr.

Parrot, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

Brodie, W. B.

Pendarves, E. W.

Brotherton, J.

Pusey, P.

Buller, E.

Roche, W.

Chalmers, P.

Roebuck, J.

Chapman, L.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Collins, W.

Rundle, J.

Divett, E.

Russell, Lord J.

Fergus, J.

Sandon, Viscount

Folkes, Sir W.

Scholefield, J.

Gully, J.

Stanley, W, O.

Hastie, A.

Stuart, V.

Hawes, B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Thompson, Colonel

Howard, R.

Thornley, T.

Howard, P. H.

Verney, Sir H.

Humphery, J.

Villiers, C. P.

James, W.

Walker, R.

Ingham, R.

Wason, R.

King, E. B.

Whalley, Sir S.

Lennard, T. B.

Williams, W. A.

Lennox, Lord G.

Wood, Alderman

Lister, E. C.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Lushington, C.

Wrightson, W. B.

Lynch, A. H.

Wyse, T.

Macleod, R.

Young, G. F.

Mangles, J.

Melgund, Viscount

TELLERS.

Morpeth, Viscount

Maule, hon. F.

Mosley, Sir O.

Steuart, R.

PUBLIC REVENUES AND ACCOUNTS.
Dr. Bowring Dr. Bowring moved, in pursuance of notice the following resolution:—"That for the proper security of the public revenue, and for the purpose of giving to Parliament that authority and control which it ought to exercise, it is necessary that the gross receipts of all the departments of the revenue should be paid into the Exchequer, and that no department should be allowed to detain or appropriate any portion of the amount without a previous Parliamentary sanction." The hon. Member read a second resolution, founded on the one we have just reported, but it was not put from the chair.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had a perfect right to bring forward his views upon this subject, the great importance of which could not be denied. But having done so, he (Lord John Russell) hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied, and not press the matter further, so as to lead to a general discussion and impede the other business before the House.
Dr. Bowringwas anxious to record his opinions upon the subject, which he conceived to be one of great public importance.
Question negatived.

FOURDRINIER'S PATENT.
Sir O Mosleyrose to move that the Select Committee to whom had been referred Messrs. Fourdrinier's petition on the subject of the renewal of his patent for the making of paper should be revived. He could have wished that it had been in his power to have entered upon the subject at large, because he was very confident that he could have made out the very strongest case in support of the claim for compensation on the part of the inventor of the machine by which the improved manufacture was effected. But in consequence of a private communication which he had from Mr. Speaker, it appeared that in that right hon. Gentleman's opinion the Committee had exceeded the power which was originally confided to them, inasmuch as they had used a certain word in their report which they were not empowered to use. He begged however to state in justice to the Committee, that had inadvertently fallen into the error pointed out by the Speaker. The reference made to the Committee was to consider how far the petitioner's case was borne out in evidence, the prayer of the petition being that the period of the patent should be extended to him. When, however, the question came under the consideration of the Committee, they found that the public had been so long in possession of this valuable invention, that it would be impracticable to accede to the prayer of the petitioners; and they, therefore, thought that it was only an act of justice towards them to recommend that some public compensation should be made to them for the benefit which the public had derived from their invention. In doing this, the Committee certainly exceeded the power which was implied in the question referred to them. Having made this short statement, he thought it would be better to confine him-

1493
self to the motion which he was about to make, which was, that the House should be pleased to revive that Committee, when the objectionable words would be struck out of the report, and the proper terms introduced, in order that the subject might be brought forward for debate in this House. The hon. Baronet moved accordingly.
Mr. Mackinnonas Chairman of the Committee in question had the honour of drawing up the report which was considered informal, and which was afterwards corrected by his hon. Friend who had just spoken. The particular word objected to, namely, "compensation," was inserted in the report by himself. It was impossible for him now to state to the House what were his reasons for making that report. He considered that it was advisable for him to abstain from doing so for the moment, and reserve any observations which he had to make till the Committee should have sat again, and altered the word "compensation" to that of "consideration." He could not, however, help thinking that the mere insertion of the word "compensation," instead of "consideration," in the report, hardly called for the revival of the Committee; but as it appeared to be the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman in the chair that such a word as "compensation" could not be tolerated, he was ready to submit and defer to that opinion. He wished it to be understood, however, that there was nothing in the whole of the report which was not unanimously acceded to by the Committee, and that at the time of preparing that report he was wholly unaware that it was informal to use the word "compensation" instead of "consideration."
The Speakerobserved that the present question was a very material one, so far as regarded the regularity of the proceedings of the House. A petition had been presented by Messrs. Fourdrinier for compensation. It was held by the House that no such petition could be received without the King's consent, and that consent having been refused, the petition was withdrawn. A second petition was then presented by the same parties, praying for an extension of the patent. A Committee was appointed for the purpose of considering the prayer of that petition. That Committee made a report, in which they had not confined themselves to the prayer of the petition, but had gone into the consideration of compensation to the petitioners. That was a report which the House could not receive. The course of proceeding then, was that which had been suggested by the hon.
1494
baronet; namely, that the Committee should be revived, in order that they might make a report in conformity with the petition referred to them.
Sir G. Clerkregretted that any difficulties in point of form should impede the bestowal of a public reward on persons who were so eminently entitled to it. Some few years ago Mr. Merton, the inventor of a machine for drawing up vessels on a slip, received a considerable sum from Government, in consequence of the favourable Report of a Committee, though this was made without the previous consent of the Crown, his case being, that up to within a year of the expiration of his patent his invention had not attracted public attention, and had consequently been of no benefit to him. The Committee reported against an extension of his patent, but in favour of a pecuniary testimony and this recommendation was acted upon.
Committee revived.

RATING OF TENEMENTS.
Sir H. Verney Sir H. Verney moved for leave to bring in a Bill for rating the owners and not the occupants of tenements under a certain annual value. Such a measure would be a great boon to the poor. The 59th George 3rd, enabled vestries to impose rates on small tenements, but the object of the present Bill was to enable the boards of guardians to rate tenements of from 6l. to 20 l. annual value to the owner, and not the occupier. The Bill did not interfere with the Parliamentary or Municipal franchise of the parties, but only with their parochial franchise.
Mr. Prymemust object to the Bill. He did not see how the measure could benefit the poor occupants, for if the owner had to pay the rates he would add them to the rent.
Sir G. Stricklandcould never approve of a principle which took away from these classes directly interested in the Poor-rates all share in their administration.
Mr. Sanfordsupported the Bill, though he had some doubts as to giving this new power to the boards of guardians. He would give his support to the introduction of the Bill, but its details would be matter for future consideration.
Mr. Wasonsaw no chance of passing the Bill this Session, so that it was a mere waste of time to proceed with it. Independently of this, however, he objected to the principle of the Bill, as they had already had experience of the evil working of a similar measure.
Mr. Bainessaw considerable difficulties in the way of the passing of this Bill. Suppose, for instance, a tenant refused to pay

1495
his rent, was the landlord, who was thus deprived of his rent, to be compelled to pay the rates of his tenant? He thought that this would be extremely unjust. He thought, at all events, that there was no use in occupying the attention of Parliament with this measure at this period of the Session.
Mr. Wakleythought, that his Majesty's Ministers ought not to enjoy a monopoly of the introduction of Bills. It was the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to support any Bills that were calculated to benefit the people. He thought that this Bill would affect parochial franchise in the election of guardians of the poor to a great degree; and he therefore hoped that if the Bill were allowed to be introduced, the House would take care to protect the franchise of those tenants who must inevitably pay the rate, although the landlord might be nominally assessed for it.
Mr. Aglionbysaw no chance of getting the Bill passed this Session, and therefore, although he approved of its principle, he would recommend his hon. Friend to withdraw it.
Mr. R. Palmerbegged to add his recommendation to the many that had already been expressed that the hon. Baronet would allow himself to be persuaded to withdraw his Bill.
Sir H. Verneywas unwilling to withdraw his Bill without having it printed, and he should, therefore, persist in dividing the House upon his motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 73; Noes 45: Majority 28.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Angerstein, J.

Howick, Viscount

Balfour, T.

Ingham, R.

Bannerman, A.

Lawson, A.

Baring, F. T.

Lee, J. L.

Boldero, H. G.

Lefevre, C. S.

Bowes, J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

Lennox, Lord G.

Burrell, Sir C.

Lister, E. C.

Chalmers, P.

Lowther, J. H.

Cole, Viscount

Mackinnon, W.

Cripps, J.

Macleod, R.

Dundas, hon. T.

Maxwell, J.

Dundas, J.

Melgund, Viscount

Estcourt, T.

Miles, W.

Forster, C. S.

Milton, Viscount

Freshfield, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Grey, hon. Colonel

Mosley, Sir O.

Handley, H.

Murray, J. A.

Hardinge, Sir H.

Neeld, J.

Hawes, B.

Nicholl, J.

Heneage, E.

Parker, J.

Bindley, C.

Parry, Sir L. P. J.

1496

Pendarves, E. W.

Tooke, W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Wakley, T.

Pusey, P.

Wallace, R.

Rice, T. S.

Ward, H. G.

Rickford, W.

West, J. B.

Rolfe, Sir R. M;

Williams, W.

Ross, C.

Wilson, H.

Rundle, J.

Winnington, H.

Russell, Lord C.

Worsley, Lord

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Sheppard, T.

Young, G. F.

Stanley, E. J.

Stanley, W. O.

TELLERS.

Strutt, E.

Verney, Sir H,

Thompson, Alderman

Sanford, E. A.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

James, W.

Ainsworth, P.

King, E. B.

Baines, E.

Mackenzie, T.

Bewes, T.

Maunsell, T. P.

Blackburne, I.

Palmer, R.

Blake, M. J.

Palmer, G.

Borthwick, P.

Patten, J. W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Perceval, Colonel

Brodie, W. B.

Ponsonby, J.

Clerk, Sir. G.

Russell, C.

Collins, W.

Scarlett, hon. R.

East, J. B.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Estcourt, T.

Thomas, Colonel

Follett, Sir W.

Thompson, Colonel

Forbes, W.

Thornley, T.

Gaskell, D.

Trelawny, Sir W.

Goulburn, H.

Trevor, hon. A.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Wason, R.

Gully, J.

Wilbraham, B.

Hawkes, T.

Williams, W. A.

Hector, C. J.

Wood, Colonel

Hogg, J. W.

TELLERS.

Howard, R.

Pryme

Howard, P. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

FOREIGN OFFICERS.
Viscount Howick Viscount Howick moved that the House go into Committee on the Foreign Officers' Bill.
Sir Henry Hardingehad no intention to oppose the Bill, but he had hoped that the noble Lord would have allowed him to introduce a clause, providing for the restoration of their pensions to certain old soldiers, who had long and faithfully served their country, in a Bill which was introduced with the view of doing an act of justice to foreign officers who had been employed in his Majesty's service. It would be recollected that some considerable time ago a plan had been adopted by the Government of the day, by which a number of old soldiers had been induced to dispose of their pensions for a commuted allowance from the War-office. The object of the plan was to allow those veterans an opportunity of settling advantageously in the colonies, and for that purpose part of the commuted allowance was paid in

1497
this country, and the other portion when they arrived in the country where they were to settle. As regarded some of those old soldiers, the plan might have been a good one, but it had. been carried too far, and many had been induced to accept the commutation, and to proceed to the colonies, who were by no means qualified to become settlers with advantage to themselves. As the consequence, they were obliged to return to this country, and having now nothing to depend on, were in a state of destitution. It was to restore their pensions to those old soldiers that he wished to insert a clause in the present Bill, and it was provided in the clause that they should only be restored in such instances as would not entail upon the public any greater expense than if such pensions bad not been purchased. Many of those individuals had accepted that portion of the commutation payable in this country, and had skulked behind the others, and never left the country at all. To those persons the Government had found it necessary to restore their pensions; and surely if they extended such a favour to those who had not fulfilled the contract into which they had entered, they were much more bound to restore their pensions to those who had fulfilled their agreement in every part, and who had only returned to this country when they found it impossible to procure the means of subsistence in the colonies. The measure, to the extent to which it had been carried, was, in his estimation, improvident, imprudent, and unjust; for those old soldiers had gone through the brunt of the war; they had served their country well, and had been deluded—he would not say defrauded—into the resignation of their pensions by prospects which had proved delusive, and by a scheme which had reduced them to a state of the most complete destitution in their old age. The condition of those old veterans in Ireland and in Scotland particularly called loudly for relief, and he had hoped the noble Lord would have allowed him by an instruction to the Committee on the present Bill to provide for the restoration of their pensions once more. His duty to the army imperatively called on him to take the steps which he had done, and he implored the noble Lord, if it was contrary to the rules of the House to insert such a clause as he had proposed, to take an early opportunity of introducing a Bill restoring those old soldiers to the pensions out of which they had been de-
1498
luded. He felt so strongly on the subject, he considered the restoration of those pensions so loudly demanded by justice, that, should the noble Lord refuse to acquiesce in his suggestion, he should consider it his duty to bring forward a specific measure on the subject himself.
Viscount Horwicksaid, that he had found by an application to the Speaker that it would have been quite contrary to the usual practice of Parliament to insert a clause in a Bill quite foreign to the object of the Bill itself. For that reason he had resisted the insertion of the clause, but he thought also that the measure for the commutation of pensions was not of so harsh a nature as it had been represented. He admitted due caution had not been used, and that the commutation had gone further than was expedient, but the Government had done all they could to prevent improper persons from going out as settlers to the colonies, and the Government had, in fact, been imposed upon by the partial and improper representations of those persons who wished to commute their pensions. If a Bill were passed embodying the views of the right hon. Gentleman, he feared that it would only operate as an inducement to those who were settled in the colonies and actively employed in providing for themselves to return home, and once more throw themselves upon the pension list, even though their conduct since they had commuted their pensions would not justify the governors of Chelsea Hospital in restoring them, had they liberty so to act. He could not pledge himself to bring in a Bill providing for the restoration of those pensions.
The House in Committee. The clauses were agreed to.
House resumed.