Commons Sitting of 9 March 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Mutiny; and Marine Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Sir G. Strickland, Mr. L. Hodges, Mr. Grimsditch, Mr. Broadwood, and Mr. C. Hamilton, from Halifax, Kent, Macclesfield, Bridgewater, and other places, against the New Poor-law Bill.—By Mr. T. Parker, from Preston, against Maynooth College, and to prevent Roman Catholic Members of Parliament from Voting on Church matters.—By Mr. S. Barry, from places in the county of Cork, in favour of Lord Morpeth's Registration Bill.—By Mr. Villiers, from Buckinghamshire, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. O. Gore, and other Members, from Chipping Sodbury, Saxemundham, and other places, in favour of Church Extension.—By Mr. Baldwin, from Proprietors of Newspapers in Exeter, against the Publication of Newspaper Stamp Returns.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Liverpool, for the Release of Mr. Hetherington; from Worsburgh, in Yorkshire, for the Release of all persons confined for Political Offences and from Merthyr Tydvil, for the Release of Frost, Williams, and Jones.—By Sir C. B. Vere, and Mr. C. Hamilton, from Sussex, Minchendon and other places, for Church Extension.

SEVERN NAVIGATION.
Mr. Ormsby Gore Mr. Ormsby Gore moved, "That it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection (if they see fit), to refer the Severn Navigation Bill to a Select Committee." The Severn was a large river, navigable for upwards of 200 miles, and therefore the bill affecting its navigation ought not to be referred to a committee selected exclusively from the representatives of those residing on its banks. It was, in fact, a national question, and this very bill had last year been thrown out on the second reading, on the ground that it was too important a measure to be referred to a merely local committee. One portion of the river which was likely to be improved by this measure was in the county of Worcester. Now it would be bard to refer this question to the Worcestershire list, when Gloucester-shire and Montgomeryshire were opposed

73
to it. It might be said, that he might have named a committee representing all the different interests, but that was impossible. The course which he proposed was the more prudent one, and he ap-appealed to the justice of the House to support him.
Mr. Laboucherewas at all times unwilling to depart from the rules laid down for the regulation of private business, as it would lead to a recurrence of the evils from which they had already suffered. If they did, Gentlemen would come down to the House, and carry such measures, from the mere force of local interests. No departure from their rules ought to be suffered, unless a case were fully made out. He should act on the present occasion as he had during the last Session, on the occasion of the Welsh Railway Bills. He should not advise the House to consider the question then, but to devolve that duty upon the committee for private business, where the statements and counter-statements of the opponents and supporters of the bill could be more fully considered than they could be in the House. He could not consent to the appointment of a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, as an amendment, that all the petitions that had been presented, with reference to the Severn Navigation Bill, be referred to the Select Committee on Private Business. In moving this amendment, the right hon. Gentleman hoped that the committee would not recommend any departure from the regular course, unless a very special case was made out.
Lord G. Somersetagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that it was proper for the House to adhere to the rules it had laid down, but he thought there were special circumstances in the present case. He considered that the bill ought to be referred to a committee of a more general character than that to which private bills were generally referred.
Mr. Hopethought the bill ought to be referred to a committee, constituted of Members who had no interest in the districts through which the river runs.
Mr. Craven Berkeleysaid, it appeared to him that the object of his hon. Friend was solely to obtain an impartial hearing, and he trusted that the motion would be concurred in by the House.
Mr. Ormsby Gore, in reply, said, that
74
the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, was quite as much a departure from the rules of the House as that which had been proposed by himself. He had selected that Committee, because it must necessarily be impartial.
The House divided on the original question, That it be an instruction to the Committee of Selection, if they see fit, to refer the Severn Navigation Bill to a Select Committee:—Ayes 74; Noes 40—Majority 34.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Captain

Hodgson, R.

Ainsworth, P.

Hogg, J. W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Holmes, hon. W. A'Court

Archdall, M.

Attwood, W.

Hope, hon. C.

Attwood, M.

Houstoun, G.

Baillie, H. J.

Hughes, W. B.

Baker, E.

James, Sir W. C.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Kelly, F.

Bethell, R.

Lennox, Lord A.

Bolling, W.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Botfield, B.

Lowther, J. H.

Broadley, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Broadwood, H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bruce, Lord E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Campbell, Sir H.

McTaggart, J.

Cholmondeley, hon. H.

Marsland, H.

Chute, W. L. W.

Neeld, J.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Packe, C. W.

Corry, hon. H.

Parker, M.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Perceval, Colonel

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Philips M.

Duncombe, T.

Pigot, R.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Pollock, Sir F.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Round, C. G.

East, J. B.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Eaton, R. J.

Scrope, G. P.

Eliot, Lord

Sotheron, T. E.

Fitzalan, Lord

Stanley, E.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Tennent, J. E.

Forester, hon. G.

Thornely, T.

Gaskell, J. M.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Gore, O. J. R.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Grimsditch, T.

Vivian, J. H.

Hale, R. B.

Walsh, Sir J.

Halford, H.

Yates, J. A.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

TELLERS.

Harcourt, G. S.

Gore, O. W.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Hope, H. T.

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Ellice, E.

Barnard, E. G.

Estcourt, T.

Barry, G. S.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Bewes, T.

Freshfield, J. W.

Brotherton, J.

Hall, Sir B.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Hawes, B.

Craig, W. G.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Davies, Colonel

Hindley, C.

Easthope, J.

Hodges, T. L.

75

Hoskins, K.

Stewart, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Strickland, Sir G.

James, W.

Strutt, E

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Style, Sir C.

Mahon, Viscount

Turner, E.

Morgan, O.

Warburton, H.

O'Connell, D.

White, A.

Patten, J. W.

Williams, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Philips, G. R.

TELLERS.

Somerset, Lord G.

Grey Sir G.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Sanford, E. A.

Instruction agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE—BARRISTERS.
Mr. Greene Mr. Greene moved for leave of absence for Mr. Ingram to go the circuit.
Mr. Pattisondid not see why leave of absence to barristers going circuit should pass as matters of course. He did not recognize any particular right of barristers to be exempted from their attendance at that House more than other hon. Members, who were obliged to give up their private business for that purpose. There were election committees to be ballotted for; why should legal Gentlemen be exempted from attendance more than others.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that from the earliest period the House had recognized the advantage of allowing banisters to enter as Members and to go out on circuit. He thought the precedent ought to be followed.
Mr. Mildmaywould not assent to the principle of allowing barristers to be exempt from the business of the House in this way. If they had any valid claim, let them be exempt altogether.
Mr. Greenesaid, that no objection had been made to the motion for leave of absence for Lord Clements.
Mr. Wrightsonsaid, that Lord Clements was not a lawyer, but was going to attend his county as a grand juror.
An hon. Memberobserved, that when the bill regulating election committees was in progress it was clearly understood that barristers were not to be exempted.
Mr. Goulburnadmitted that fact, but at the same time no objection was made to their being allowed to go circuit.
Mr. Kellyobserved, that the very first motion for leave of absence for a barrister after the new bill passed was for his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general.
Sir G. Greysaid, that that was a par
76
ticular case, where his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-general had to attend a trial at York, and the leave given was only for such time as was necessary for that attendance.
Sir R. Peelthought, that if lawyers found their duties as Members of that House onerous, they were not obliged to retain their seats. If there was a pressure of business in the House requiring the attendance of Members, he did not see why lawyers should be exempted more than others, for in such cases they ought to take their fair share of the duties of Members. In former times lawyers scarcely ever attended election ballots. They did not answer to their names, and the matter passed over because a sufficient number of other Members was easily found. If lawyers were allowed to go circuit in the early part of the Session, there was no reason why they might not attend at another time. In the present Session leave had been given to some barristers, arid, that being the case, he thought it would be invidious to refuse the leave in this instance. However, in the beginning of a new Session, when there might be a press of election business, he thought that barristers might be called on to take their fair share of duty.
Motion agreed to.
Colonel Paget Colonel Paget moved, that Mr. W. O. Stanley have leave of absence till after Easter, on urgent private business.
Lord Howickthought that the nature of the "urgent private business" should be stated before the House assented to the motion.
Mr. Pringlewas of the same opinion, and would not consent to the motion if such statement were not made.
Lord Stanleysaid, that he happened to be in the same panel as the hon. Member, and it certainly would be very convenient to him to have his attendance put off from the 25th, but though he should have to go down to the country, it was his intention to be back in time for attending at the call of the panel on which his name stood. As the hon. Member's (Mr. W. O. Stanley's) name was in the panel which stood for so early a day, he thought that the nature of the urgent private business should be stated to the House by the hon. Member who made the motion, for urgent private business might be anything or nothing. The hon. Member ought to state in his place that he knew the business

77
on which he founded his motion was of an urgent nature.
Colonel Pagetsaid, that as there seemed an objection on the part of the House, he would not persevere in his motion.
Mr. E. J. Stanleyhoped that his hon. Friend would not withdraw his motion, Of course, the House would act on the same principle in all other cases.
Lord Eliotwished that the objection had been stated earlier in the Session.
Leave given.

DARTMOUTH HARBOUR.
Mr. Fresh-fieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, since the commencement of the present session, any Government agent had been employed to make arrangements at Dartmouth, with a view to the conduct I of the West India mail service in that port, and whether it was intended that the expense consequent upon the adaptation of that port to the service in question, or to be incurred in the conduct of the service, should be borne by the Royal Mail Steam Company or by the public?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that on the 15th of January a Treasury minute had been passed deciding the point which had been so long pending, and the authorities of the Post-office had been directed to state what measures would be necessary to carry that decision into effect. On the 4th of February the Post-office recommended that an officer should be sent down into Cornwall to make the necessary inquiries. On the 5th their recommendation was approved of by the Treasury, and an officer was sent down accordingly. As to the payment, that part of the expense which was defrayed by the Government at Falmouth would be defrayed in future by the Government at Dartmouth.

CASE OF MR. T. REEVES.
Mr. Kelly, in moving to refer the petition of Thomas Reeves (presented on the 4th February) to a Select Committee said, that in the year 1835 Mr. Reeves had retired after twenty-two years' service as a surveyor of taxes, and it was a matter of importance to know what pension he was entitled to. He would state, and he had no doubt he would be corroborated by the gentlemen connected with the Treasury, that there was nothing against the character of Mr. Reeves to disqualify him for the allowance he was entitled to under any Act of Par-
78
liament, On the contrary, he had performed certain services which, at the least, entitled him to the most favourable consideration of the Government. Mr. Reeves, at the time of his retirement, possessed a salary of something under 100 l. a year. He was also in the receipt of various emoluments, consisting principally of a per centage upon surcharges, which were made when any deficiency or error was made apparent in the assessment of any party to the taxes he was justly entitled to pay. When those surcharges were made the Government generally received much more than the first assessment, and frequently more—sometimes even double the amount, and the Surveyor was entitled, even by Act of Parliament, to a certain per centage upon such surcharges. By that means Mr. Reeves for many years before his retirement had greatly added to his income. The year before his retirement, the per centage amounted to somewhere near two hundred pounds, thus making his income about 300 l. per annum. The Government admitted that Mr. Reeves was entitled to a pension, but they claimed the right to make certain deductions in the amount. He would say a few words as to those deductions. With respect to the amount of salary, nearly 90 l. odd, the Government admitted his claim to six-twelfths, or one-half of the salary, but the deductions which they made reduced the sum from 45 l. to 24 l., and that was all the allowance that was made to him. The reason given for the deduction was this: it was said that Mr. Reeves had, by contributing to a certain fund, called a Saperanuation Fund, entitled himself to a very considerable amount of retiring pension, and that it was the custom of the Treasury, when a party had contributed money for such a purpose, although he did so out of his own earnings, to hold him disentitled to the full amount to which he would otherwise have been entitled under the Act of Parliament: on this ground the pension was reduced to 24 l. Considering that for a great number of years, certain extra duties had been imposed upon Mr. Reeves, which, though he might fairly and legally have refused to perform them, he had discharged with the greatest diligence, he thought he might, have been fairly held entitled, under another clause of the Act of Parliament, to some additional allowance; at all events, his retiring income should not

79
have been reduced from 45 l. to 24 l. It appeared by the petition of Mr. Reeves that he claimed a retiring pension of 6–12ths under the Act of Parliament, not merely in relation to his salary but in relation to the emoluments of his office, amounting to twice the amount of his salary. The Treasury rejected the claim altogether, on the ground that the per centages were not emoluments within the legal meaning of the Act of Parliament which regulated those pensions. If the Government were right in that opinion, he admitted Mr. Reeves had no claim. But if it should appear, as he would venture to say he should be able to make it appear, that the letter had been written without consulting the law officers of the Crown, and that if they had been consulted they must have given a different opinion, he thought he should not appeal in vain when he asserted that the case must undergo reconsideration, and be submitted either to a committee or the Law officers of the Crown. The Act of Parliament which regulated the superannuation allowances was the 4th and 5th of William the 4th, chap. 24, and the case of Mr. Reeves came within the provisions of the 9th section of that Act. He would read to the House the answer Mr. Reeves had received, after some correspondence with the Government, and many applications, and, as Mr. Reeves hoped, after much serious consideration of his case by the Government. The letter was dated June 16, 1837, from the Board of Stamps and Taxes, and set forth fully the grounds on which the pension was granted and limited. It appeared to him that the simple question was, whether the board was right in saying that the per centage came under the head of emoluments or not. It appeared to him clear, that the board had proceeded upon an erroneous view of the case. The Government taxed him upon his commission, not for his salary only, but for his salary and emoluments. So also under the income tax, he was charged not for his salary alone, but also for his emoluments. Now, he would defy any lawyer to say, that a strict construction was to be put upon an Act of Parliament when against a party, and otherwise when in his favour. He would say but one word more with regard to the law of the case. He could assure hon. Gentlemen he would not have brought it under the notice of the House, if he did
80
not feel that the case was that of a very deserving man, of whom he begged to state he had no personal knowledge whatever, nor did he come from that part of the country, which he (Mr. Kelly) was acquainted with; he had been merely recommended to him by a Gentleman who knew of the hardship of his case. The hon. and learned Gentleman here proceeded to read the opinion of Sir William Follett, which had been given in favour of Mr. Reeve's case, and concluded by saying, if the question were referred to a Select Committee, he could prove every statement which was made in the petition.
Mr. John Parkersaid, that the Government acted in this case according to what had invariably been the practice of the Treasury; and, in support of this statement, read extracts from a correspondence which took place between the Board of Taxes and the Treasury in July, 1812. In that correspondence the Board of Taxes stated, that a surveyor's salary amounted to 90 l. a year; to which there was an additional salary of 20 l. also yearly; and the Board wished to know from the Lords of the Treasury whether the superannuation pension should be extended to the latter portion of the salary. It appeared from the Treasury minutes, that the Lords of the Treasury were of opinion, that the superannuation pension ought to be extended to the salary of 90 l., but that the smaller salary should be exluded. That correspondence showed that the point had before arisen; and that the superannuation allowance was settled on the permanent salary of 90 l., and that it did not include those sums of poundage and per centage which his hon. Friend sought to have admitted into the present allowance. Since that period the practice had uniformly been to allow the pension on the permanent salary only. Mr. Reeves entered the public service in 1813 or 1814, and he could not therefore say that he was injured by a rule which had been subsequently introduced. The practice of the Treasury was now as he found it when he entered upon the office; and he had no right therefore to complain. In denying the claims of Mr. Reeves, he begged it to be understood, that the Government cast no imputations upon him, he might have suffered a grievance; but he had only been subject to that which every other public servant was, In the course

81
the Treasury had pursued in this case, they were only following what had been adopted for the last twelve years.
Lord Teignmouthsupported the motion. The ground that had been taken by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, was quite different to that taken by his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, last year. The present surveyors of taxes had been placed upon the same footing that they wished Mr. Reeves to be placed upon; and he trusted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend would reconsider the case, and accede to the motion.
Mr. A. Stanfordfelt bound in justice to this gentleman, who was personally known to him, from his having performed the duties of surveyor of taxes in the neighbourhood with which he was more particularly connected, to say that he thought he had not been quite fairly dealt with. He could vouch for the respectability of his character, and, from the arduous nature of the duties which he had performed, he thought that he was entitled to some further consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad three times given the same explanation which had now been afforded by his hon. Friend (Mr. Parker). No doubt he might have construed the case differently if he had chosen, but the Treasury had the power to lay down general rules and to act upon them, without any distinct reference to what might be deemed the strict legal position of the case, and although certain emoluments of office were given, it was not therefore, that they were not to pursue that course which they deemed fit upon consideration of the nature of those emoluments. No deduction had been made from the salary of these officers with a view to the granting of pensions, and therefore no pensions had in any case been given.
Mr. Humesaid, that he had some years since strongly condemned the vexatious system of emoluments, by which the officers were enabled to raise their salaries from 100 l. to 200 l. or 300 l. a-year. He represented it to the House as an oppressive system, and he believed it was partly in consequence of that, that the system was pat an end to. It clearly appeared from the precedents which had been cited, that there was not the least necessity for any further inquiry.
Mr. Kellywould detain the Mouse for
82
a single moment, to correct an error into which the hon. Gentleman had fallen. This question had been treated as if under the terms of the Act of Parliament the Government had the discretion either to grant an allowance or to withhold it. He denied that any such discretion was vested in the Government under the Act of Parliament. There was a discretion as to the sum, but none as to whether an allowance should be granted. The individual was just as much entitled to an allowance as any hon. Gentleman was entitled to the rents of his own estate. He had heard that statement with the greatest astonishment, and he trusted that the House would not be induced to sanction it.
The House divided on the question that the Petition of Thomas Reeves be referred to a Select Committee:—Ayes 27; Noes 38:—Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Neeld, J.

Farnham. E. B.

Pringle, A.

Freshfield, J.W.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Grimston, Viscount

Richards, R.

Halford, H.

Round, C. G.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Hodgson, R.

Sanford, E. A.

Hughes, W. B.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Trotter, J.

Jones, J.

Turner, E.

Lockhart, A.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Mackenzie, T.

Vivian, J. E.

Mackenzie, W. F.

TELLER.

Miles, W.

Kelly, F.

Morgan, O.

Teignmouth, Lord

List of the NOES.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Howard, P. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Beamish, F. B.

Hume, J.

Blake, W. J.

Humphery, J.

Broadley, H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Brocklehurst, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Brotherton, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Busfeild, W.

Pinney, W.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Seymour, Lord

Childers, J. W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Clay, W.

Thornely, T.

Dalmeny, Lord

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Duke, Sir J.

Williams, W.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Wood, B.

Ferguson, Colonel

Worsley, Lord

Gordon, R.

Wyse, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Yates, J. A.

Hamilton, C. J. B.

Heathcoat, J.

TELLERS.

Hector, C. J.

Parker, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Tufnell, H.

PUTATIVE FATHERS.
Mr. Milesrose

83
to move for leave to bring in a Bill to give summary power to justices of the peace, in special sessions assembled, in certain cases of loss of service, or breach of promise of marriage, to impose and enforce penalties against Putative Fathers. The principle of the bill was the same as that of the measure which he had brought in last Session; but some portion of its phraseology was altered in obedience to the wish of the House.
Motion agreed to.
Adjourned.