§ On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the report of the Committee on the Miscellaneous Estimates which sat last Session, 1109 it was stated in the first paragraph that the Chancellor of the Exchequer having revised the estimates with the utmost care, had made reductions to the amount of 246,000l., the total amount required being 3,700,000l., instead of 3,946,000l. It now appeared from the papers laid on the table that 3,946,000l. had been spent. He would be glad to have this apparent inconsistency explained.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to reply, that formerly it was customary to vote the gross amount without including the fees, and that in the case referred to the vote included them.
The House then went into Committee of Supply—Mr. Bernal in the chair.
The following votes were agreed to:
110,117l. for superannuations and retired allowances and compensations to persons formerly employed in the public service.
4,100l. for Toulonese and Corsican emigrants, &c, and American loyalists.
2,000l. for the National Vaccine Establishment.
2,000l. towards the support of the Refuge for the Destitute.
On the vote of 8,990l. being proposed for Polish refugees and distressed Spaniards,
§ MR. REPTONsaid, he thought the time had come when, according to the promise of the Government, an end would be put to these Polish grants. After the speeches that had been made last Session, and the movement that was agitating the country in respect to financial reform, he was surprised that this vote should again appear in the estimates. When they looked at the prominent part the Poles had taken in the affairs of Europe, the impropriety of this vote became more glaringly perceptible. Every observer of the events of the day must have seen that no revolution had taken place in Europe in which the Poles had not taken a distinguished part—["Hear, hear!"]—he repeated, a very distinguished part, although he might differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the estimate to be put upon their conduct. He did not deny but that there were many worthy and respectable men belonging to the Polish nation, and there was one in particular whose name ought always to be mentioned with respect in that House—a nobleman distinguished for his benevolent exertions in the sister country. But he thought the House had a right to know who were the persons who received the 1110 money, and by whom it was distributed. If men of distinguished position in the world of science or letters were made the recipients of the public bounty, their names were published, and he could not see why a sum of money should be voted, and that the House should be in perfect ignorance of who the persons were who received the grant, how it went, and who distributed it. If any one would go into the lobby with him, he would divide the House against this vote.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad promised the House last year that an inquiry should take place into the application of this grant, and that those who were able to earn their own subsistence should be struck off the list. That inquiry had been made, and several names had been struck off in consequence, other persons had withdrawn their names, no vacancies which occurred were filled up, and after the present year no portion of the grant would be given to any refugees under a certain age. It would be, however, a hard measure to strike off all the names and discontinue the vote; and, indeed, the fact was as to many of these refugees that they must either be maintained by the charity of the nation, or be relieved by the parish in which they had lived as casual poor. He thought it far better that they should be maintained by the former mode, and that the grant should be gradually reduced in amount, as circumstances permitted. In the year 1847 the grant was 11,000l.; in 1848 it was reduced to 10,700l.; and in the estimates now before the House it was further reduced to 8,990l. After the reductions made during the present year, the vote would be reduced to about 2,800l.
§ MR. REPTON, after this explanation, would not divide the House.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 6,423l. for miscellaneous charges formerly on the civil list, the hereditary revenue, &c.
§ Mr. LUSHINGTONsaid that, early in the present Session, he had given notice of his intention to oppose so much of this vote as referred to the Regium Donutn. It was his intention to have carried that project into execution. When the grant was proposed last year, a strong opposition was opposed to it, not only out of doors but in the House, and a division took place of a very strong and marked character as against that grant; and he supposed that the opposition then organised would have 1111 been continued to this Session. He was, however, surprised to find that a perfect silence upon the part of the Dissenters had prevailed upon the subject during the present Session. Last year, several petitions were presented from influential bodies of Dissenters. This year, one solitary petition only had been presented, and that from an obscure village somewhere in Derbyshire. He felt, therefore, very much puzzled as to what course to adopt. It was not his business to meddle with the concerns of the Dissenters. If they relaxed in their exertions with respect to this grant, it was not his business to force the Committee to a division, upon what, to all appearance, they approved of. He personally felt some objections to the vote. He thought it exceedingly wrong to force upon the Dissenters a grant which they declared was so obnoxious to their feelings. Notwithstanding that, as they had not come forward this Session to present any petitions on the subject, he thought that he should offend the propriety of the House, if he were to come forward with any opposition to the vote. He begged leave, therefore, to withdraw the resolution of which he had given notice in the early part of the Session.
§ MR. WYLDsaid, that the Dissenters had not relaxed their efforts; but they felt that, as that House was at present constituted, they could make but very little way with their opposition to the vote. From the return which had been presented to the House, for the year 1847, the recipients were—166 Presbyterian ministers, 443 Independent ministers, and 461 Baptist ministers; making a total of 1,070 individuals, each of whom would receive, supposing the grant, 1,695l., equally divided, 22s. He hoped that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would consent either to abandon this vote now, or that he would promise not to insult the general dissenting body, by proposing it on a future occasion; if not, he should feel compelled to divide the Committee.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he could not give the assurance which the hon. Gentleman required, because, so far was this sum from being forced upon the Dissenters, that Dr. Rees and other gentlemen who had the distribution of it, stated that they had many applications for it, and that it was, in fact, accepted as a matter of charity. The grant began in the time of George I., who was graciously pleased to make it out of the civil list; and Parliament, after settling 1112 the civil list, had since provided the sum required to make this grant good. 'It was quite impossible to contend that this grant had been repugnant to the feelings of the Dissenters from the time of George I., and therefore be could not give any promise that he should propose that the grant be withdrawn.
MR. J. B. SMITHinquired whether there was any list of the dissenting clergymen who received these moneys?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid there was not; but the hon. Gentleman would get all the information he desired if he would read the evidence given by Dr. Rees.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLobserved, that the distributors of the money had no objection to furnish a list which might be referred to in private.
§ MR. LUSHINGTONhad no doubt that the recipients of the money did not object to its receipt, but the dissenting body generally did object. He hoped that the Committee would draw a distinction between those persons and the conscientious body to which they professed to belong. Dr. Rees was an interested party; and therefore, making due allowance for the frailty of human nature, his evidence did not possess the weight which otherwise would have attached to it.
§ MR. WYLDwished to ask the noble Lord whether he knew a single congregation of Dissenters which acknowledged that its minister had received any portion of this grant? Though he was, from conviction, a member of the Church of England himself, he constantly got letters from Dissenters complaining of this grant being made, and it was to be observed that only the Presbyterians, Baptists, and Independents, participated in it.
§ MR. BRIGHTthought the House would not be justified in assuming, because there were no petitions against this grant, that the opposition of the Dissenters thereto had been relaxed. He believed that there had not been the slightest change of opinion among them with regard to the grant; but after the discussion which had taken place last year, it was not probable that the Dissenters would come again to the House during the present Session. He thought it a most unconstitutional proceeding, and a grossly wrong course, that the Treasury should hand over 1,695l. to be distributed by parties of whom that House knew nothing, and who were not responsible to it. Dr. Rees might publish what 1113 he liked with regard to the distribution of this fund; but he, for one, would not believe that there were 1,000 Dissenting ministers who were so mean as to receive these alms, or to accept of such a paltry sum as 22s. positively and openly as charity. If money were voted in charity by a board of guardians, a list was kept of those who received it; but here was a sum distributed by a person who was not responsible to that House, to parties whose names were not furnished to that House, or even, as it appeared, to the Treasury, which ought at least to have such a list. He believed that, as the noble Lord perfectly well knew, the first list that was published of the names of the recipients of this grant would be the last. He should without hesitation say that there ought to be an end to the practice of voting this money. Let there be an end to it, and the result immediately must be, that the several congregations would make up whatever might be necessary for placing their ministers in an honourable position. There were, it was said, upwards of 1,000 ministers receiving this money, who were not only unknown to their own congregations as recipients of it, but who were equally unknown to the Treasury; and the causes were likewise unknown which induced those ministers to be guilty of the meanness of accepting such paltry assistance.
§ MR. W. J. FOXobserved, that this was the only grant of public money which seemed not to be acceptable to its nominal recipients. In his opinion, the money ought in the first instance to be offered to the known and acknowledged representatives of the Dissenting body, and no portion of it should be offered to any other class of persons; then it would be possible to ascertain whether the parties for whose benefit it was intended, were really disposed to receive it. He conceived that the present practice was open to very great abuse. Of course Dr. Pye Smith, and others with whom he was associated, were men altogether above and beyond all suspicion; but it was pretty well known that these votes were clearly open to abuse, and might at any time be rendered subservient to political purposes and undue influence. The money, instead of being given to aged or infirm ministers, was supposed upon pretty good grounds to reach the hands of youths who were only just entering on the ministry, or of men who, not possessing talent or information sufficient to procure them a good position as ministers, were obliged to 1114 eke out the means of their subsistence by pursuing other avocations. If it turned out upon inquiry that there were not now any very glaring abuses, yet it was well known that such things had been, and that they might arise again; therefore was it the duty of Parliament not to consent to any such vote as that now under consideration, the more especially as it was a manifest violation of the principles of dissent; and it must be against the feelings of any men in society (those, for example, who differed from the Dissenters) to contribute to that which they believed to be dangerous and bad.
§ MR. KERSHAWwas quite of opinion that if the distribution answered to the description which had been given of it, it ought to be got rid of at once. The House, however, he hoped, would bear this fact in mind, that some of the religious denominations were in the habit of collecting from 50,000l. to 60,000l. per annum for the support of institutions of their own. Snrely such a body ought not to be involved in so petty a grant as the present; a grant to no one knew whom. In fact, there was every reason to believe that the money either went to unworthy persons, or did not go to Dissenters at all. It was really too paltry a sum to be given to any body of Dissenters; and there could be no doubt that congregations were anxious to reject it altogether. Independents, Baptists, Presbyterians, and all, wished to prevent their ministers receiving such sums as 20s. or 30s. He stood there as the advocate of the voluntary principle. His objection to the present vote was founded upon that principle; and he also objected to it because he could discover nothing about its application.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, it would be hardly possible to give the names of the persons on whom this money was bestowed. In the case of private alms, the hon. Member for Manchester would surely not expect that lists should be published. A person in narrow circumstances might receive 5l. if given to him privately; but he would probably reject such a gift if he knew that his name was to form one in a list to be published amongst the Votes of the House of Commons. He was very glad that the recipients of alms were not to be held up to the notice of the public. The names of the committee who dispensed the alms might be given, such as Dr. Rees, and eight others—three Presbyterians, three Independents, and three Baptists. As to 1115 the Treasury, they exercised no influence whatever; they never inquired who received the money, nor did the receipt of it imply any connexion whatever with the Government.
§ MR. BRIGHTsaid, they had eight or nine names, certainly; but such things, as the House well knew, were always managed by one or two persons. It was always a hocus-pocus affair. As to that illustration about a gift of 5l. being bestowed secretly, the noble Lord gave it to the House last year. It might be all very well to talk of secret alms when a man was giving away money of his own, but the case was different when they were dealing with the money of the nation. This Committee was not to give away 1,600l. or 1,700l. without letting the world know who received it. If the noble Lord were as much a Dissenter as he was reputed to be—["Hear, hear!"]—yes, he certainly was some time ago in the habit of attending a Dissenting chapel, until hon. Gentlemen opposite put a stop to it—surely, then, the noble Lord, supposing him to be as much a Dissenter as he was reputed to he, must know that it was not in the policy of that body to accept money under the circumstances in which this gift was made.
§
Afterwards Motion made, and Question put—
That a sum, not exceeding 4,728l., be granted to Her Majesty, to pay, to the 31st day of March, 1850, Miscellaneous Allowances formerly defrayed from the Civil List, the Hereditary Revenue, &c., for which no permanent provision has been made by Parliament.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 52: Majority 19.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Blair, S. | King, hon. T. J. L. |
| Bright, J. | Lacy, H. C. |
| Brotherton, J. | Langsten, J. H. |
| Cobbold, J. C. | Martin, J. |
| Cobden, B. | Mullings, J. R. |
| Drummond, H. | Connell, J. |
| Ellis, J. | Sandars, G. |
| Evans, J. | Smith, J. B. |
| Ewart, W. | Tancred, H. W. |
| Fagan, W. | Thicknesse, R. A. |
| Fox, W. J. | Thompson, Col. |
| Greene, J. | Thornely, T. |
| Harris, R. | Trelawny, J. S. |
| Henry, A. | Wawn, J. T. |
| Heyworth, L. | Willoughby, Sir H. |
| Hollond, R. | TELLERS. |
| Humphery, Ald. | Wyld, J. |
| Kershaw, J. | Lushington, C. |
| List of the NOES. | |
| Adair, R. A. S. | Bagshaw, J. |
| Armstrong, R. B. | Baines, M. T. |
| Bass, M. T. | Matheson, Col |
| Bellew, R. M. | Maule, rt. hon. F. |
| Blackall, S. W. | Mitchell, T. A. |
| Blakemore, R. | Moody, C. A. |
| Boyle, hon. Col. | Nicholl, rt. hon. J. |
| Busfeild, W. | Paget, Lord A. |
| Cowper, hon. W. F. | Paget, Lord C. |
| Craig, W. G. | Palmerston, Visct. |
| Cubitt, W. | Parker, J. |
| Denison, J. E. | Raphael, A. |
| Ebrington, Visct. | Rich, H. |
| Evans, W. | Romilly, Sir J. |
| French, F. | Russell, Lord J. |
| Frewen, C. H. | Rutherfurd, A. |
| Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. | Shell, rt. hon. R. L. |
| Hawes, B. | Smith, J. A. |
| Hay, Lord J. | Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W. |
| Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. | Spooner, R. |
| Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J. | Stanton, W. H. |
| Hood, Sir A. | Vane, Lord H. |
| Howard, Lord E. | Wilson, J. |
| Jervis, Sir J. | Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. |
| Lascelles, hon. W. S. | |
| Lewis, G. C. | TELLERS. |
| Lockhart, A. E. | Tufnell, H. |
| Lockhart, W. | Hill, Lord M. |
§ Original Question put and agreed to.
MR. J. B. SMITHasked how much longer the descendants of Sir Thomas Clarges were to have 500l. per annum of the public money? Since this preposterous annuity had been granted by Charles II., the descendants of the grantee had received more than a million sterling of the taxes.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the grant was originally payable out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown, which were clearly at the disposal of the Sovereign for the time then being. These hereditary revenues had since been given up to the public for a consideration, but given up with all charges upon them; and the descendants of Sir Thomas Clarges were as much entitled to their annuity as any Gentleman in the House to his estates. The same equally applied to the sum annually voted to the widows and children of poor refugee French clergymen. Upon the establishment in this country of a French Protestant Church, after the revocation of the edict of Nantes, provision was made by the Crown out of the hereditary revenues for the maintenance of the widows and children of the successive ministers of that Church.
§ LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, that at the commencement of every reign the Crown might retain the hereditary revenues, or consign them into the hands of Parliament. The sums now under consideration formed part of the charges settled on the Sovereign, 1117 and could not be well refused by the House.
Vote agreed to; as were the following votes:—
1,000l. for the Foundling Hospital, Dublin.
12,093l. for the House of Industry, Dublin.
On the vote of 800l. for the Female Orphan House, Dublin,
§ MR. W. FAGANsaid, this establishment was of an exclusive nature, it being required that the children who were inmates should be instructed in the doctrines of the Established Church. Now, in Dublin the proportion of the Catholic to the Protestant population was 5 to 1, and throughout Ireland 8 to 1, and he therefore considered that the Irish Catholics had a fair claim to a portion of this fund. He did not object to the vote, for he believed the House would not be unwilling to increase it, but he contended for such a distribution as would admit Irish Catholics to a participation in the advantages of this or similar establishments.
§ SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, it was true the institution was exclusively confined to Protestants, but he believed this was the only vote of the kind which Parliament was asked to sanction. The grant bad been made for many years, and he thought it would be a great hardship to withdraw it. He might observe that the vote had been diminished by 200l. since last year.
§ MAJOR BLACKALLwished it to be understood that the institution was not entirely supported by Government money. An amount was raised from private sources nearly equal to the Parliamentary grant.
§ MR. W. FAGANasked whether the Government would give any undertaking that the assistance offered to this establishment would be extended to others accessible to persons of all religious opinions?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould hold out no such hope, as he was now taking steps to diminish the present grant as much as possible.
Vote agreed to; as were also the following votes:—
2,250l. for the Westmoreland Lock Hospital, Dublin.
800l. for the Lying-in Hospital, Dublin.
1,500l. for Dr. Stevens's Hospital, Dublin.
3,800l. for the House of Recovery and Fever Hospital, Cork-street, Dublin.
500l. for the Hospital for Incurables, Dublin.
1118 On the vote of 37,183l. to defray the expense of Nonconforming, Seceding, and Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland.
§ MR. TRELAWNYsaid, he thought that if the House sanctioned this vote, they ought to go a step further, and pay the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland. The vote was clearly not one of religious principles; but it was a question whether it would not be advisable to make some effort to secure the allegiance of the priests, as the friends of order in Ireland, by paying them in the same way that other dissenting clergymen were paid.
Vote agreed to; as was also the vote of 7,096l. for charitable allowances charged on the Concordatum Fund in Ireland.
§ MR. HAYTERstated, that he did not intend to propose the vote which stood next on the Paper—1,000l. for the Metropolitan Sanitary Commission. The vote of last year would, he believed, be sufficient to cover the expenses of that commission for the present year.
On the vote of 14,652l. for the expense of the General Board of Health,
MR. VERNON SMITHobserved that, as this was a new vote, it would be extremely desirable to have some information with respect to it. He would like to know whether the present was to be a permanent vote.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated, that a portion of the vote was permanent, and that the other portion was an advance, to be repaid by the localities benefited.
§ MR. F. FRENCHsaid, he considered that the English Board had gone to work like men of business. They had found a total absence of all local preparations for the visitation of the cholera; but in consequence of the appointment of medical inspectors, and sending down officers to every locality where the disease appeared, not one half the expense had been incurred last year which was incurred in 1832.
§ MR. HENLEYcalled attention to some items in the estimate for expenses contemplated under the Nuisances Prevention Act, and inquired whether it was necessary to appoint two superintending medical inspectors?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained, that this vote was taken as a matter of precaution to meet expenses which might be requisite if the cholera should again break out; but it did not follow, because the vote was taken, 1119 that the money would necessarily he expended.
§ MR. HENLEYThen the vote ought to have been put under the head of "civil contingencies."
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained, that the established rule was not to put any charge under the head of "civil contingencies," which could possibly be foreseen.
MR. VERNON SMITHthought the duties of the board were not defined with sufficient strictness. The last report they had issued related to the printing of the papers of that House—a very extraordinary subject, as it appeared to him, for such a board to interfere with.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 2,447l. for the salaries and incidental expenses of the Central Board of Health in Dublin,
§ MR. F. FRENCHsaid, this board was appointed under an Act of last year, which required the Irish Poor Law Commissioners to enforce by their officers the suggestions of the board. He believed, however, that the only step which had been taken had been the issue of a circular recommending the adoption of certain sanitary regulations in each poor-law union; but, except in Dublin, and one or two other large towns, no attention had been paid to those recommendations. The result had been that a great many cases of cholera had appeared, and, in the course of a very few months, no fewer than 5,000 persons perished from that disease in the city of Limerick. He did not think, however, that the Poor Law Commissioners were to blame. Between 300,000l. and 400,000l. was annually levied and expended in charity in Ireland; but the Commissioners had no power to establish an efficient control over the expenditure, and he was satisfied that at least 100,000l. of the amount was totally thrown away.
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, that the hon. Gentleman was mistaken in supposing that no precautionary measures were taken in Limerick in anticipation of the cholera. Every precaution was taken by the Poor Law Commissioners in Dublin, and by the Limerick board of guardians, and the deaths which ensued were not owing to their neglect, but to the reduced state of the population from destitution.
§ SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, it was useless for that House to pass Acts, or any board in Dublin to frame regulations, unless the local boards throughout the country 1120 set themselves vigorously to work to put those Acts and regulations into execution. With respect to the medical charities in Ireland, he was aware of their unsatisfactory state at the present moment, and he could assure his hon. Friend that the subject was not lost sight of.
§ MR. GROGANinquired whether there was any probability of any general measure being introduced during the present Session relating to the sanitary condition of Ireland?
§ SIR W. SOMERVILLEsaid, that the subject was of great importance; but the great difficulty was, that it was almost impossible to apply to Ireland an effectual sanitary measure on account of the extreme poverty of the population. Nevertheless, the matter was still under consideration, and he had not abandoned the hope that, during the present Session, he might be able to lay on the table of the House a general measure on the subject relating to Ireland.
Vote agreed to.
The following votes were then agreed to:—
18,000l. to defray a moiety of the cost of executing certain works of navigation in Ireland connected with drainage.
838l. for works and repairs in the British Ambassador's house at Paris.
On the vote of 12,000l. towards defraying the expense of rebuilding the British Ambassador's house at Constantinople being proposed.
§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBYinquired what the whole cost would be of building this residence?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONstated that the original estimate was 40,000l., but he was afraid that the expense would exceed that estimate. In Constantinople it was impossible to find houses already built fit for the residence of European authorities, and all European ambassadors there lived in houses constructed by their respective Governments. The present expense was occasioned by the former residence of the English Ambassador, which was built of wood, being destroyed by fire, and the present residence was being constructed with stone.
§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBYwas quite aware of the difficulty of getting a suitable residence in a city like Constantinople; but if they did not take care there would be no end to the expense, as the Turks had the greatest faith in our ability to pay any sum that could be extorted.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that though he was afraid some unnecessary extravagance might have taken place in connexion with the construction of the Ambassador's residence, yet that now the most rigid orders had been sent out that no expense but what was absolutely requisite should be incurred; and he believed that building the house with stone would, in the end, be found an economical proceeding.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 16,000l. for militia and volunteers in Canada.
MR. VERNON SMITHobserved, that this expense was essentially colonial, and ought to be thrown on the colony.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the vote was brought forward in consequence of pre-existing arrangements; but an intimation had been given to the Governor of Canada that it would not be deemed fair to continue it beyond the 30th of April next year.
Vote agreed to, as were also the following:—7,300l. for lighthouses abroad; 3,000l. for Lybster harbour; 488,000l. for the Commissariat Department; 43,872l. for the Commissariat Department (half pay).
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.