§
(5.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,145, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he was about to move the reduction of this Vote by the sum of £3,195. The first item of the Vote, under the heading of Orders of Knighthood and Medals, was a portion of the sum of £3,645, for the purchase of Insignia and Robes, &c, on the creation of the Emperor of Russia, and Kings of Sweden, Spain, and Saxony, as Knights of the Garter. He was not a member of any of these Orders; but he presumed this referred to some kind of mediæval millinery connected with them, because he believed that the jewel was only lent to the Knight to be returned on his death. He would allow for each of the Monarchs named the sum of £ 100, which he considered as amply sufficient. The next item was for the purchase of Insignia and Robes, &c, on creation of the Duke of Cambridge as Knight of the Thistle. The Committee were entitled to some explanation of that charge. These Orders of the Garter and Thistle called to mind the remark of Lord Melbourne, that there was no nonsense of merit about them; 130 they were merely adjuncts of the toilet. He believed that when a Knight of the Thistle was appointed he had to buy his own Insignia and Robes; and he failed to see why any exception should be made in favour of the Duke of Cambridge. Then came the charge for the purchase of Insignia of the Order of St. Michael and St. George to be placed in stock, &c, &c. He supposed that meant the medal itself, and he believed he was making a handsome allowance in putting down £50 for this item. The next item was £564 for Fees to Heralds and others in respect of patents of creation issued from the Crown Office in Chancery, and now taken in stamps. He did not understand why this amount was paid. When these Orders were given by Her Majesty there was certainly no reason why payment should be made to these absurd Heralds.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £950, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for certain Miscellaneous Expenses."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
CAPTAIN ALYMERsaid, he could not agree with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton, because he had more respect for the dignities specified in the Vote than had been observable in the speech to which they had just listened. He hoped the noble Lord would see if anything could be done to make the College of Heraldry of use.
§ MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he thought that the names of persons who had received the fees and payments for the Insignia should be furnished, so that hon. Members might have some better idea of the way the money was disposed of.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had already referred to the Return with these details; and if the hon. Member who had just spoken desired it he would be happy to show it to him. The hon. Member for Northampton had stated that the jewels were all returned at the death of the Knights. That was the case with the ordinary Knights of the Garter; but it was never the case when the Order was conferred on Foreign Monarchs. He did not think the hon. Member would wish to make an innovation in that respect. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: 131 Oh, yes.] The reason for the purchase of the Insignia of the Order of St. Michael and St. George was that the Order had a short time since been largely increased; and it was found to be much more economical to buy in the manner indicated in the Vote, by which, he believed, there had been a saving effected of about 10 per cent. The fees to Heralds were fully covered by the stamps issued to the Herald's College.
§ MR. O'DONNELLadmired the dashing style in which the hon. Member for Northampton had knocked over, so to speak, the mediaeval relics provided for in the Vote; still he thought that even on democratic principles the Committee ought not to vote against the granting of such distinctions. Objections might be brought against them; but he believed that all history showed that those bits of silk and pieces of gold and silver had always been regarded as stimulants to heroic action, and as their most coveted reward. Whether they were English, French, or the Orders of other Foreign States, the desire to possess such distinctions was deeply rooted in human nature; and he strongly suspected that if some hon. Members who objected to them had gone through terrible scenes of battle and storm, and were acquainted with the value placed upon them by the bravest of the brave, their objections to them would not be so strong, at least, in principle. Whenever any abuse could be detected in the conferring of these Orders he should be quite at one with the hon. Member for Northampton. But if there were a distinction which ought not to be objected to by Radical Members, he thought it was the distinction of Knighthood. It was not hereditary, and he was surprised that Radicals should object to a class of honours which must, by theory at least, be the reward of personal merit, and which could not be handed down to future generations.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Dungarvan had not looked into the Vote. Had this charge related to the Victoria Cross, or distinctions won on the field of battle, he should have offered no objection. As he had said, he was not a member of the Order in question; but he was not under the impression that it was very frequently conferred upon democrats, or that it was a very democratic Order, and 132 so on several grounds he moved the reduction of the Vote.
§ MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he did not agree with the hon. Member for Dungarvan, who appeared to have entirely misunderstood the nature of these Votes, into which the question of merit did not enter at all. His hon. Friend had stated that the desire to possess distinctions of this kind was deeply rooted; but he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) did not think it was desirable to pander to human weakness of that kind. He could understand the conferring of these Orders where battle had been done to maintain a just cause. But that consideration did not arise here. These Orders were in many cases given for bad purposes; he knew they were often used as a means of bribing persons to take a course which they really ought not to take. The only argument of weight that he had listened to in the course of the discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton was that advanced by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said that with regard to these Insignia a considerable saving of expense had been effected by purchasing a quantity.
§ MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsuggested that if the country had to pay for the Robes of the new Knights, a considerable saving might also be effected by buying up a large quantity of them, second-hand, from the Lyceum Theatre, for example.
§ MR. BROADHURSTasked the meaning of the mysterious paragraph relating to the fees to Heralds?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he had already pointed out that the cost of the fees in question were entirely covered by the stamps issued.
§ MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Insignia and the Order of St. Michael and St. George were distinctly rewards for merit, and even rewards for very distinguished merit. If they were not usually won on the battle-field, they were won on the not less noble field of successful administration. He listened with great surprise to the protestations of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) against chivalric distinctions. On many occasions that hon. Gentleman had won the cheers of Irish audiences by appeals, in his own touching and eloquent style, to the glorious days— 133
When Kings, with their banners of gold unfurled,Led the Red Branch Knights to danger;and it did seem strange that now the hon. Member should turn his back upon the poetic traditions of Erin.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 90: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 35.)
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§
(6.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,214, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1882, for the repayment to the Civil Contingencies Fund of certain Miscellaneous Advances.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he did not intend to divide the Committee upon this Vote, because these items were very much the same as those upon which they had already divided; but really there ought to be some sort of explanation afforded them. The first item was—
Fees paid on the Installation of the Emperor of Russia, and of the Kings of Sweden and Spain"—he did not know why the King of Saxony was left out—" as Knights of the Garter, £1,358.These were bonâ fide payments, and he believed that the recipients of the Garters had fees to pay besides.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHIt is not the case with Foreign Potentates.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that again they had—
Fees paid on the admission of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge into the Order of the Thistle, £245.They did not begrudge the Thistle to the Duke of Cambridge; but when they had to pay £245 it was really too bad. He had no doubt the Duke of Cambridge efficiently performed his duty; but he had not done any signal service which rendered it necessary for the country to not only give him the Order of the Thistle, but to pay fees amounting to £245. When the Order was given it was only natural it should be given without any obligation, either on the part of the Government or recipient, to pay large fees into the Herald's Office. He had known cases in which gentlemen 134 had refused to accept the Orders because, although they really had distinguished themselves abroad, they had not been prepared to pay the large fees exacted. They ought to receive some explanation of what the Herald's Office was, and what was its relation to the Government. Again, they had—Fees paid to the College of Arms, &c, for recording the Pedigrees, &c., of Sir F. S. Roberts and Sir D. M. Stewart, on their creation as Baronets, £78 11s. 4d.Now, these gentlemen might be very estimable, and they might have pedigrees; but why £78 11s. 4d. should be paid for recording these pedigrees did appear a little too absurd. It was no use to walk through the Lobby again, because they would only get about the same number of hon. Gentlemen to follow them as in the last division. But if they did not divide, they ought to have some explanation from the noble Lord, and an assurance that he would look into the matter.
§ MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he would like some explanation of the item of £900 "for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons." He would like some information as to who those distinguished persons were, and as to where they were conveyed to, and where from. He decidedly objected to the item of £245 for fees paid on the admission of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge into the Order of the Thistle, and would move its omission from the Vote.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the item of £245, for Fees paid on the admission of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge into the Order of the Thistle, be omitted from the proposed Vote."—(Mr. Broadhurst.)
§ MR. R. N. FOWLERasked for some explanation of the item of £923 1s. 6d., as "Equipage Money to the Eight Hon. H. Law, on his appointment as Lord Chancellor of Ireland." He did not rise to object to the sum, because he had the greatest respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he had the greatest respect for the traditions of the College of Arms; but he wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact that, although a good deal of money was paid to the College of Arms, it was, practically, useless. He believed it might be made of use, if it set about making 135 the titles possessed by gentlemen more respected. At the present time there was at the end of Forster's Peerage what was called "The Chaos," being a list of 67 names of gentlemen who used the title of Baronet without being entitled to do so. When these fees were paid to the College of Arms, the least the College could do would be to do its best to see that distinguished titles, such as that of Baronet, were only held and used by the persons entitled to them. While there was no law in the country to prevent a misuse of titles, he thought the noble Lord might do something to make the College of Arms more useful.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that when the noble Lord rose to explain the points already raised, perhaps he would to good enough to explain also one of the last items of the Vote—namely, £150 to
J. H. L. Rogers, compensation for injury sustained at an Election riot at Portarlington in 1868.He did not remember having heard of any claim on the part of his constituents in Queen's County, or on the part of the constituents of the hon. Member for Portarlington (Mr. Fitzpatrick), who, unfortunately, was not in his place; and they would be interested to know what were the grounds for the claim, and what were the reasons for the delay in meeting it.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, that, in respect to the last question addressed to him, he had to state that Mr. Rogers, a resident magistrate, was wounded in an election riot at Portarlington in 1868. His eyesight was so affected that he was ultimately obliged to retire from his post. His expenses for medical advice and attendance were heavy, and he was considered entitled to a grant from the public funds when he was obliged to leave the service. [Mr. SEXTON: When did he leave the service?] He believed Mr. Rogers retired about a year or two ago; but he was not certain of the date. As to the observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), he thought the remarks he made concerning the last Vote would apply to this also. If, in accordance with universal custom, they considered it a matter of policy to give distinctions to eminent Potentates they thought it necessary to pay for them; it was not 136 considered proper to ask the Sovereign, to whom the Orders were given, to pay the customary fees. He himself considered the system of paying large fees a bad one; but he could assure hon. Members that it was much easier to find fault with it than to abolish it. The Treasury had never lost an opportunity of putting an end to them, and he would not be backward in his duty in that respect, though he was afraid he could not promise any great success. With respect to the fees paid on the admission of the Duke of Cambridge to the Order of the Thistle, he had to make the same remark, that, according to universal custom, when a Member of the Royal Family received such honours the fees had always been paid by the State; and he did not think an invidious distinction would be made in the case of the Duke of Cambridge, who had rendered such long and active service to the country. As to the "special packets for the conveyance of Distinguished Persons," the payments were made for Members of the Royal Family chiefly when crossing to the Continent. Formerly a man-of-war was placed at the disposal of the Members of the Royal Family on such occasions; but it had been found much more economical, and otherwise more satisfactory, to arrange with the Mail Packet Company for the use of one of their special packets. He did not know whether any hon. Member would wish him to give the names of those who had had the special packets; but if so, he might refer them to the Return, which had already been moved for by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James). As to the equipage money to the Eight Hon. Mr. Law, it had always been made to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on his appointment. A similar grant was made in respect to the Lord Chancellor of England.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the explanation given in regard to the item of £150 was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. Fourteen years ago, a resident magistrate was wounded at Portarlington, and the noble Lord told them that his sight was injured and he left the service a year or two ago. He could not think that Mr. Rogers' state of health two years ago could be influenced 137 by injury he sustained 12 years before. He was inclined to regard the business as a job, and he objected to the payment the more emphatically, because within the last year or two the police in Ireland had wounded many people, and even killed some, yet he did not find any proposal to compensate the wounded, or the relatives of the killed. The relatives of the woman killed by the police at Belmullet had not received a single shilling. The item was a scandal, it was evidently a job, and he should move its omission.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Item of £ 150, for Compensation to Mr. J. H. L. Rogers, be omitted from the proposed Tote."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ MR. W. H. JAMESasked for an explanation of the item of £2,182 11s. paid to—
The representatives of John Tate, deceased, on account of share in the Uruguayan Award, the amount of which had been paid into the Exchequer.
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, the award arose out of circumstances of a long time past. The Government paid considerable sums on account of claims made by British subjects. The item referred to was not claimed, and it was consequently paid into the Exchequer. The representatives of Mr. Tate, however, had since proved their claim to the deceased's share, and it was felt proper to pay it to them.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked if the noble Lord could refer the Committee to any Parliamentary Paper or Return with respect to Mr. Rogers?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he was not aware that any Return had been presented.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORinquired if the noble Lord would have any objection to lay on the Table of the House the Correspondence relating to the grant to Mr. Rogers?
§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, if the hon. Member would defer the matter until Report, he would tell him then whether there was any Correspondence in the matter.
§ MR. SEXTONexpressed a wish to withdraw his Amendment, on the understanding that some explanation was made on Report.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.