Lords Sitting of 2 March 1866

MINUTES.
Took the Oath—The Earl of Wicklow.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Jamaica Government* (29); Cattle Diseases (Ireland)* (30); Savings Banks and Post Office Savings Banks* (31); National Debt Reduction*(32).

DEVONPORT ELECTION.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, I wish to make a personal explanation respecting a statement which has been made in reference to the petition which has been presented against the return of Members at the late election for the borough of Devonport. It has been stated that, in consequence of a letter which was addressed to me, I ordered a telegram to be sent to the officers at the Devonport Dockyard ordering them to give to the Parliamentary agent every facility for the services of the Speaker's warrants upon such witnesses as were employed in the yard. Now, I wish to state clearly and distinctly what did occur. First of all, no letter was written to me at all, nor was any application made to me on the subject; consequently, I issued no order—and, indeed, I knew nothing whatever about the matter until I saw the notice on the Votes of a Question to be asked in the other House. From inquiries, however, which I have since instituted, I am able to state what actually did occur. An application was made in the usual form to the Secretary of the Admiralty, who referred it to the persons who superintended the business of the dockyards. They consulted the branch of the Admiralty which is connected with legal matters as to whether the Speaker's warrant would have any authority in the dockyards, and afterwards a telegram was sent to the authorities at Devonport, ordering them to give the necessary facilities for the service of the warrants. That proceeding was so much a matter of course that it was never mentioned to me at all, and no notice was taken of it at the Board the next day. As a Member of your Lordships' House, I have thought it only fair to myself to say that I have taken no part in any way in reference to this petition, and that I know nothing whatever of the matter.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, no one who is acquainted with the noble Duke

  1377
  would for a single moment have supposed that he lent himself to any unfair or improper proceeding; but, at the same time, as he has called your Lordships' attention to this subject—though I had no idea that it would be brought before your Lordships to-night, and know nothing of it except what took place elsewhere—I cannot but think that there has been in some quarter a gross dereliction of duty with regard to this affair. For, in the first place, the Speaker's warrants would run in the dockyards without any interference upon the part of any Member of the Government; and I do not, in the next place, understand for what purpose the Speaker's warrant was required. I believe Speaker's warrants are only necessary where persons have declined to obey the summons of the Select Committee appointed to try the election petition. Supposing these persons had been summoned and had disobeyed the summons, then there would be ground for applying for a Speaker's warrant. But this Committee is not expected to sit until after Easter. I want to know, therefore, what was the reason why, two months before the sitting of the Committee, and consequently before any summons could be issued by the Committee, the Speaker's warrant was sent down to order the attendance of persons, without the slightest knowledge of the evidence that they were about to give or the ground of their presence being required. I cannot help thinking—and the noble Duke will forgive me for saying so—I acquit him altogether—I cannot help thinking that there are circumstances that make this a most suspicious transaction. In the first place, one of the petitioners was Mr. Phinn, who has been one of the Secretaries to the Admiralty, and is now, I believe, an officer employed under the Admiralty. He is one of the petitioners; and on his application—his connection with the Admiralty being notorious—the unusual step is taken to send down a Speaker's warrant two months before the meeting of the Committee; and these persons, instead of being visited at their homes, are collected together in the presence of officers of Her Majesty's Navy, served with the warrant, and examined and cross-examined as to what evidence they were prepared to give two months hence. Now, a Speaker's warrant does not authorize any proceeding of the kind, but simply orders the persons served to attend when called upon to attend; and to have these individuals, who are in the employ
  1378
  of the dockyard, and who are under the control of the Admiralty, summoned before officers of the Admiralty, and examined and cross-examined in their presence, then and there to elicit in evidence that which is to be brought forward in support of a petition promoted by and in the interests of the Counsel to the Admiralty, does appear to me to implicate some Members of the Government connected with this dockyard in a course of proceeding that is utterly unjustifiable, and that demands the most serious consideration of Parliament. It is not merely sending down a Speaker's warrant, but it is sending down a purely fishing inquiry, to ascertain what evidence could be obtained on the part of the petitioners against the sitting Members; and this is done by the authority and direction, and with the sanction and in the presence of the officers connected with the Admiralty. I must repeat that it is a question which deserves the most serious investigation by Parliament; it is a tampering with the freedom of election not likely to be passed over; and though I entirely acquit the noble Duke of having had anything to do with it, I think that the matter ought not to be allowed to rest here, but that there should be a full inquiry how it was that these parties were subjected to an utterly illegal and unauthorized proceeding.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: I agree with the noble Earl that this is a subject which ought to be thoroughly inquired into; but I wish in justice to Mr. Phinn, to state that I have received a letter from him, in which he says—
  "I have nothing whatever to do with the Devonport election petition. It is the petition of the electors, and it is true that they claim the seat for me, but they have done so without my concurrence and against my advice."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I make no charge against Mr. Phinn, who did quite right in endeavouring to get as much as he could out of the officials. What I complain of is that it was perfectly well known that Mr. Phinn was a subordinate of the Government and Counsel to the Admiralty, and that it was in his interest that this investigation took place.

MARRIAGE LAW (IRELAND.)—PETITION.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHrose to present a Petition from Richard Talbot, of Ranagham, in the County of Westmeath, in Ireland and to call the attention of the

  1379
  House to the statements in that petition. The noble Marquess said, the subject referred not so much to matters of religion as to those of law and order, and be was anxious to hear what defence the Irish Government could make for itself in respect of the matter to which the petition referred. In the month of October last the daughter of the petitioner was allured to marry a Roman Catholic against her father's wishes, she being then under age, and Talbot being a Protestant and a respectable yeoman of the county of Westmeath. The petitioner, believing that his daughter Was living in a state of concubinage, such a marriage being null and void by the 19 Geo. II. c. 19, made a deposition, which he sent to the Irish Government on the 2nd of December, requesting it to take the matter up. No answer having been returned to that application, on the 13th of January Talbot issued a summons against the priest who had performed the marriage, and who by that act had committed a felony within the meaning of the Act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 13. The priest came to the court attended by an immense crowd, who appeared to be amenable to his wishes. He got upon a car which was covered with laurels, and addressed the crowd, bidding them be peaceable, but at the same time reminding them of many circumstances calculated to exasperate them against the magistrate who had signed the summons. Having entered the court, the priest said there was no occasion to examine witnesses, inasmuch as he had done the act for which he was summoned, and would repeat it as often as he had an opportunity. The magistrate, having regard to the state of the country, and that the mob were thoroughly with the priest, believed it would not be safe to take information against a priest, and the case was not gone on with. The next day the priest was surrounded by a much larger assemblage at the neighbouring town and near the chapel. Addressing about 2,000 persons, he proceeded on the assumption that he had achieved a great victory, and inquired of the mob what they would do if he was summoned again before the magistrate. The mob replied that they would "mallet" the persons who should summon him which, of course, meant "murder" them. The priest, however, suggested that this should not be done, but that Father Carey should be sent for. The people had been made to believe that a man had died in consequence of Father Carey having denounced him; and hence
  1380
  the suggestion of that rev. gentleman's name. In the speech the magistrate was denounced at great length, and it evidently appeared that the bench dared not proceed with the charge of the illegal marriage. The offence was the issuing the summons; and it was not difficult to understand that in Ireland the greatest offence any one could commit was to endeavour to make a priest amenable to law; but the Irish Government had been informed twice of the facts of this case, and why had it not interfered to vindicate the law? Daily occurrences in Ireland led too plainly to the inference that there was no justice to be had for the poorer classes of Protestants there. A favourable hearing was reserved for those who were instrumental in bringing Members into Parliament to support the Ministry. A poor Protestant might as well speak to the wall as appeal to the Government for remedy against injustice. He was not an ultra-Protestant—far from it; he was always willing to do justice to his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, but at the same time he claimed equal rights and equally just treatment for their Protestant neighbours. It was in this spirit that his Motion was couched, and he believed the Government would hardly venture to refuse to accede to it. Parliament has heard much, and probably will hear more, about the grievances of England; but I have to tell the Government that as long as Roman Catholic Priests are permitted directly or indirectly to interfere with the administration of justice there, there can be no peace. He concluded by moving an Address for—
  "Report of the Officer of the Constabulary to the Inspector General of the Language held by the Roman Catholic Priest addressed to the tumultuous Meeting assembled and following him at Cotherstown on Tuesdays, the 14th, 21st, and 28th of January, 1866, and of all the Circumstances coming under his Observation at that time."
  LORD DUFFERINsaid, that if any miscarriage of justice had taken place, their Lordships must feel that it had occurred contrary to the wish and intention of Her Majesty's Government. The difficulty in the case arose, as he understood, from the fact that, when the prosecution was about to be instituted, no information whatever had been sworn. It was perfectly unusual to produce papers of the description asked for without previous communication with the Irish Government. He therefore trusted the noble Marquess would not press his Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that it is unusual to produce the reports of the police?
  LORD DUFFERIN: What I said was that it was unusual to accede to a Parliamentary Motion such as that of the noble Marquess without first inquiring from the Government of Ireland whether there is any objection to our acceding to the request.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH: In that case I shall postpone my Motion to this day week.
  Motion postponed.

THE LATE KING OF THE BELGIANS—THE TRUST ESTATE OF 1834.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, were any of my colleagues Members of the House of Commons I think I should probably intust to them the duty of bringing before that House, as being more directly concerned in financial matters, the statement with which I am about very shortly to trouble your Lordships. But, inasmuch as that is not the case, and my co-trustees have only been members of the trust for less than two years, while unfortunately I am the sole survivor among the original trustees appointed in the year 1834, your Lordships will not think it unnatural or unreasonable at the close of such a trust that I should desire to lay before the House a summary of the mode in which we have executed that trust, and disposed of the large sum of £1,500,000 which in that time has passed through our hands. I shall trouble your Lordships with as few figures as possible; but I will endeavour to show that we have acted from the beginning to the end in the spirit and in accordance with the terms of our trust. In the year 1816, as your Lordships are aware, a marriage was contracted between the late King of the Belgians, then his Serene Highness Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, and the Princess Charlotte, heiress to the Throne of England, and thereupon an annuity for their joint i lives of £60,000 was settled by Act of; Parliament, with a provision that in the event of his Serene Highness surviving the Princess—an event which certainly could not have been regarded as likely to occur so shortly—he should be entitled to receive the diminished annuity of £50,000 a year. This annuity of £50,000, as the settlement shows, was to be paid immediately after the death of the Princess Charlotte, and con-
1382
tinued during the natural life of his Serene Highness. The first payment was to be made on the first quarter day next occurring after the death of Her Royal Highness, and the subsequent payments on each of the four usual quarter days; the money was to come from the Consolidated Fund. My Lords, this annuity of £50,000 was to be received by his Royal Highness Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, and he did receive it until he ascended the Throne of Belgium, when he voluntarily resigned the annuity, which he was entitled still to receive, and placed the whole in the hands of certain trustees, of whom I have the honour to be one, to the use of certain trusts, which being satisfied the residue was to be paid annually into the British Exchequer. Under these trusts we have received a total sum of £1,534,962; and I take the opportunity of saying that during the whole period, from the time of our accepting the trust down to the day of the late King's death, His Majesty has neither directly nor indirectly received a single shilling of that million and a half of money which he would have had a right to receive according to the law of England. I will now, with your Lordships' permission, state shortly what were the objects contemplated by the trust, the limitations of those several objects, and the manner in which they were executed. In the first place, we were to pay the rent and taxes of Marlborough House up to the year 1835, and the taxes levied on the premises at Claremont and Melbourne Lodge—asmaller house near Claremont—and keep them in such a state of repair that they should be always fit for habitation; but the whole of these expenses were not to exceed £6,000 a year in amount. There was also set forth a list of pensions and allowances—I will not trouble your Lordships with the names, but they were not to exceed £8,941 yearly—with the power of striking off any names that might be thought fit, though power was not given to add any. In addition to this a number of charities were to be paid, and among these were some charities bequeathed by the Princess Charlotte to the amount of £360 a year. The first trust was to provide £7,183 for the rent of Marlborough House; to allow to the agents such expenses for the general purposes of the trust as we deemed necessary, and thereafter to pay over to the Exchequer the balance remaining. But I must remark that when we took the houses at Claremont under our control they were certainly not in a very complete state of repair, and they

1383
required a very large expenditure from year to year to keep them in a habitable condition. I need not say that the long residence of the ex-Royal family of France increased the expense of housekeeping and those other expenses incidental to keeping the house constantly in a state fit for habitation. But, my Lords, I am happy to say that, notwithstanding we had these difficulties to contend with, we have succeeded in discharging the duties devolving upon us as managers of the Claremont Estate by the expenditure of a sum considerably within the sum of £6,000 a year. We have been receiving during a period of 31¼ years. The first quarter commenced in July, 1834, and the last ended with October, 1865. £6,000 a year during that period amounts to £187,500; but our actual expenditure has been only £181,610, and this sum was expended in the following manner. The ordinary expenses of the house, including the wages and keeping the property both in and out of doors in repair, came to £142,451, or an average of £4,556 a year; and that is a sum which I think your Lordships will not think disproportionate to the extent of the buildings and grounds. Then the ordinary repairs of Claremont Lodge, which, as I have said, were of necessity extensive, cost during the 31¼ years £36,258, or an average of £1,160 a year. The repairs of Melbourne Lodge cost £2,900, or an average of £82 a year. These totals make, as I have said, £181,610 or £7,000 less than the sum we were authorized to expend. But, my Lords, I must here mention another item of expenditure which does not strictly come under the head of repairs, but which we have described as extraordinary repairs. These were works of a permanent character, which we in reference to our own property would call landlord's repairs; for they were such as no tenant would be expected to incur, especially if he held under a tenancy depending upon the life of a man advanced in years. Still, these repairs were necessary for the comfort of the Royal inhabitants, and it was advisable they should be made in the interest of the reversioner—that is to say of the Crown. But the expenses to which I allude have not been very large. They consisted of the erection of a new range of stables, the carrying out of an extensive system of drainage, and various other permanent works of a similar character. None of these repairs were ordered without due consideration. Once a year, in the month
1384
of July, we met together, and received the auditor's report for the year which had passed, and the resident steward's estimate for the year to come. The latter recorded in detail every item of expenditure which he considered would be necessary. Sometimes we objected to and disallowed an item, and sometimes, when in doubt, the trustees would maturely consider the matter. Once, Mr. Edward Ellice went down to Claremont to examine into the circumstances of the case, in order to see whether the expenditure was absolutely required. When we were satisfied with the estimate we referred these repairs, both general and extraordinary, to the Treasury; and having obtained the sanction of the Treasury, we directed that the repairs should be executed under the authority of the Board of Works—the extraordinary repairs by the Crown, and the ordinary repairs by the Trust; but the expense of the whole, amounting to £20,917, were paid out of the funds in the hands of the trustees. The next sum of which I have to speak is that representing the pensions and allowances, over which we could exercise no control, because they were fixed, and determinable only by death. They have amounted to £190,462; but if none of them had fallen in they would have amounted to £269,418, or £8,941 a year, but the falling in of lives made the actual sum £190,462. We can, however, claim no credit for this reduction. Then, the charities, including the £336 paid under the will of Princess Charlotte, and including also several small contributions to local charities, which seemed to fall upon the trustees as landowners, amount to £11,296. Then come the expenses incurred under the Trust. The auditor's and resident steward's salaries amount to £550 a year, or a total of £17,127; and the other expenses of the Trust, including the cost of one or two journeys to Belgium, amount to £1,984 in the 31¼ years. I think your Lordships will agree with me that we have not been very extravagant on this head. The total, then, of these sums brings up the expenditure to £430,852; and after paying all charges on the Trust we have a balance of £4,880 in hand, for which we are accountable to the Treasury, to whom we have already paid £1,099,500. That sum, I repeat, has been received by the country clear, and over and above all the necessary expenses. I think a slight mistake has been made in the notice of Motion placed on the paper in my name. It is stated that I gave

1385
notice of my intention to lay upon your Lordships' table a statement in regard to this matter; but I have no such power. I thought, however, it would be satisfactory to your Lordships to be made acquainted with the manner in which we had conducted our affairs, the liabilities we had discharged, and the balance which we have paid into the Exchequer. I will come now to the position in which the trustees were placed by the death of the King of the Belgians, which took place on the 10th of December, exactly when two months of the current quarter had expired. From the moment of the late King's death I apprehend that our legal powers as trustees expired, and that all which we were entitled by law to do was to wind up the accounts. But it was clearly necessary that the establishment should not be suddenly broken up, and that provision should be made for the more pressing exigencies,—such as, for instance, supplying the household with mourning. And, therefore, immediately after the King's death we wrote to the Treasury requesting their sanction to our ordering those immediate expenses, and that it would furnish us with directions for the future management of the estate. We also requested very earnestly that at the earliest possible period we might be relieved from the obligation of discharging duties which we were discharging from that moment without any legal sanction. We also asked whether Her Majesty's Government intended to pay over to the trustees of the late King the fractional part of a quarter which had already expired, of the £12,500, which was the amount of the quarterly payment; and further, whether we were authorized to pay over to the pensioners out of the funds in our hands the fractional part to which we conceived they were entitled up to the King's death. We received an answer—and it is with reference to that I call attention to the wording of the Act. The answer was, that inasmuch as the Act did not provide for the payment of any fractional part of a quarter the Treasury would pay to us no part of the expenses of that quarter. Fortunately we had, by arrangements previously made with the Treasury, a certain balance in our hands. We have received another letter since the 10th of October, stating that we were not authorized to pay any of the fractional portion of the pensions to those who had hitherto received pensions. As far as we were concerned as trustees that was a matter of
1386
absolute unimportance, for the result would be that having received £8,000 additional, we should have had £8,000 more to account for when the accounts were closed. But let me call attention to the case of the pensioners. I do not for a moment say that it was not the duty of the pensioners—of the higher class of pensioners—in common prudence, to have insured his Majesty's life, so that they might not suddenly find their means cut off by his death. But it was not to be expected that those who were receiving £20, £30, or £40 a year would have the prudence to insure, or, in fact, could have insured his life for any amount. And I am sure we must feel the hardship which the sudden stoppage of these pensions must have inflicted upon this class, to whom the sudden stoppage of even two months' pension would be a great disaster. Great hardship has fallen upon these persons, and one poor old woman, who more than fifty years ago was the servant of the Princess Charlotte, and had nothing but the pension to depend upon, has been driven by this sudden stoppage to the union workhouse. I am happy to say that since I gave notice to bring this subject before the House—in fact, this very day—we have received from the Treasury an official notification that, upon reconsideration, with reference to the pensions—
"My Lords will not object to their being paid out of the balances in the hands of the trustees on the 10th of December, the period of the King's death, if the trustees consider such a course desirable, and on the assumption that the balance will be sufficient for the purpose."
Certainly I received with great satisfaction that intimation, and, as far as I am concerned as a trustee, I cannot desire anything further. But your Lordships, recollecting that many of these are persons in humble life—that not one of them has been less than thirty-one years upon the list of pensions and allowances—will, perhaps, think it is a case—though, of course, they have no legal claim—which might fairly command the favourable consideration of the Treasury, if they can by any means give relief to these persons from the consequences of the sudden stoppage of their pensions. But the expression used in this answer was that the money was available out of the balances at our disposal. In the same letter we received for the first time the intimation, for which we had been earnestly pressing for nearly the last three mouths, that on the 5th of April

1387
next we would be relieved from the duties which we are now performing. At that time, I believe, subject to any deductions on account of those pensions, the balance in our hands will be between £1,200 and £1,400. But what I wish to call your Lordships' attention to is the anomalous and irregular position in which the trustees are placed by defraying, under the authority of the Treasury, the expenses of Claremont, and the maintenance of the other objects of the trust, for a period long subsequent to that at which our legal powers expired. I must, however, confess that I do not believe Parliament will deal hardly with us on that account. On the 10th December, the day of the King's death, it was our duty in strict law to pay over to the Treasury the funds then in our hands; and I must confess that it is rather irregular that for three months we should go on, upon the mere direction of the Treasury, defraying expenses out of the balance that ought to be paid into the Exchequer. It is not the mere question of the balance we had in hand, but it is a question whether we had any right to pay away any portion of that balance. We of course felt it to be our duty to obey the instructions we had received from the Treasury; and I am well aware that there may be matters to be settled which require for some time a provisional state of things. What may be the future disposal of the estate of Claremont, or what may hereafter take place, it is not for me to say, nor can I form any opinion on the subject; but it is understood—though I have no authority for saying anything of the kind—that it is Her Majesty's desire that Queen Marie Amelie should continue to reside at Claremont: and I am quite sure there is no one in your Lordships' House, and I believe there would he few in this country, who, looking to the dignified patience and fortitude with which that illustrious and venerable lady has borne her many sorrows and misfortunes—and looking, moreover, to the universal sympathy she has excited in all classes of the people, and the affectionate reverence with which she is regarded by all who have the happiness to be brought in contact with her—there is hardly a man in this country who would wish that at her advanced age she should be constrained or even permitted to quit that residence which for many years—for so many years—has been her only home. I know not what arrangements may be in contempla-
1388
tion; but I could not refrain from expressing my hope that so long as it pleases Her Majesty to make Claremont her residence she may be permitted to do so; and I am sure that would be met with the hearty concurrence and thorough goodwill of the people of this country, from whatever funds it might be necessary to provide means. I must now thank your Lordships for the kindness with which you have listened to my statement. I have endeavoured to make it as short and as clear as I could, and I trust it will be found that no discredit attaches either to those who preceded in the trust, or to myself and my present co-trustees, for the manner in which we have discharged the duties committed to us.
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree with me in thinking that the statement which has just been made by the noble Earl has proved that the trust could not have been placed in better hands, and I am sure that your Lordships must feel perfectly satisfied at the manner in which its duties have been fulfilled, and at the large sum which has been paid into the Exchequer in conformity with the wish of the late King of the Belgians. It is only, however, with reference to the latter portion of the remarks of the noble Earl, bearing upon the course which the Treasury has adopted in this matter, that I have anything to say. The Treasury thought that the balance in the hands of the trustees at the time of King Leopold's death, amounting, I believe, to some £5,600 and odd pounds, might be applied to keeping up Claremont, defraying the pensions up to the time of the late King's death, and to discharging the necessary expenses up to the 5th of April next, the day when the Department of Woods will take charge of the estate, and when, according to the present arrangements, the noble Earl and his co-trustees will be relieved from any further trouble. I do trust that the noble Earl, and those who act with him, will have the satisfaction of knowing that they have discharged their trust in a manner that has been entirely satisfactory to the country. With regard to the state of things at the time of the late King's death, Her Majesty immediately wrote to the ex-Queen of the French, Queen Marie Amelie, expressing her wish that Queen Marie would not leave Claremont; and it is obvious that at her advanced age such a course would be attended with danger, not only to her health, but possibly to her life.

1389
Queen Marie Amelie, on her side, wrote to Her Majesty, returning thanks for the kindness which she had always received at Her Majesty's hands, and expressing her willingness to resign her residence at any moment. It is, however, the desire of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Ministers—and I am sure such a determination will meet with the approval of the noble Earl—that Queen Marie Amelie should reside at Claremont as long as she pleases. Queen Marie Amelie decided to stay at Claremont, but at the same time expressed the strongest resolution that the nation should not be put to the expense attendant upon her continued residence there. If therefore, Parliament should approve of Claremont being granted to Her Majesty, Her Majesty will request Queen Marie Amelie to continue at Claremont as her guest. I am only expressing the feelings of your Lordships when I say it would be painful to Her Majesty and to all her subjects if the ex-Queen of the French was not to remain in that residence. I had the honour to be in acquaintance with Queen Marie Amelie when she was the Duchess of Orleans, when she was Queen of the French, and latterly when she was in exile, and I must say that her virtues and her character are such as to inspire regard and veneration in all who knew her. The future arrangements will be brought before the House of Commons at the proper time.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I only rise to say that I think I am speaking the feelings of both sides of the House, when I express a hope that the noble Earl opposite will recollect the case of those pensioners to whom my noble Friend has alluded.
EARL RUSSELL: Yes; I should have stated that the Treasury consider that there will be £1,500 on the 5th April which will be applicable to those pensions.
THE EARL OF DERBY: The question which I understand my noble Friend wished to put, and which I suggested to the consideration of the noble Earl, was whether these cases would be entertained with a view to the continuance of some of the small pensions.
EARL RUSSELL: I had that in view when I stated that the whole subject would be taken into consideration at the proper time.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till Monday next, Eleven o'clock.