Star. — London, England, 1821-06-19 00:00:00

.• , \. , 0 • motion which he intended to propose to the House. But though the wishes of those Gentlemen were so hx-VIPC4JeIi he heilvd.tlita they would still act up to the spin. of those eulogies which they had be stowed on his Hon. Friend, and shew their consistency by attending to-morrow night to vote with him— ' (Hear, hear).—Here Le could not help observing, that the Right lion. Getaleman had, in some measure, brought this temporary defection on himself, by the • too high strain of boasting which he had adopted with regard to the state of the finances of the coun try. This kind of language was very much in use in the world, though people sometimes found that by boasting of their wealth, they were very apt to draw thieve, around them—( Hear, hear, and laughter). The Marquis of LONDONDERRY had only to observe on what had fallen from the Hon. Member for Taunton, that he had spoken as if he was deter mined that Ministers should never give up a tax again —(Hear, hear). Colonel WOOD called the attention of the House to the situation of those persons who employed horses in Wales in the transport of ore. They were very poor, and the tax upon their horses, which was at first 17s. was reduced to 3s. He hoped that they would be considered as fit objects for relief by this House, and would be included in this Bill. Mr: S. WORTLEY said, that if he had been in the House on the evening this question was brought for ward, he would have voted for the repeal of the tax _(Hear, hear).—He was at-a loss to conceive why it should follow that Gentlemen who usually gave their confidence to Ministers, because they eulogised the industry of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, were therefore bound to vote for any proposition which he might choose to make. As to a compensation tax, tie was satisfied that there was no occasion whatever for et--(Hear, hear). Lord MILTON did not know whether his Hon., Friend, who bad just sat down, in what he had ad vanced, had spoken merely for himself, or as the organ of the Gentlemen around him. It was certain, however, that those Gentlemen thought that his Hon. Friend, the Member for Aberdeen, had effected a great deal of good by what hehad done in the course of the Session—(Hear, hear). —They might, indeed, have reflected that if they had been present to assist him, he would have done a little more good—(Hear, ..cr)—and if they were still as willing to aid as they v ere to eulogize him, he might be enabled, though late, to do still more—(Hear, hear).—He could not agree with his Hon. Friend, the Member for Taun ton, as to the imprudence of taking away half a mil lion of tales, because he had the satisfaction of be lieving that it would produce retrenchment, at least to that amount—(Hear, hear). —He was inclined to think the repeal of the tax in question as a great boon indeed to the agriculturists ; and from that natural predilection which every man felt for his own order, he was inclined to rate that boon higher, perhaps, than many persons. But he was aware that it would only be a temporary relief to the pockets of the farmers, and that ultimately its beneficial effects would be diffused over the community at large. He could not help thinking that the Landed Interest could now have no further claim to say that they were not fully represented in this House. And if any partial reforms should hereafter take place, he hoped the repeal of this tax would not be forgotten, and that the House would think it necessary to take under its protection also the Manufacturing Interest—( Hear, hear). —He hoped the country would receive what passed this evening with proper gratitude; but he hoped also the country would refer its gratitude to the proper quarter—his Hon. Friend, the Member for Cumberland, and those Members who voted with him—(Hear,hear).—The Noble Lord had talked of economy and retrenchment, but he was sorry to, observe that the economy and retrenchment of Mi-' sisters were always deferred to the next Session of Parliament. He hoped, however, that in this instance no greater postponement would take place. Mr. GOOCH repeated what he had said en a for mer evening, that the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had done eminent service to the country—(Hear)— and c, mgratulated the House upon the discontinuance of the tax in question. He was sorry to observe the distinction which the Noble Lord, who spoke last, endeavoured to draw between the Manufacturing and Agricultural Interests. Mr. LOCKHART deprecated any distinctions being made between the agriculturist and manufac turer. The interests of both were one and the same. He was glad that the tax was given up, and he was sure that it would be received by the agriculturists as a boon. • Mr. CRIPPS said, that from the retrenchments which were in contemplation by Ministers, he did not see any inconsistency in voting for the expenses of the year and against the continuance of this tax. Mr. PEEL did not join in the general congratula tion ; and believed no good would arise from what had a tendency to weaken public credit, particularly at the time when the first step had been taken to re sume cash payments. Sir C. BURRELL thought the repeal of much moment, as it would convince the country that it had not been the intention of Government to throw the poor lands out of cultivation. He was surprised that the Hon. Member, who had been absent from the discussion, should now revive it. Mr. GRENFELL said, that the decision of the House called for great economy on the part of Go vernment. Would the repeal cause a diminution in the sum laid out for the reduction of the Na tional Debt ? Sir JOHN NEWPORT thought the question un necessary. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the repeal would cause no diminution ; as it would fall on the gross of the Consolidated Fund, and not' on the part applied to the reduction of the Pudic Debt. He thought the blank should be filled up from the sth of April of the one year or the other. In the case of those who had compounded c for their taxes, a clause should be introduced. Mr. CUitWEN wished the repeal to take place from April. The Bill for the present year would not affect those who had compounded for the As. sessed Taxes ; and a Bill might afterwards be brought in on the subject. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY hoped the spirit of the grant would not be affected by any spe cial pleading. Should the Bill be acted upon in the case of the small farmers, who had already been re- lived, it would violate a great parliamentary principle. Mr. S. WORTLEY hoped that, in the course of the next Session, the duty on Foreign Wool would be taken into consideration. Mr. CURWEN hoped the Chancellor of the Ex chequer would consent to the repeal of this tax from July. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had no choice, and must take what was offered. Mr. CURWEN wished to give the merit of the measure to Ministers. Mr. BROUGHAM could not mama to thank Ministers, but the House. He believed that a dimi nution in the expenditure would take place equal to the taxes.--The Bill was then ordered to be com mitted for Wednesday. tatsti COURTS OP LAW. Mr. RICE moved the Order of the Day for the ecessidera don of the Ninth Report on the Irish Courts of Justice. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY wished the subject to be put off to Friday, as the Papers had only been presented that morning. Mr. RICE had no objection to put off the discussion, if it could be brought on in such a manner as to make it available. After some observations from Sit J. Newroar, Mr. W. wren, Mr. Rice, Mr. O'Gasny, and Mr. &mien; the Com mittee was postponed to Friday. GRANT TO THE DUKE OP CLARENCE. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved the Order of the Day, for receiving the Report on the Annuity to the Duke of Clarence. • Mr. HUME said, that on a former occasion it had been the opinion of the House, that £24,000 a-year should be the allowance to the Royal Dukes on their marriages. The grant to the Royal Dukes had been out of all proportion to the means of the country. He thought some general principle should be laid down, as the Civil List was greater than at any for mer period. All the House was called on to do was, to make up the sum to £24,900. Was the House aware that the sum of £95,000 a-year was appro priated for Pensions, and that £3500 to the Duke of Clarence should be paid out of that. Fund, as £7817 was paid to the Duke of York from the Irish Pension List? The Consolidated Fund was in arrears to the amount of nine millions, including the tax that was about to be repealed. The Duke's family had also £2500 from the 4/, per Cent. Duty. The amount from the Consolidated Fund should be limited to £24,000. He was confident that on a re consideration of the subject the arrears would not be allowed. He concluded by moving a Resolution, " That the sum of h l / 4 24,000 a-year, exclusive of professional allowances, was considered, in the year 1818, sufficient to sup port the dignity and honour of their Royal Highnesses the Dukes of Kent and Cambridge, upon their marriages; and that no circumstances have occurred to warrant a larger sum to be now granted to his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence; that his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence receives at present the sum of ,C 20,500 annually from the Consolidated Fund, ex clusive of his professional allowances; and that therefore the sum of re 3,500 is only required. in addition to that amount, to make up the sum of £24,000. "'hat U it should be considered necessary that his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence should receive £1,500 a-year more than Parliament granted to their Royal highnesses the Dukes of Kent and Cambridge, on their marriages, it is the opi nion of this House that his Majesty 11:,s the means of granting that amount, either from the sum of £ 9 5, 000 a - year , placed at his disposal for pensions, as part of the English Civil List of £850,000 ; or from the sum of £50,000 placed at his disposal, as part of the Irish Civil List of £207,000, in the same manner as his late Majesty, George 111. granted from that List, in 1792, the sum of .C 7,817 17s. per annum to his Royal Highness the I Duke of York, and which sum his Royal Highness has annually received from that period. " That therefore it is the opinion of this House that. in the present state of the country, it would be highly improper to add to the burden of the Consolidated Fund by a larger grant to the Duke of Clarence than £3,300 a-year, in addition to the £241,500 which he now receives." The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that the pension of the Duke of York did not apply to the case, as no pensions had recently been granted to the loyal Family from the Irish Pension List. The grant of £2,500 had been made early in life to the Royal Duke, and that had been understood when the Civil List had come uivier revision. At that time all casual charges had been taken from the Civil List, and had been placed on the Consolidated Fund. The Hon. Member called on the House to retrace its steps, and at the same time to do a most ungracious thing to the Duke of Clarence. He (Lord Londonderry) was really not without hope that the Honourable Mem ber would either withdraw his Amendment, or vote against his own motion. Sir ISAAC COFFIN said he would support the whole grant proposed for his Royal Highness upon this principle—that he was personally indebted to his Royal Highness—(.4 laugh). He was personally indebted to his Royal Highness for almost every thing which he possessed in life—(Hear, hear). He had lived with his Royal Highness in peace and in war. Since the time of Geo. 11. there was none of the Royal Family who had been so exemplary in the service of the country, as the Duke of Clarence. He had set off in 1780, and had soon afterwards, to use a seaman's phrase, smelt powder !--(Hear, hear). He had fought at Cape St. Vincent under Lord Rodney, and on his return had, with Admiral Digby, cap tured some of the enemy's ships. lie had after wards gone to America, and served with Admiral Hood. There had not been a young man connected with his Royal Highness in the service who had not become an Admiral or died. He repeated, that they rose to the rank of Admiral, or died like Nelson or Collingwood. For corroboration of this statement he might appeal to the Comptroller of the Navy (Sir Byam Marti), whom he did not see in his place, or to Admiral Sir Charles Rowley. There was not an Officer in the service so completely master of his pro fession as the Duke of Clarence—(Hear, hear). Mr. CURWEN would not have opposed the grant, were there no other means of remunerating the Duke of Clarence. But he thought there were ample means. He thought the measure irregular without a message from the Crown, and should oppose it us Coto. Mr. LOCILHART disclaimed any disrespect to the Duke of Clarence in opposing the grant. Time and chance had made an addition to the income of the Royal Duke, from the improved value of money; and £90,000 was a sufficient sum for any rank. When the Duke had refused the grant of £6,000 a-year, be must have resolved to equalise his expenditure with his income. Mr. MONCK thought the present allowance to the Duke of Clarence amply sufficient. The grant and the arrears together, might be fairly star, as equ al to £loo,ooo—a sum which, in the present state of the country, that House, as Guardians of the Public Purse, was not warranted to bestow. He had met with no one out of doors, of whatever party, that did not think the arrears unreasonable. Mr. HUME said he would not at present divide the House upon his Amendment, but he would take the sense of the House in the Committee. Mr. BROGDEN then brought up the Report and the Resolutions were read a first time. Mr. HUME wished to know from the Speaker how he might take the sense of the House separately upon each of the two propositions embodied in the Reso lution—first the amounts, and next the arrears ? The SPEAKER explained, that the lion. Member might propose any Amendment he thought fit upon the first part of the Resolution, and as to the next, it would be competent to him to make any propo sition for altering the date, by which his object would be gained. Mr. CURWEN then moved that the first Resolu tion be read a second time that day three months. Mr. J. MARTIN opposed the Resolution. Mr. BLICCHZII g Mr. ASERCAOI4IIY, Mr. RICARDO, and Lord Mitrosf, severally stated their intention to vote against the Amendment, because they were wil ling that the annuity'should be granted, whilst they were determined to vote against the arrears. A division then took place upon the Amendment, when there appeared— For the Amendment, Ayes - Noes Majority for Ministers - - —126 Mr. HUME objected to the whole of this sum be ing charged upon the Consolidated Fund. That Fund was already too much overcharge.l. His Ma jesty had the Pension List at his disposal, from which a compensation to his Royal brother would more properly come than from the Consolidated Fund.— Many names upon the Pension List might be made to give place to that of the Royal Duke; for at pre sent there were to be found amongst the Pensioners the sisters of some of the first Peers in the land.— What he proposed, therefore, was, that the House should vote only £3,500 of the grant, leaving it open to his Majesty, if he pleased, to make up the diffe rence to his Royal brother from the Pension List.— There would be thus a saving of £2,500 to the coun try. In the view which he took of the subject, and considering the embarrassed state of the I'ublic Fi nances, the Consolidated Fund was unable to bear this additional load. He therefore moved, as an Amendment, that instead of a sum of £6,000 being charged upon the Consolidated Fund, that sum should be reduced to £3,500. Mr. ELLICE' had no objection to the grant of £6,000, provided no more than £3,500 was charged upon the Consolidated Fund, leaving it to the Crown to make up the deficiency from the Pension List. Mr. BERNAL said, that his Hon. Friend had properly looked to the Consolidated Fund alone, for that was the Public Money; but the Pension List was a fund of which the Crown had the disposal.— His lion. Friend's argument, therefore, was, that 0,500 was enough for the People to pay the Royal Duke, but if the King thought fit to increase the in come of his Royal Brother beyond that, he might do so, if he pleased, from the funds at his disposal. Mr. P. MOORE objected to the grant, as coming in a crooked and underhand way—(.4 laugh).—There was no instance of this House following up in one Session what had been imperfectly done in the pre ceding one. This grant ought to have been intro duced in the usual way, by a Message from the Crown. An Election Petition presented in the Ses sion of 1819, would be disregarded in the Session of 1820. The whole proceeding should be begun anew. So it was with every unfinished proceeding which stood over from one Session to another. Whatever would be the result of this motion, the Royal Family could not complain of illiberality on the part of the House, for in the late reign their debts had been more than once paid off, to the amount of £10,000,000, and their incomes had been increased in the most ele gant manner—(ol laugh). Mr. CALCR AFT thought the House had given a pledge, three years ago, which they were now called upon to make good. With regard to the objections taken on the ground of form by the Hon. Member for Coventry, there did not appear to be much weight in them ; for, as the proceeding stood upon the Jour nals, it was open to any Member, at any time, to move that the sum voted by the House should be made good, and it only required his Majesty's sanc tion to complete the transaction. Considering the rank of the Royal Duke, the grant did not appear extravagant; and, indeed, far from its being asked for now to make a purse for the Royal Duke's chil dren, it appeared to him that it would confine that Royal Person to a very straitened expenditure. Mr. CREEVEY supported the Amendment, on the ground that the Royal Duke derived £2500 from the Consolidated Fund, more than any of his bro thers. The Crown might make up the deficiency from the funds at its disposal. Mr. DENMAN thought there ought to be a Mes sage from the Crown, otherwise the House did not know whether they were granting the money with the sanction of the Crown, or not. He contended, that the Resolution entered on the Journals on the 17th of April, 1818, voting £6OOO to each of the. Royal Dukes, wai the Resolution of a Committee, s not one of the House. The House could not take cognizance of any proceeding which took place in a preceding Session, unless there was a Message from the Crown to receive it. The SPEAKER said, there was no difference in this from any other entry on the Journals ; but that being a money grant, the sanction of the Crown was necessary to make it complete. The Right Honour able Gentleman then stated, that when the Queen, in 1814, accepted 1.35,000 instead of £50,000, the House proceeded to vote the money without a Mes sage from the Crown, but simply a recommendation. In 1815, a Message came down, desiring the House to make provision for the Duke of Cumberland on his marriage, which was lost. In 1818, however, when grants were making to the other Royal Dukes, a proposition was made for the £6OOO to be given the Duchess of Cumberland, if the survived the Duke, and this not by Message, but by a reference to the former proceeding of the House in 1815. He was, therefore, correct in assuring the House that its, forms bad not been at all trespassed upon, and that no step was taken in this transaction, which was not war ranted by the practice in the cases to which he had just referred. Mr. MAXWELL spoke in favour of the original motion, but said he would oppose the arrears. The House then divided, when there were— For Mr. Home's Amendment - Apinet it . 30 167 brsiority for the whole being charged on the Chheotirlated Pun& . - 137 THE ARREARS. Mr. BERNAL objected to the payment of the arrears due upon this grant, since it was voted by the House, but not accepted by the Royal Duke, three years ago. He complained of the Noble Nlaiqi.is's argument, who would treat this grant as it it had been completed in 1819 ; and that the arrears were due upon it as a matter of right. In conclusion, he moved an Amendment, stating, in substance, that the payment of the £6OOO a-year should com mence from the present time, and not beretrospective. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY denied th a t he had asked for the arrears on the ground of the grant having been an antecedent one: or as Atisini out of a transaction which had been completed. He wished to be understood distinctly as not considerin g the grant an antecedent one, and the grounds upon which he suggested that it should have a retrospe c . tive effect were these :—lt had ever been the prac tice of Parliament, in making grants to the Roy a l Family, to use an equitable discretion as to the time when these were to take effect ; and, indeed, instances of such practice were not wanting on tie other side of the House. When a grant was lately I:sic - prised for her Majesty, and there was still some douist vvha ther she would accept it, an Hon. Menthe! at the other side insisted, that still the money ought to b e paid into the Exchequer for her use ; and it she did not touch it for twenty years to come, yet 'be au ' entitled to arrears even as far back as the da.e of he r becoming Queen Consot t of this realm—( /fear, hear). He would call, then, the time at which this e se voted, the equitable commencement of the grain, and to give the Royal Duke a retrospective benefit t win it, was no more than these Gentlemen would have given the Queen. When this House made grants ta Officers for victories, they always carried them back to the time when► the services were performed. The Royal Duke had then refused the grant, home prin ciple of self-denial. Ile could have taken it. There was nothing to prevent his living here; but he we n t abroad with a view to economise, aad, if possible, to save the public money—(Dear, hem•). The sear, however, which he spent on the Continent wa, from the increased expenses of his travelling, rather site of expenditure than saving. He (the Marquis ..f Lou. donderry) could assure the House that the 11.a...1 Duke in question was by no means addicted to ex travagance, but was a man of the most 1 i;iiiar lee bits—(Hear, hear). Lord MILTON contended, that as no Bill had been brought in, there was no ground for proceeding upon it till laid before the House. If the payments had been made to the Exchequer for the Queen's use, the grant would have been then completed. With regard to Officers receiving the grant to the date of their services, he would remark, that there was no ground 4id for their coming before the House until they had performed the services. The Journal; testi fied no more than that an incomplete grant had been made to the Royal buke, but that was not sufficient for the House to proceed upon. This proceeding could not be completed iu a subsequent Session, uu• less by a Message from the Crown. The Noble Lord, therefore, objected to the words "conformable to a Resolution of the House," which he wished to see omitted. Mr. CURWEN thought the Queen's name ought not to be introduced but for the purpose of contrast ing her noble conduct with that of the other branches of the Royal Family, she having given up £13,000 a-year, whilst! not one of the Royal Branches ever gave up a shilling which had been voted by that House. Mr. ABERCROMBY and Mr. T. Mutates favoured the Amendment. Sir J. GRAHAM defended the original grant. Mr. DENMAN, in warm terms, censured the in troduction of her Majesty's name. Mr. R. MARTIN defended the grant. Mr. Alderman WOOD said, the Noble Marquis opposite had spoken of the manner in which grants proposed for the Members of the Royal Family were advocated at that side of the house. To that he (Mr. Alderman Wood) would only reply, that if some of the Royal Family had not found advocates at that side of the House, they would have found none at all—( Hear, hear)—or perhaps would not now be in existence—(Hear, hear). His Majesty's Ministers had promised to pay the rent of a house for the Queen; they promised her a service of plate and carriage, and other conveniences suitable to her dignity and station. When she signified her intention of wishing to have a house purchased, and pointed out several, none of them could be given ; and the money ad vanced to pay for a hired house for her Majesty, was actually stopped out of her income after ; and out of her whole quarter's income but a very small sum came to her. So much he wished to observe with regard to the liberality of Ministers. The House then divided, and the numbers were— For Mr. Bernal's Amendment - 81 Against it - -50 Majority for the Arrears SUPPLIES. The House went into a Committee of Supply, when a variety of sums were voted for Educating the Poor in Ireland, and for the Cork Establishment. Mr.BEECHER(on the former grant, which was one of £10,000) contended that the Government ought to make the education of the poor in Ireland a or tional concern. Mr. C. GRANT said, that this grant was in aid of a Society which had been of the greatest benefit to the children of the poor in Ireland. Sir J. NEWPORT opposed the grant, unless it ese to be followed by inquiry and revision of the systole. Mr. HUMI.:, adverting to the Model School ° Dublin, objected to the rules of this School ; one °, which operated to the exclusion of Catholics, ler whose benefit the establishment was intended ;.11e, rule to which he adverted, was that which provi de,. that no assistance should be given to any sch ools using Bibles containing notes and comments. NO, as all Catholic Bibles had notes and comments, e. l3 ° rule operated as an absolute exclusion of C athol ics He wished to place the money at the disposal of . 11 ° Catholics, who were to be the objects of the ebantf• Mr. PEEL said, the Honourable Gentleman rya the person mistaken on this occasion. T he Chung had not been perverted from its original purpose, l which was established with a view to educating Ca tholics and Protestants together. The DonaT °r . meas. The Schools khems Bibles might be used if containing n o col as t o se ine. . objections from either party. It was the Hoo t able Gentleman who wished to pervert these o'r cs sa P re nk 131 b C r it