The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-12 00:00:00

----
toe utter inutility in the appointment of a Committee
til revise the Civil List ; as, however, it seemed the desire of
we House that all discussion should be now postponed, he
o
on Friday, or any other day named by the Chancellor
4.‘ Exchequer, take an opportunity of moving that no sum
cYI!RI be allowed for the continuance of any pension on the
411 List.
i4,11e SPEAKER then left the Chair, and the House went
4) Committee.
ci7o the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
i,S,QUER a sum of 385,000/. was granted to her
th as'Y for the support of the Royal Household, toge-
, „r
With a sum of 10,000/. for servants. It was also
eireed that her Majesty should be at liberty to grant pensions
7ryear to the amount of 12,000/.
,• HUME wished to know whether the words " not ex-
ceeding" were in that resolution.
When
CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
Member
a certain sum was named, it was understood that no
ir!lber, could move its increase.
mot HUME supposed it was open to Hon. Members to
mare a lesser sum.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
loch a course was certainly open to any Honourable Member.
th e resolution was then put and agreed to—" That
e hereditary revenues of England, Ireland, and Scotland,
Or anY other revenues which were the property of his late Ma-
i) Jest? at the time of his death, should, during the life of her
'tent Majesty, form part of the Consolidated Fund."
"'r• HUME did not hear any thing in the Resolution
With I,llrespect to Cornwall and Lancaster. He wished to know
Whether the revenues of those two duchies were surrendered.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said They
tcher!alnly were not. He had never for one moment considered
t• tneY were to be surrendered. The fact was that they did
etjass under the title of revenues of the Crown.
twin'. HUME had great objections to the revenues of those
t° Duchies being excluded, but as the Chancellor of the
Ichequer had stated that they were so, he would not say
o-eY thing further on the subject. There was one point, how-
ever, to which he wished to call the attention of the House ;
11,,at W 49 with respect to the droits of the Admiralty. He
itecl that the time was now arrived, when the droits of the
not
ioiralty would be put an end to, as in his opinion there was
wta more bare-faced robbery than the exaction of those dues.
wh_was a robbery of the private property of individuals
u had no notice of the existing state of warfare.
tr ear.) The United States made a proposition to the
i'r States of Europe, by which the rights of property
:(cinging to private individuals would have been respected,
ti;.tt it was only agreed to in one or two instances. He
tiQnght this a question that deserved the serious considers-
uf the House, and he hoped that early in the
lin some measure would be introduced, which would
Which
the country from the disgrace and opprobrium
such a state of things attached to it.—( Hear, hear.)
beheld it to be quite unworthy that the public service should
carried on be such means, and he trusted that the House
1,
°it'd speedily take the subject into consideration.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET put some question
ti.° the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but neither the ques-
'en nor the answer could be heard in the Gallery.
The House then resumed. _

SUPPLY.
er HUME rose to give notice that before the House
It go into a Commiitee of Supply, he should move that
and emoluments
instruction to the Committee that infixing the salaries
emoluments of offices in the department of the Lord
chamberlain and the Lord High Steward, reference be had
10
the charges for these departments previous to the year
tb92, with the view to bring the expenses of such offices to
e scale between 1786 and 1792.
Mr. FIELDEN rose, and Lord JOIIN RUSSELL at the same
time addressed a few words to the Chair which were not
audible in the gallery.
ciMr. HUME—The Hon. Member for Oldham ought to be
tict'wd to proceed with is motion. He asked whether the Corn-
teee of Supply did moth stand on the Orders? and if so it could
AOt be postponed without a question. It was only fair that
n that question the Hon. Member should have the oppor-
Aity of bringing forward the motion of which he had given
tree.
LoTlie
(PE AKER was understood to say that the Noble
d Lord John Russell) had risen to postpone
Order, and not to bring it on. The Order being
Postponed, the Hon. Member for Oldham's notice would be
P°liPoned with it.
HLTME said that the Order could not be postponed
4hout a question; upon which question it was competent for
"on. Member for Oldham to make his motion.
After a few words from Lord J. RUSSELL and Mr. FIELDEN,
the B Sir ROBERT
Member PEEL said e didhe notthoughto wish the interrupt
t on. t
tiught to come to some understanding upon the new rcgula-
--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") If the Committee of
t Pply came on, it would be then, of course, consis-
,lnt With the regulations that the Hon. Member's motion
°Lild be brought on the Order of the Day ; but it would
entirely subvert the regulations if a motion of which notice
kd been given upon the Order should be brought forward
ti
Pon the postponement of the Order.
Mr. WARBURTON'S understanding was, that on a
Itiotion being made for the House going into Committee, or
;Itn the postporn merit of a Committee, an opportunity should
afforded to Members of stating the subject matter of a
Petition, and of observing upon it.
,Lord JOHN RUSSELL agreed with the Right Hon.
t),‘l-Itleman opposite, ( Sir R. Peel,) that if this matter were
rotas gone into, it ought to he upon the House resolving itself
bei_ a Committee of Supply, and not upon the Committee
Postponed
Would U. F. YOUNG did not see that any inconvenience
result from adopting the rule laid down by the Right
Bart.
.1.1.•
E begged to state that he entirely objected to theo
ow i
e Lord's ro osition. If the :Members were to be shut
from theopPportunity of making proper statements on
IroPortant questions on Mondays and Fridays, they must
mail themselves of the only other course that was open to
tthem—that of presenting petitions on every day in the week.
~Mr. P. THOMPSON concurred in the view taken by the
2oblo Lord, and that the Hon. Member for Kilkenny had
misrepresented the matter.
Sir R. PEEL thought nothing was so important as that the
rules laid down for the guidance of the House should be in an
impartial
, and intelligible form. If the rule was that an Hon.
Member was prevented from bringing forward his motion on
poving the Order of the Day for Supply, with a view to its
rn".Ponement, they would be in a worse position thanfor-
merlyThe Government had the power of postponing the
order to a late hour of the night, and then bringing it
a°rvcard ; and the result would be that an Hon. Member who
;114 " Supply," in the paper on Monday, would give a notice
that night inste id of Tuesday or Thursday, and the Govern-
et'nt might say, " This is an inconvenient notice ; we don't want
thPply to-night;" and byth at means the Hon. Member would lose
opportunity of bringing forward his motion. He did not
1„
much find fault with the regulation, as to point out the ne-
'lisity of having these rules intelligibly framed.—( Hear.)
Sir T. FREMANTLE hoped the House would come to
Br'ine definitive understanding on the subject. He always under-
ttood that moving the Order of the Day on Supply .gave Hon.
Members, an opportunity of bringing forward their motions.
N
t'l,-.1% P. THOMSON thought the rule of the House
ar• The Hon. Member had given notice of bringing on
tvls motion on going into Committee of Supply ; they
there not going into any Committee of Supply ;
e... 11 surely the motion could not be brought on.
FIELDEN then rose to move for " a Return of the

114111e.5. of any of the Metropolitan Police who may have been
kat to Bradford, in Yorkshire since the Ist October up to
tha 22d November—the number of days they have been so
ern
trPloyed—together with the order of the Commissioners
it' Police and the precept of the Magistrates, commanding
IV authorizing the attendance of such constables at
lt dford."—( Loud cries of " Hear.") Also " a similar Return
al relative to the Policemen sent from Leeds to Bradford ;
-..Srs •
tor copies of any correspondence. between the Poor-
/is' Commissioners and their Assistant Commissioner,
1-4 r. Power, and the Board of Guardians (or between
of those' parties and any other parties), relative to
6,0 sending of the London police and the military
the town of Bradford, together with any correspondence
thtt
ge_ may have taken place relative to the same matters be-
lici.7en Mr. Power and Home-office,the_ceran the Poor-law Commis.
y other person or persons
.r.seatind the Home-office, or
tmtn erne-office. °Hon.- Member then proceeded
14 detail the recent outrages in Bradford,. but he spoke
1,,t0 low a tone that he was totally inaudible in the gallery.
1,4 a Hon. Gentleman stated that he had this morning. received.
)2' Pest a hand-bill, containing a copy of a requisition, sigt.ed
fleet sr
u 0 or 4
,000 individuals, requesting the Mayor to call a
piing of the inhabitants, for the purpose of petitioning
tti4l:24ttnent to inquire into the cause of the dis-
de ounces at Bradford, and for the repeal (as we un-
h: had
the Hon. Member) of the New Poor Law Bill.
"ad no doubt many individuals would attend that meet-
' and state pretty f:cely their opinions on the subject.
ad the civil force been employed on the 29th of November,
A! sufficient number of special constables been sworn in, as
ee.'ionday last, when a public meeting on this subject had
tad held, and perfect tranquillity had been maintained, the
tle!. Policemen or military would not have been required,
tlitiris unfortunate collision would not have occurred—( Hear).
tae: Hon. Gentleman, as we understood him to say, stated a
ott'e Unwarrantable attack than this had never been made
thlitlY quiet or peaceable town.—(Hear.) He intreated
it,; indulgence of the House while he entered into some of
fit reasons why the people of Bradford were dissatisfied
pogo the Poor Law Bill. The Hon. Gentleman theu re-
tiort``` to a meetin, which was held in March last, to peti-
hel for alterations in the new Poor Law Bill, which
said was attended by the very Magistrates who headed
its e
,rO,)
4, Ps during the late riot.—( Hear, bear.) That
,tue opinion of Mr. Thomson, and was that of the
ter:,:" part of the Magistrates of Yorkshire, and of the. most
dureetable classes they were all opposed to the intro-
ts!eetttliarin of the new Poor-law Bill into that nem!.
`Qat itPg di strict. --( Cries of " Hear.") But. it was sod
-4t. Thomson had now changed his opinion; an article
stiter4ared in the Leeds Mercury of the 4th December, which
that Mr. Thomson had changed his views, and that it
tes C'to honour,. he Thomson
become a convert to the ne-
11'1 of the immediate introduction of the new Poor Law.
to etC". Gentleman then drew the attention of the House
1544; great number of hand-loom weavers there were in
%eh-t?ciand its neighbourhood, and said that the wages which
IW°' them earned did not amount to more than from four
likvitrigs
and sixpence to five shillings per week, most of them
tlitstnr to o, three or four children. And these were the men
the
House was' entirely throwing upon their own resources.
re raa,een said that there was great ignorance prevailing in
birig of.",tlfaturig districts with respect to the beneficial work-
'4ltt Liate new Poor-law, in places where it had been adopted.
answer to that was to be found in the immense num-