The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-02 00:00:00

THE GUARDS.

Colonel LINDSAY wished to ask the right hon. the
Secretary at War if it was true what the hon. member
for Montrose stated last night, namely, that there had
been no reduction made in the emolument, of the colonel
of the Grenadier Guards, as recommended by the com-
mittee of 1835 ?
Mr. S. HERBERT was glad to have an opportuniii
of setting this question right. He apprehended that the
hon. member for Montrose had not been correctly re-
ported in the newspapers, as the hon. member did
not state that no reduction had been made in the emolu-
ments, but that the recommendation of the committee
of 1835, that the office of Colonel in the Guards should
only be conferred upon veterans in the army. Now,
first of all, with regard to the recommendation of the
committee in reference to the reduction of the emolu-
ments, it had been strictly carried out, and the pay of the i
Senior Colonel in the Grenadier Guards had been reduced
from 4,000/. a-year to 3,000/., while that of the two junior
colonels had been reduced from 3,0001. to 2,0001. With
regard to the recommendation which the hon. member
for Montrose referred to, he begged to state that he had
looked over the report and proceedings of the committee,
and that he could • find no such recommendation
recorded, nor could it well have been made, for it
had been the practice, from time immemorial, give
the colonelcies of these regiments to such members of the
royal family as were capable of holding important mili-
tary offices. Up to 1835, of the ten colonels who held
the office in question, only four were not members of
the royal family, and of that four the Duke of Welling-
ton, who of course was an exception to all rule, was one.
Now, Prince Albert at the time of the death of the Duke
of Wellington, was the senior colonel in the Guards, and
it was in the natural course of regimental promo-
tion, that he succeeded to the colonelcy of the Grenadier
Guards, and the Duke of Cambridge to the Fusi-
lier Gdards. He might also be allowed to add,
that while Prince Albert held the appointment
of colonel of the Fusilier Guards he never .Lrew the full
amount of his pay of 2,000/. a year, but devoted a por-
tion of it to increasing the comforts and improving the
condition of the men. (Hear.)
Mr. HUME having been on the committee
remembered distinctly that it was the wish of
the committee that the three colonelcies of the
Guards should always be conferred as a sort of hono-
rary distinction upon veterans in the army. A recom-
mendation to that effect was proposed by a member of
the committee who was connected with the navy, and if
it was not embodied in the report of the committee,
he was sure the right honourable member for Coventry,
who was then Secretary at Wars would bear him
out when he stated that the Government of the day were
favourable to carrying out the wishes of the committee
toinonthoins sFurbi
nj %cot .
Albert H e hador
r t
hneo
Dwni skhe toof
ct a
mh r obwr
dany;
or
ne fltehc-
e
tcoo n ttrhaer y, sht
aet
itohno u gwhhti
cboth t h he
ya d
filledd ne h obnuotu r
haen dhca ed i
at
right to blame the Government of the day for neglect-
ing to see that the recommendation of the committee was
carried out.

Mr. HERBERT said it might have been the intention
of the committee that these offices should be kept
for veterans in the army ; but their report made no
mention whatever of any such intention.
FOREIGN REFUGEES.

Lord D. STUART said he wished to ask the Go-
vernment a question of some importance. It was cur-
rently rumoured that demands had been addressed by
certain foreign powers to the Government of this
refugeescountry whohad found for the removal
an a
r expulsion
sy certainloufm u
poli
England.tie
a 1
Now, he wished to ask the Government if there was any
foundation for those rumours, and if there was, what
course they intended to pursue ? (Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said—Sir, In answer to my
noble friend's question, of whether any application has
been made by foreign powers to her Majesty's Govern-
ment for the expulsion of any foreign refugees now in
the United Kingdom, I have to state that no such ap-
plication has been made. (Hear, hear.) In reply to
the other question, of what course the Government
would pursue in the event of such an application being
made, I have only to repeat what has been stated on a
former occasion in this house, that any such application
would be met with a firm and decided refusal.
(Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) It is indeed obvious that
that must be so, because such a measure could not be taken
by the Government of this country without fresh powers
being conferred upon them by act of Parliament ; and I
apprehend that no Government, even if they were in-
clined to do so, could apply to this house
for such powers with any chance of success—
(loud cheers)—inasmuch as no Alien Bill, passed within
the present century,' ever gave the Government
power to expel foreigners from the kingdom except with
reference to considerations connected with the internal
safety of the country. The British Government has
never undertaken to provide for the internal safety of
other countries, and it is sufficient that Parliament should
give the Government measures for our own internal
security without meddling with that of other countries.
(Hear.) But I cannot confine my answer to this simple
statement. I must ask to be allowed to add that, while
on the one hand British laws and the spirit of the British
Constitution give to foreigners of all political opinions
and all categories a secure and peaceful shelter within
this country, I think, on the other hand, that those
foreigners who avail themselves of the hospitality of
England are bound in every principle of honour—
(loud cheers) —as well as by a regard not
only to international law, but also the law
of the land, to abstain from entering into any intrigues
or pursuing any courses intended for the purpose of
giving umbrage to foreign Governments, or of disturb-
ing the internal tranquillity of foreign countries. (Cheers.)
In reply to Mr. SOHOLEFIELD,
Mr. FITZROY said a fourth portion of the census of
1851 would shortly be published, and laid` before the

house. The delay that had taken place was owing to
300 pages of the work been accidentally b9rnt at the
printers.

DICKENS'S "HOUSEHOLD WORDS."'

In reply to Mr. COLLIER,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the report of the law officers of the Crown on the pre-
sent state of the law affecting newspapers, had not yet
been received by the Government.
PROBATE AND LEGACY DUTIES.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS, in rising to bring before the
house the subject of the extension of the probate and

legacy duties to real property, said he had given notice
before Christmas of a motion to this effect, with the view
of thus making up the deficiency in the revenue antici-
pated as likely to result from the reductions announced
by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. In deference
to the generally expressed wishes of the house, he had
withdrawn that motion. It had long been one of the
most crying grievances of our system of taxation—that
real property was exempted from those probate and
legacy duties which were levied on every description of
personal property. The act which imposed the probate
and legacy duties was passed in 1796. Mr. Pitt, ap-
prehending successful opposition from members of both
houses of Parliament to subject their estates to those
taxes, brought in two bills—one to subject personal pro-
perty to pay them, and the other to impose the same
duties on real property. On the introduction of the
first bill, Mr. Fox objected to the separation into two
bills. He said " There was a great deal of force in the
objection about not bringing forward the other bill with
regard to the tax on landed property. He saw no good
reason why they should be separated, but many why
they should be kept together." Mr. Pitt agreed " that
the principle on which the two bills was founded was
much the same, and if this bill passed it would be very
desirable that the principle should be extended to real
property." The bill passed—only 16 voted against it.
It passed the Lords without opposition, and soon re-
ceived the royal assent. That bill having been secured,
the other bill was proceeded with, to impose the same
duties on real property, on which occasion Mr. Pitt
said, "That the principle of the bill having been already
existing upon legacies, it never could
recognised in the personal succession tax, and also on
erllyuctance, because persons would feel
tbhee
pdauitdieswifotrmb
re
little or no hardship in paying a tax out of that property
which they did not expect to enjoy. The bill passed
with little opposition to the third reading—a motion
made by Mr. Pitt that it be now read a third time was
lost by a majority of two. He then moved that it be
read a third time next morning, when the numbers for
and against were equal. The Speaker gave his casting
vote for the motion, but Mr. Pitt, seeing no chance of
nassing.it through either house withdrew it. The other
till havwg already become law, Lord Lauderdale brought