The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-23 00:00:00

SUPPLY.

On the question for going into Committee of Supply,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he trusted, at this late
period of the session, lion. Members would not delay
their going into the Committee of Supply by bringing
forward questions which did not relate to the Estimates.
Mr. POULETT SCROPE said he had no objection to
withdraw his motion relating to Ireland, but he should
be glad to know if the supplementary estimates for the
relief of the Irish distress would be prefaced by any
statement from the Government?

Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied that his Right Hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make a
general statement upon the subject.
Sir JOHN WALSH said he had a notice on the paper
for calling for an explanation of the circumstances con-
nected with the recent appearance of the fleet under the
command of Admiral Sir William Parker in the Bay of
Naples; but, perhaps the Noble Lord could make a
statement upon that subject which should obviate the
necessity of his bringing forward that motion?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the King of Naples had
attempted to raise a forced loan contrary to existing
treaties with the country, but the King subsequently
abandoned that project. A question, however, had
arisen with respect to the use of the British flag by the
Neapolitan navy in seizing certain Sicilian vessels; but
upon that subject also a satisfactory explanation had been
given. A further question had, however, since arisen, as to
whether these vessels were taken in the waters of Derfer,
and Admiral Sir William Parker had written a letter upon
the subject to the 'Commissioners of the lonian Islands, who
had not yet returned an answer. _ _ _

Sir J. \VALSH said the statement of the Noble Lord was
satisfactory as far as it went, but he wished to put a further
question to the Noble Lcrd, relative to the existing state of
things. He wanted to understand whether, up to this time,
her Majesty's Government had maintained a strict neutrality
between the two contending parties; or whether Sir Wil-
liam Parker had committed any act, either towards the
King of Naples or the Sicilians, which could in any respect
make England a party to the contest?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he did not wish any state-
ment of his own to hamper the future discussion of the Go-
vernment in this matter, but he could assure the Honourable
Baronet that no steps had been taken by Admiral Sir
William Parker which could tend in the least to betray hos-
tilities towards either party.
Sir JOHN WALSH said the explanations of the Noble
Lord would render it unnecessary for him to bring forward
his motion.

Mr. HERRIES hoped the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government did not contend that the King of Naples had no
right to levy a forced loan upon his own subjects.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said certainly not ; but the King
of Naples had no right to make a forced loan upon the
British subjects resident within his own dominions.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME said a few days ago he presented a petition
from a clergyman of Montrose, complaining that one of his
parishioners had been taken up on suspicion of felony, but
whose trial could not take place for some time to come,:and was
treated by his gaolers as a convicted felon. Now he thought
if that practice was general in all gaols, it was highly objec-
tionable, and he hoped this particular case would have the
attention of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State
for the Home Department.
Sir G. GREY said there was a distinction made between
prisoners waiting for trial and prisoners under the sentence of
the Court. He was not aware of this case until the Hon.
Gentleman had directed his attention to it.
The House then went into Committee of
SUPPLY.

67,0001. was voted to her Majesty to defray the charges
and allowances to superannuated public officers.
4,400/. was voted to her Majesty to defray the expenses of
the Corsican emigrants.
2,000/. was voted to defray the expenses of the National
Vaccine Establishment.

6,0001. was voted to defray the expenses of the Refuge for
the Destitute.

On the question that 8,7001. to defray the expenses of the
allowance to the Polish refugees,
Mr. OSBORNE said it was high time this vote was put a
stop to. At first the grant was only conceded for one year,
but although there were thousands of their own fellow-coun-
trymen absolutely starving, it was still proposed to put the
country to an expense of 10,0001., to support parties who
were strangers to the land, and many of whom were, by their
own industry, placed beyond the want of such assistance.
He found by the last report of the Society of the Friends of
Poland, that several of the parties who were participators
in the proceeds of this vote were actually engaged in
thriving trades; for instance, there was one refugee in re-
ceipt of a pension of 451. per annum who filled the office of
teacher to the French schools; another, with an unpro-
nounceable name, who carried on the business of a fencing
and dancing master at 101, Sloane-street ; and a third named
Albert, who kept one of the finest tobacconist's shops in
London. In fact, there appeared to be a list of about twenty
of them. who were all in receipt of pensions, and who were
all earning good livings in business. They must be just
before they were liberal, and while their own countrymen
were suffering so many privations, it was high time that
they had abolished this grant of 40,000/. a year, and he
should therefore take the liberty of dividing the Committee
upon the vote. But, independently of the vote itself, there
was an expensive staff kept up to superintend the dis-
tribution of the fund. The secretary received 2751. a year,
his clerk received 601., and these two sums, together with
the Polish officers, made up an additional expense of 7001.
a year; and as it was high time a stop was put to this spe-
cies of extravagance, he should certainly give the vote his
most decided opposition.
Lord DUDLEY STUART had heard the observations of
his Hon. Friend with deep regret, because he was convinced,
when the question came to be fully and minutely discussed,
the vote would not appear to be so objectionable as his Hon.
Friend had represented it.—(Hear, hear.) He knew very
well that nothing now-a-days was more popular than for Hon.
Members to come forward and call for a reduction of the public
expenditure either large or small, but he thought he should
be able to satisfy the House that they would avert the ends
of charity if they refused this vote to parties who were
really in distress. He thought, if they stopped this grant
to the Polish refugees, it would be a most uncharitable act,
and one which the British Parliament had never been guilty
of before. His Hon. Friend had made statements which he
was sure he would never have ventured upon, had he been
correctly informed upon the facts.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)