The Sun.
London, England, 1848-08-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. August 23.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
THE GRANT TO THE DISTRESSED POLES.
On the question that 10,7001. 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-ci,un-
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 45/. 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 10,0001. 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 700/.
a year; and as it was high time a stop was put to this spe-
cies ofextravagance, he should certainly give the vote his
most decided opposition.
Lord DUDLEY STUART—Mr. Bernal, I am very
sorry to hear the observations which have just fallen
from my Hon. Friend with respect to this vote. I be-
lieve when the whole subject comes to be fully and pro-
perly considered that both my Hon. Friend and the
House will entertain a different opinion with respect to
the grants, and that he and they would admit that it is
based upon the broadest grounds of justice, and ought
to be continued by this country. I know very well that
nothing gains more popularity than an Hon. Member
advocating a reduction of the public expenditure either
of large or small amount, and who points, as the ground
for doing so, to the distress of our own people.-7-(llear...
hear.) Those who come forward and adopt this line of
policy are sure to meet with a cheer—not in this House
alone, which cheered the Hon. Member when he ex-
pressed a desire that the grant should he abrogated alto-
gether, but in all assemblies in which, my Honourable
Friend, or any one else, may enunciate such sentiments.
—(Hear, hear.) I think, however, I shall be able satis-
factorily to show the House that it would not be justi-
fied in doing that which has never yet been dote--I
mean, stopping those charitable grants which it has
ever been ready to vote to persons in distress.—
(Cheers.) I think, if the House were to stop this
grant to the Polish refugees in this country, that it
would commit one of the most ungrateful acts erer done
by the British Parliament, and besides, acting accord-
ing to the Hon. Gentleman's advice, would confer no ad-
vantage whatever on ourselves.—(Hear, hear.) My
Hon. Friend has made several statements which I think
evince that he is not well informed of the whole circum-
stances of the case; and whilst the Hon. Gentleman
complimented me upon my kindness to the Poles, he
said the expenditure of the whale of the grants was con-
fided entirely to rue.
Mr. OSBORNE—I said great trust was very properly
reposed in you on the matter, and that your advice was
invariably sought with respect to the eligibility of the
parties seeking aid to rent ive it.
Lord D. STUART—I cannot but feel grateful for the
sentiments which my Hon. Friend entertains with re-
spect to me, and for his explanation that I had not the
complete control of the fund, It happens that I have
no control over the expenditure of the grunt.
Mr. OSBORNE said, nevertheless, a statement to the
effect that the Noble Lord had the entire control of the
grant was in the evidence of a man named Jehh.
Lord I). STUART—I call upon the Noble Lord on
the Treasury benches (Lord John Russell) to confirm
the statement I have made, that I possess no control
over the expenditure of the grant.—(hear, hear.) I
have no control over it at all. There was a time when I
had.—l mean when the grant was first made. The dis-
cretion of deciding who were fit recipients of the grant
was in the first instance confided to me. This was done
by me for four years, atter which time the 'Treasury
took the expenditure of the grant into its own hands.
My Hon. Friend complains that an expensive
staff is kept up for the management of the
office entrusted with the expenditure of the money.
—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Osborne). Now, during the
time that I had the management to the grants, there
was no charge whatever.—(Cheers.) I repeat at that
time no charge was made connected with the ex-
penditure of this charity.—(Renewed cheering.) Then
my Hon. Friend says, that persons are on the list who
are carrying on very good and profitable occupations.
Now, I should he very glad indeed it my Hon. Friend
could prove that the persons he names aro carrying on
the lucrative occupations he mentions, tecause,
if they are in such circumstances they should
not receive any aid out of the fund ; what
they improperly receive should be handed to the
really indigent. Ido not deny that many are in busi-
ness, but I would ask the commercial men of this
House, if it be not possible to carry on a large and ap-
parently thriving business without, in point of fact,
realising any profit whatever.—(Hear, hear.) If per-
sons, I repeat, are on the list who ought not to be
there, and this is proved on inquiry, I shall for my part
feel no objection to their being removed; but I think
you would carry the severity of security far beyond its
limits—you would be guilty of an unusual degree of
carefulness in the expenditure of the public money—
if you were at once to stop this vote. There would be
something harsh in the adoption of such a course in ap-
plication to the case of the Poles of such a public proceed-
ing, if you would so proceed—something so unusual in
such a course—for it has never yet been adopted—that I
cannot think this British House of Commons will con-
sent to it.—(Hear, hear.) There would be something
harsh in that course of proceeding. Whilst I had any
control over that grant, and when I have had occasion
to recommend to the Government persons fit to receive
aid, I have invariably been at great pains to ascertain
that they were either young persons without the means
of support, or persons of more mature years in a state of
destitution. I think, if my Hon. Friend will inquire
into the way in which the grant is administered, he will
find that the whole of the control which I have over it
consists in recommending deserving persons. One person
has been placed on the list in consequence of a vacancy,
and three have been removed in consequence of not being
fit recipients of aid. The Committee of Miscellaneous
Estimates recommended that the substitution of others
for the three struckioff should net take place.
.Sir, when
I recollect the feeling that was displayed by the House at
the time the grant was first voted—when I recollect that
at that time the House and the country considered that
the persons whom it was proposed to relieve out of it were
persons who had fallenin their advocecy of nationality and
liberty, and that the House was pleased unanimously to
grant them aid, I am surprised at the state of feeling
on the part of some Hon. Members now. When I say
I recollect that these refugees have been brought into
their present state of destitution hi consequence of their
attachment to the cause of liberty, and the indepen-
dence of their country—that they were influenced in
an eminent degree by these sentiments of liberty and
attachment to country, which have ever distinguished
this country, and been so highly appreciated by its
people, when evinced by others—that the vote was ori-
ginally passed without a dissentient voice—(Hear, hear)
—and though often objected to, and its policy discussed
in this House, yet never abrogated, I confess I cannot
think that this British House of Commons will revoke
all that it has done—that it will stop in its career of
benevolence to unfortunate, brave, and deserving per-
Ms.—(lear, hear.) Not only was no objection made
to the grant, but in 1838 a proposal was made to in-
crease it ; and, although the then Chancellor of the
Exchequer was averse to it, so strong was the feeling
on both sides of this House. and out of it, that it was
raised from 10,000/, to 15,0001.—(Hear, bear.) I do
not deny that it was voted for only one year.—(" Hear,
hear," from Mr. Osborne.) There can be 110 doubt about
that, but the feeling in favour of it was so strong,
that it was continued.—(Hear, hear.) It was voted
for the first time in the year 1834, and the
next year in reply to a question, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer stated that he should feel great pleasure in
continuing the grant if it was the wish of the House
that he should do so, and the announcement was re-
ceived with loud cheers by the House.—(Hear, hear.)
It was then increased to 15,000/., and as the claims fell
in it was reduced to its present amount, 10,700/.
Mr. OSI3ORNE—The whole charges upon the grant
are not included in that.

Lord D. STUART—Yes; that sum includes the en-
tire charges upon the grant and the cost of its adminis-
tration. If my Honourable Friend will turn
thethe
evidence collected upon the matter, he will find that
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that in the
course of a few years 'the grant would be totally abo-
lished.—(l.lear, hear.) Do Hon. Members suppose that
this grant is the only one made on behalf of those who
have been driven from their native land to seek a shelter
in this hospitable country—that it is an exception made in
favour of these brave and gallant people—that it is
something unheard of—thatit is an entirely new principle
in the policy of this country to aid persons like the
unfortunate Poles? Why, Sir, we have only done that
for the Poles which we have unhesitatingly done for the
refugees of almost all the nations of the earth.—(Loud
cheers.) The only difference between the grant to the
Poles and to the unfortunate persons who have come to
our shores from other lands in a forlorn state is this,
that less has been granted to the Pules than almost to
any other distressed people.--(Cheers.) It, Sir
read ,
we loowhat wk
into the records of Parliament, and
Was done, in this respect, in former
times, we shall find that refuges from all parts of the
world have received aid from this country— not to the
amount which the unfortunate Poles have received, but
an immensely increased amount. In 1800, the grants
made by I'arliainent for the relief of refugees from all
parts of the world amounted to no less a sum than
250,000/. for one year; and if you look at the
amounts of the different grants, you will find
that they vary from 150,000/. and 160.0001. to 167,0001.
These immense Slims were voted once for French and
Dutch refugees, and in fact for the relief of per ons
from all countries ; and in later times large sums were
granted to the Spanish refugees. I think, therefore, that the Polish refugees may be allowed to enjoy this