The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-07 00:00:00

LAW OF SETTLEMENT.

Mr. W. MILES wished to ask tho Hon. and Learned
Gentleman at the head of the Poor-law Board whether
it was his intention to bring in any measure this session
for the amendment of the law of settlement?
Mr. BAINES said that it was his intention.
STAMPED PUBLICATIONS.

In reply to a question from Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, in-
quiring whether the law suit betweeen Mr. Dickens
and the Board of Inland Revenue was abandoned or not,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
that it was not, and on an inquiry from Mr. Bright as to
whether unstamped publications could now be issued with-
out prosecution from the Government authorities, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer politely declined to answer.
ADDRESSES TO THE CROWN.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose to move the resolution
of which he had given notice, viz.: —" That this House
will not proceed upon any motion for an address to the
Crown, to which opposition is offered, but in a Com-
mittee of the whole House, except with respect to
matters which have been previously submitted to a
Select Committee." It was his intention to have pro-
posed this resolution to the House towards the close of
last session; but, upon consideration, he thought it better
to postpone it to the present time, when it was
likely there would be a full attendance of
Members.—(Hear, hear.) The House was aware that
questions of great public importance were frequently
brought forward in the shape of a motion for an address
to the Crown, and it occasionally happened that those
motions were carried by a thin House in the first in-
stance. It was clear, therefore, that an address
did not always convey the feeling of the majority;
but, in the case of Bills, such an anomaly rarely
occurred, for even if a Bill were carried by a
thin House on a second reading, the decision could be
reversed whenever it came under consideration in sub-
sequent stages.—(Hear, hear.) The inconvenience re-
sulting from the carrying of an address by the minority
was obvious, because it went forth to the Crown as the
address of the whole House, representing the opinions
and feelings of the majority, and it placed the advisers
of the Crown—indeed the Crown itself—in a situation
of great difficulty, if it were inexpedient on public
grounds to comply with its prayer.—(Hear, hear.) such
an inconvenience, however, would seldom or never oc-
cur if the House adopted this resolution. Of course
the Crown had the power of assenting or dissenting
from the prayer of an address; but it was always the
wisest policy to avoid putting the Crown into a seeming
position of antagonism to the House.—(Hear, hear.)
What he wished to propose was already in spirit in
operation; for all measures relating to the voting of the
public money came forward in the first instance cn a
motion for a Committee of the whole House.—([Tear,
hear.) He need hardly specify instances were inconve-
niences had arisen; but he might as well advert to two
cases which would clearly and conclusively illustrate his
argument. Some two years ago, the House would
probably remember, that a few Members suc-
ceeded in carrying an Address, praying the Crown
seriously to restrict, if not entirely to abolish, the trans-
portation of prisoners to the colonies. The address was
of coarse complied with, but only at a public sacrifice.—
(Hear, hear.) Another instance would be fresh in the
recollection of the House, because it only occurred last
year. It related to the Post-office. (Hear,
hear.) Immediately after that address was
carried, an Honourable Member asked him if

the Government were disposed to comply with
is prayer. He then stated that he did not believe that
he address represented the opinion of the majority of
the House; but, at the same time, it had gone forth to
the Crown as the formal address of the House, and he
did not feel called upon to advise her Majesty to reject
it.—(Hear, hear.) Now, had this resolution been in
force, much of the agitation which that address gave
rise to would have been avoided, and that argument he
thought, if he had no other to support it, ought to induce
the House to adopt this motion.
Mr. HERRIES said he had listened with great atten-
tion to the statement of the Noble Lord. He confessed
he had come down to the House with a strong feeling,
that this attempted abolition of the rights and privileges
of Members was unnecessary and inexpedient, and he
was bound to say that the statement of the Noble
Lord had in no respect removed that impression.
He was strongly of opinion that the measure was neither
necessary or expedient. It had been too much the prac-
tice of late to curtail the privileges of individual Mem-
bers.—(Hear, hear.) In some instances, perhaps,
that practice might have promoted the public
service, and facilitated the dispatch of business,
while in others his opinion was that it
had been unnecessary, and would enable the
Ministers to do that which might receive no effectual op-
position. The tendency had always been in that direc-
tion.—(Hear.) When he had first the honour of a seat
in the House, every Member had an undoubted privilege
of rising in his place, and making a motion forthwith,
without giving any notice beforehand.—(Hear,
hear.) That practice had been found inexpedient,
though he believed the House had still the power of
enabling a Member to avail himself of the privilege, yet
he was ready to admit that by universal consent the
right had been removed, and now it was expected
that every Member should give a notice of any motion
he intended to make. Now, in all those cases in
which a restriction had been imposed with manifest
propriety or something like an excuse for the progress
of public business, he had never opposed thelproposi-
tion, nor seen any reason to shrink from supporting it;
but in ,the present case the proposition arose out of a
particular matter, as all persons were aware it arose out
of an occurrence last year which was considered
extremely distasteful and inconvenient. The Noble
Lord's position was, that with regard to any motion for
an address to the Crown, to which opposition was
offered, it should be made a condition to come before a
Committee of the whole House, except to matters which
which bad previously been considered by a Select Com-
mittee. Now, he would ask the Noble Lord, in the
first instance, in what way that resolution could
be complied t with? With regard to the motion
for an address in answer to the Royal Speech no one
could say that opposition would not be offered, and there
was no previous Committee of the whole House to which
it had been referred. If the Noble Lord meant that
every address, before it was presented, should be
referred Ito a Select Committee to be drawn
up, he apprehended that the same rule would
apply to motions for an address in answer
to the Queen's Speech, but that was not expressed in the
words of the resolution. If this motion had been, that
an address should not be presented until the preparation
of that address had been referred to a'Select Committee,
then he could have understood it; but that was not the
case, and the Noble Lord did not mean to say
that it was either implied or expressed. If
the Noble Lord was disposed to make an amend-
ment to his own motion, or allow him (Mr. Herries) to
do so, that would be another question, but as the motion
stood at present, it would be an obstacle to public busi-
ness. Supposing, for instance, that some foolish insane
person should make an attack upon her Ma-
jesty, the House ought to be in a position
immediately to make a communication of the
expression of their feelings at the occurrence!
but the resolution of the Noble Lord did not meet that
difficulty. And it should be recollected that before the
address could be referred to a Committee of the whole
House it would have to be made an order of the day. This
of itself furnished a good ground of opposition to the
motion of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord
had adverted to the occurrence of last year, when
an address was moved to the Crown on
the question of postal regulations on Sunday.
Now, if he recollected aright, ample notice was given to
the House on the subject, and her Majesty's
Geoevternment had sufficient time to be prepared to
mthe motion with their opposition. Even
after the address had been passed there was
an opportunity—even supposing it had been carried by
surprise—for the Government to obtain its rejection.
There was another exprestion of the Noble Lord's to
which he would call their attention, as it con-
cerned the principle and constitution of the House.
The Noble Lord, in proposing this resolution, supposed
the case of an address being presented to the Crown
which the Crown could not acknowledge or receive, and
the address was sent back to be reconsidered by the
still
House, and the Housepersisted in it, then the
Crown would be in a position of. difficulty. He (Mr.
Herries) did not concur in that view of the subject, for
the case put by the Noble Lord amounted to nothing
moae than a difference of opinion bets:teen the Crown,
and the House of Commons. Her Majesty's Govern-
ment had, without adopting the resolutio.n of the Noble
Lord, plenty of time to obtain the real
sense of the House of Commons upon the
address, and to command a majority.
Look-
ing ate thie. :subject generally, he felt the greatest.
objection to agree to the proposition of the Noble Lord,
as no sufficient grounds had been stated to satisfy the
House that it ouight to be agreed to. Honourable
Members had been trammelled in the exercise
of their functions as Members of that House, and they
had already too quietly submitted to their privileges
being
curtailed. Unless the resolution of the Noble
Lord was for a different reason to that which appeared
upon the paper, he (Mr. Herries) could not agree to it.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON wished to ask the Noble
Lord at the head of her Majesty's Government how
this proposition would affect the ordinary motions
which Members were in the habit of making
for the return of papers from public otilees.
If the returns moved for were opposed, according to the
terms of the Noble Lord's motion any motion for the