The Sun.
London, England, 1835-03-17 00:00:00

House would have proposed some Address, upon which they 1
would have come to a definite decision.
Sir ROBERT PEEL begged to remind the House that
he was placed in a very hard position by debates going on in
this manner when he had given his answer—a course of pro-
ceeding by which he was precluded from making a reference
to the remarks which arose.—( Cries of " Go on, go on.")
Then he would beg first to thank the Right Hon. Gentleman
for the spirit in which he had spoken—a spirit which was wor-
thy of him as a public man. Supposing he ( Sir Robert Peel)
had said, in answer to the Right Hon. Baronet's question, any
thing leading to the supposition that he had thought it proper
to advise the Marquis of Londonderry to retire---should he not
have compromised the situation which he held ? Could any
thing have been more unjust than to have robbed the Noble
Marquis of the credit of forming his own judgment and acting
upon it? He thought the Right Hon. Baronet did justice to
his Majesty's Government only in maintaining that they had
not abandoned the Noble Marquis. Had he ( Sir Robert
Peel) brought forward the declaration of the Government in
a manner which was insulting to the House of Commons ?
After some further remarks, the Right Hon. Gentleman con-
demned the course which had been taken on this subject, by
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, which was too important to be met
by a discussion on the question that the House do resolve itself
into a Committee of Supply. He would say, however, with all
respect, and without meaning to arraign the course which had
been pursued, or the opinions of Honourable Gentlemen, but,
in his own vindication, that he never would have thought of
dictating to the Noble Marquis of Londonderry, but would al-
ways have left him to take that line which his own sense of
honour and propriety suggested to him ; nor would he ( Sir R.
Peel) enter upon those opinions of the Noble Marquis, which
the Hon. Gentleman had cited as emanating from him on a
former occasion—nor upon those reasons which had induced
the Noble Marquis to resign his situation. Ha felt obliged to the
House,which bad thought proper to give him the opportunity of
noticing these circumstances, and he would not go further than
to state that, though he thought it perfectly fair for the Hon.
Member for Middlesex to give notice of a motion having for its
object the bringing the principles of the Government to the
test, he thought, hardly fair towards the House that this should
be done at an early period, he should yet shrink from naming the
day on which it should be brought forward. On the motion of
which that Hon. Gentleman had given notice he ( Sir Robert
Peel) was prepared to meet him ; as he thought that, if the
House had voted for the limitation of the supplies, it would
have been such a denouncement of the Government that no
Government could have consented to remain in office. If, in-
' deed, the Hon. Gentleman could not find a day for this mo-
tion, he ( Sir R. Peel) would find one for him, be would faci-
litate his views. But if the Hon. Member for Middlesex wais
not prepared to name a day, it was not fair in him to deal in
menaces which he was not prepared also to put in force.
Mr. HUME said that with reference to the part which he
and others were about to undertake, he thought that they had
a perfect right to choose their own time and place.
Sir R. PEEL—This was the second time in which the
Hon. Gentleman had said he would be prepared to bring the
motion forward on an early day, but in consequence of these
repeated declarations the House had not come to a vote.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that the Right Hon.
Gentleman had not the right to ask the House to come to a
vote at once. He thought that the case upon which the Right
Hon. Gentleman stood forward was this, " Though you may
not give your implicit confidence, give us a fair trial ; let us
bring forward our measures, and then judge of them." If,
however, they were brought forward, allowing they had been
brought forward under such circumstances, this would (as we
understood) be tantamount to a direct vote of confidence, and
he put it to the Hon. Gentleman whether this would not pre-
clude them from being heard afterwards ? However, it would
then have been said, " You want to condemn and reject our
plans." He (Lord John Russell) would not expose himself
to this answer, and he for one was willing to wait for the time
when the Right Gentleman should bring forward his measures.
Sir ROBERT PEEL observed that the Noble Lord ap-
peared to think that by pursuing the course which he had re-
commended, it would be implied that that Noble Lord, and
those with whom he acted, were giving their confidence to the
present Government. But what were the measures which
the Government proposed to bring forward? He meant to
bring in a Bill to-morrow with respect to Dissenters' mar-
riages—next week they proposed to introduce a measure for
the Commutation of Tithes in England and Wales—then
his Right Hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland was going
this week to propose a measure to settle that most difficult
of all questions (and which it was necessary to decide),
namely, that of tithes in Ireland. Now, he would ask the
Noble Lord who had last addressed the House, whether, in
the case of a defeat in the House of Commons upon an
equivocal question, such as that of the Speaker, if he had
lightly thrown up the Government, the Noble Lord and
others would not have said that this was a cowardly aban-
donment of principle—that he never meant to bring forward
any of those measures to which he had pledged himself—that
he had basely shrunk from his trial ?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that had the Right Hon.
Gentleman had his own way, he would have taken the advan-
tage, and would have obtained many votes.
Mr. Cutler Ferguson, an Hon. Member, Mr. Williams (of
Coventry), and Mr. Alexander Baring, severally made some
observations which did not reach the gallery.
In answer to some question put by an Hon. MEMBER which
was not audible,
Sir ROBERT PEEL had taken the opportunity of look-
ing into the papers, and with reference to the erection of an
official residence of the embassy to Constantinople, at Pera,
proposals had been made for achieving this object ; and he had
no hesitation in saying that the late Government did not raise
a permanent residence with a view to maintain economy, but
an engineer officer had been sent over there to see that the
estimates were drawn out correctly, but (as we understood) no
amount for this object was included in the estimates.
Mr. ROEBUCK begged to ask a question with reference
to the supplies for Canada, and was understood to refer to the
case of a late officer who had paid money without the vote of
that House. He wished to know whether it was meant to ex-
pend money out of the military chest ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL said he would give the question
further consideration before he could reply.
Mr. LAB OUC HE RE wished to call the attention of his
Majesty's Government to the fact that an idea had gone abroad
that upon the expenditure for the next year for the navy
estimates there would be a saving or diminution of charge of
not less than 332,0001. Did that sum include the sum of
100,000/. calculated in the estimate of last year under the head
of wages to seamen and mariners, to the ordinary and yard
craft? In July, last year, an alteration, which was thought a
most beneficial one, was made in the mode of paying wages. It
was not considered prudent to trust seamen with the large
sums of money which they had hitherto been in the habit of
receiving, after perhaps three years' service abroad ; and in lieu
of this system a grant of 100,0001. was made, or included in the
estimates of last year, under the head of monthly allowance,
and, consequently, large monthly payments of wages were
made to ships, at the time it was necessary to meet these in-
creasing sums. Now he could not help expressing his regret
that the Right Hon. Baronet should have included this amount
of 100,000/. in the estimates of last year. He did not mean to
say that he intended to practise a delusion, but it had that
effect, because it Was believed that there was an actual dimi-
nution of expenditure of 332,000/. When the Right Hon.
Baronet stated the saving on the estimates to be 500,000/., he
took it for granted that the 100,0001. was not included, and he
should be glad to hear a declaration on the part of the Govern-
ment to the effect that the diminution of expenditure under the
head of navy estimates would be 232,000/.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that what he had stated was,
that a saving cf 500,000/. would be effected on the estimates,
and he stated expressly that this was as compared with the
estimates of last year, but not a saving with regard to the
expenditure thereof. The expenditure last year did not
amount to the sum voted, and, therefore, he did not take
credit for this saving in the navy estimates.
Mr. L ABOUCHE RE said that this item of 100,0001. had
no more to do with the navy estimates for the ensuing year
than the late grant in reference to the men engaged at the
battle of Navarin had, and the including this sum in the esti-
mate of last year was calculated to produce an erroneous idea
that there was a deduction of this amount in the present year
from the vote for wages.
Lord ASHLEY stated that they should have been guilty
of an injustice if they had taken credit for'more than the sum
of 232,000/. But the Hon. Gentleman would observe that
they had separated this item of 100,000/. from others in the
estimate, and that it was not included in this abatement.
After an observation from Mr. POULETT THOMSON,
which was not audible,
Captain PECHF,LL said that these errors must occur
unless the estimates were made out in a different manner.
Mr. FINN was understood to withdraw the motions of
which he had given notice ; but in this case, as in several
others, from the circumstance of the Hon. Gentleman sitting
near the Chair, we could not hear distinctly.
Sir E. CODRINGTON put a question respecting the
classification in the dock-yards, &c.
Lord ASHLEY replied that he was not then prepared to
answer.
Mr. HUME asked whether any papers would be laid on
the table relative to the building of lighthouses, as he under-
stood that there was an intention, in combination with the
United States of America, to erect certain lighthouses ? In
which case it was essential that the House should know what
expenditure was to be incurred.
Lord ASHLEY could not answer the question, but would
make it his business to inquire into the matter.
Mr. FITZ STEPHEN FRENCH begged to ask the
Right Hon. Baronet one question. Could it be possible that
it was intended to call upon the clergy in Ireland to repay the
instalments made to them on the loan of 1,000,000/. two
years since.
Sir R. PEEL thought it desirable that the discussion
upon or reply to this question should be entered into when
his Right Hon. Friend would bring on his motion for settling
the question of tithes in Ireland. He did not wish to antici-
pate any part of that discussion.
POOR LAW COMMISSION (IRELAND).
In answer to a question from an Hon. MEMBER,
Mr. Secretary GOULBURN said that with reference to
the Commission of Poor Law Inquiry in Ireland a report had
been transmitted to him, stating that the Commissioners were
still actively employed in the discharge of their duty, and that
they had divided their inquiry into two branches ; the first
being directed to the best mode by which the present paupers
should be relieved, and into the case of those especially
who were not able to provide for themselves ; the second
branch of the inquiry was directed to the causes of the present
pauperism. The first was concluded, and it was not thought
satisfactory to send up a general report until the second branch
was completed.
A message from the Lords announced their Lordships' con-
currence to sundry Bills.
Mr. HUME begged to ask the Noble Lord a question.