ページの画像
PDF
ePub

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, JUNE 12.

Only thirty-one Members being present at four o'clock, the House was adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

SATURDAY, June 18.

Mr. Vansittart, on account, he said, of the important debate that was to take place next Tuesday, on the subject of the Orders in Council, moved for a return of the real value of the exports to all parts of the world, from 1805 to 1811.

Mr. Brougham said it was a paper he had anxiously longed for; it would be of great consequence to the discussion. There were several other papers of less importance, which he had already moved for, and which he hoped would be laid on the table by Monday.

Mr. Wharton brought up the return.

Mr. Brougham then observed, that he should certainly make his motion on Tuesday; that it was his intention to take a general view of the subject, avoiding detail as much as possible; those who followed him might enter into the minutiae of the evidence. This arrangement would enable the discussion to be completed in one evening, a circumstance equally convenient for Members, and useful to the question itself.

Mr. Tighe moved, that an Address be presented to the Prince Regent, requesting that there be laid before the House a copy of any reprieve granted to Walter Hall, convicted of murder in February last, or a copy of any papers in the possession of the Irish Government relating to this subject.

Mr. Wynne did not wish to oppose the motion, but asked whether it were consistent with the dignity of the House to entertain such a question, unless the grounds of it were explained,

Mr. Tighe said, he had been unwilling, during the absence of the Irish Secretary, to enter into any detail; he

wished to impute no blame to the Duke of Richmond; he was aware of the turbulent and disorganised state of Ireland, the necessary consequence of a system of disabilities which set one part of the nation in arms, at least in animosity, against the other. The circumstances which induced him to make the present motion were these: —A man, on whose trial no circumstance of alleviation had appeared, was, on the recommendation of the judge, and of some persons of rank, either pardoned or reprieved. He was very reluctant to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown, in the exercise of mercy; but he had been advised by several persons of respectability, and by an eminent Irish barrister. Diligent inquiries had been made after the man; some said he was at full liberty in Dublin; but he had not been able to ascertain whether he was transported, or confined under a commission of lunacy, or what became of

him.

Mr. Fitzgerald now heard, for the first time, of the transaction: but no obstacle should be thrown in the way of inquiry; he was convinced that the character of the Duke of Richmond would be found correct and impartial.

After a few words from Mr. Wynne and Mr. Fitzgerald, in explanation, the motion was agreed to.

The House then went into a Committee on the Orders in Council, to enable two persons to correct their evidence. The report was then brought up, and the Committee postponed till Monday-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

MONDAY, JUNE 15.

The House met soon after two o'clock, and resolved itself into a Committee on the Orders in Council.

On the motion of the Earl of Lauderdale, the commitment of the English and Irish Insolvent Debtors' Bills was postponed till Wednesday.-Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MONDAY, JUNE 15.

SINECURE OFFICES BILL.

Mr. Bankes moved the order of the day for the third. reading of the Sinecure Offices Bill. On the question being put,

Mr. Dundas rose and stated his determination to resist now, as he had done before, in opposing this Bill. He conceived that no satisfactory answer had been given to the objection he had previously urged against it, that it was abolishing the Offices of the Great Seal, Privy Seal, and Signet in Scotland, guaranteed to that nation by the Act of Union. It was said, that the places were not destroyed, but only the salaries taken away, and that the people of the north were extremely dull not to understand the distinction. He (Mr. Dundas) for one was fully aware of the difference between a place with and without salary, and he believed many of his countrymen had as little difficulty in making the discovery. He was convinced that it would not be found advantageous to give serious dissatisfaction to ScotJand, for the sake of saving the paltry sum of 5000l. a year. The object was to substitute Pensions for Sinecures, the first of which were odious to the public, while the latter were a proud mark of the gratitude of the Sovereign.

Mr. W. Fitzgerald insisted that even admitting that the present was a measure of economy, it was not such as ought in these times to be sanctioned. He objected to the abolition of several offices enumerated in the schedule, to which no salaries were attached, and particularly to that of Constable of the City and Castle of Limerick, and to the Clerks of the Permit Office, who had been rendered unnecessary by recent regulations. He objected principally to the last clause in the Bill, by which 80,0007. granted by the Pension Act of 1793, were swept away.

Lord Castlereagh was of opinion, that as a measure of economy the measure would fail-and as a constitutional expedient, he doubted its propriety, since its object was to make the reward of services by the Crown rather a matter of legal right than of Royal favour. There were besides many technical errors, which, if sanctioned by Parliament,

would occasion great official inconvenience. He did not wish to divide the House upon the subject, but he thought it right to state that his sentiments remained unaltered.

Mr. Ponsonby concurred with Mr. Fitzgerald in his objection to the last clause of this Bill, and he had stated to Mr. Bankes that he could not give his support to it. In the year 1793 a settlement had been agreed upon between the Irish Government and certain individuals, at that time termed the Opposition, by which it was provided that the Crown should be confined in granting pensions until they amounted only to 80,000l. and that when they were thus reduced, they should thereafter be limited to that sum; and the Crown was consequently deprived of the Civil List it had possessed since the revolution. As a party to this agree ment Mr. Ponsonby held himself bound by it, since he was of opinion that nothing could be more injurious to the pub lic honour than the abandonment of a settlement which, when it was made, was considered most beneficial, because it appeared that subsequently a still more advantageous arrangement might be made. Were such to be the case, a Protestant Government might be accused with truth of what the Catholics were charged with, that they kept no faith with Heretics.

Mr. W. Pole opposed the Bill, on the same ground as that stated by Mr. Ponsonby, with this addition, that the fund appropriated to the purpose of providing for widows and orphans, 12004. per annum, was found wholly inadequate to the just claims upon it, and it would be the height of cruelty and injustice to deprive the unfortunate widows and children of deserving officers who had fallen in their country's service, of this scanty allowance. At this moment it was a most heart-rending task for the Irish Government to deny further aid to those who so much required it.

Sir John Newport warmly supported the last clause of the Bill. Gentlemen had been loudly calling upon the House not to abandon a solemn legislative enactment, who had been among the first to violate it. The fact was, that for several years the Civil List Act had been abandoned, and charges were made upon the Privy Purse, that it was expressly provided should be paid out of the Civil List; among these was a sum of 10,000l. annually provided for by Parliament, for the House of the Chief Secretary, and for buildings in Dublin Castle. He complained that the Pensions were not confined to deserving objects, and he instanced the case of

Sir John Shore, who in his opinion had no claim upon the country the truth was, that it was converted into a factions list instead of continuing a pension list. It was unjustifiable that the public should be called upon to make an additional sacrifice for what had been already provided for by the Act of 1793.-The object of the promoter of the Bill was, that public and not party services should be rewarded, and when pensions were devoted to that purpose they be came marks of honour instead of opprobium.

Mr. Courtney contended that the Bill was unconstitu tional and illusive in its enactments, particularly as it related to offices paid out of the Civil List, and out of the Hereditary Revenues of the Crown.

Mr. Martin (of Galway) likewise resisted the Bill, dis approving both of its principle and of its details. Accord ing to its preamble, should it be adopted, all those to whom pensions were given would be as much badged as dependants on the Crown, as the poor were as dependants on the parish.

Lord Cochrane said, that though the amount of the Sinecures themselves could not be considered as any thing very serious in point of revenue, yet that the improper bias and influence thereby generated, did of themselves constitute a main objection to the principle of Sinecures. He had, when the right time came, an Amendment to propose respecting the power of the Crown to grant those Sinecures.

Mr. Baring objected to that provision of the Bill which gave the Crown the power of portioning out, according to its own discretion, amongst the Judges, the value of the several Sinecure Offices in the Courts of Justice. He thought it should be divided amongst the Judges according to some predetermined rule, as the principle of making and keeping the Judges independent of the Crown could not be too tenaciously adhered to. He thought that they should be divided among the Judges in proportion to their existing salaries.

Mr. Bankes rose to reply to the objections which had been made. As to the objection of his honourable friend (Mr. Baring), with respect to the augmentation of the Judges' salaries, it had before struck him, but he did not see any easy way of remedying it. If, however, other gentlemen felt it in the same light as it had appeared to the honourable gentleman, he would not object to the Amendment proposed. The difficulty which appeared to him was this, that if a very valuable part of the patronage of the Chief

« 前へ次へ »