Page images
PDF
EPUB

posed improvement, and the manner in | if a new post-office must be erected, there

which part of the expense was to be met by the city of London.

Mr. Gordon said, the sum offered by the city of London was a delusion. In point of fact, the city would not pay more than 12,000l. towards the undertaking, while they threw a considerable burthen on the neighbouring counties.

Mr. Protheroe thought the improvement contemplated the most economical plan that could be acted upon.

Mr. Bankes lamented that it had been deemed necessary to introduce this Bill at the present moment, when the nation was so heavily burthened. At any rate he thought the House was not yet sufficiently informed upon the subject, and that it ought to be postponed until next year. He believed that a trifling addition to the present Post-office would be quite adequate for the present purposes. He adverted to several unnecessary expenses in public buildings, particularly at the Transport-office in Cannon-row, which was ornamented by a colonade of Ionic pillars and a basement story of Portland The Mint, also, after 300,000l. had been expended on it, and eighteen private houses erected within its walls, it appeared, wanted a still further sum to increase its public offices. From thus considering the expenditure of the country, he felt a decided objection to the adoption of a measure like the present, which at all events he thought it would be well to postpone. With this view he would propose as an amendment, "That the Report be received that day three months."

stone.

Mr. Lockhart supported the amendment, on the grounds, that the pressure of the times required a strict attention to public economy. Besides, if means were

necessary for a purpose of great

could be no better spot chosen than Somerset-house, in which case that building could be put in a state of architectural completion. Much had been said of the unwholesome nature of the situations in which the present office was compelled to transact its business; and yet when Mr. Freeling was examined upon this point, he admitted that no argument in favour of the alteration could be drawn from the existing state of health of those who were employed in the various departments. The hon. member then took a review of the proceedings of the city of London, when they caused the London-bridge toll to be taken from their own backs, and placed on those of their neighbours, and maintained, that at a moment when five million of subsidy was about to be transmitted for the common defence of the country, such a principle of local taxation as that which the present measure imposed, ought not to be admitted. Nearly 1,000,000l. had already been drawn from the public for such purposes; there was 500,000l. for new streets, 3 or 400,000l. for this post-office, 35,000l. for a penitentiary-house, and 30,000%. for the colonade in Cannon-row. The aggregate of these sums would be sufficient for a two-months subsidy at least, and there were moments when the ready payment of such a sum would probably terminate a campaign, which otherwise would be incomplete. He was therefore decidedly hostile to the measure.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if he had thought it possible to save the money that would be expended in the erection of a new post-office, in his responsible situation he should have been most anxious to do so; but after the fullest inquiry, and the most patient exalocal immination of witnesses, he had been reluctantly compelled to decide in favour of the measure. The sum expended on this post-office would repay itself in a very short time, and there seemed a great probability, that by the arrangements which the new building would facilitate, an increase in the revenue of 50,000l. would, at no great distance of time, take place. On the ground of public economy, therefore, the measure was justified. As to the application of the local fund at the disposal of the city of London, it was but fair that the local improvement should be paid for out of the local fund. The public, who would receive the greatest benefit, would contribute the largest share, and

provement, why not draw them from some of those great city funds, the application of which had been, from a variety of causes, diverted from the original intention of the donors? For instance, large sums were appropriated for the redemption of Christian captives in Algiers, and he had not of late years heard that any such persons had been so released. If a liberal contribution were called for, why not afford it from some part of this local purse, which would be particularly augmented by the adoption of the measure, instead of drawing it from the public, under the present state of the country?

Mr. Holme Summer was of opinion, that

advanced from time to time out of the revenue of the Post-office of Great Britain, for defraying the expense of providing a site for a new Post-office, and making proper avenues thereto; one third part whereof shall be repaid to the said revenue from the Orphans' Fund."

Mr. Gordon observed, that some delusion must have been practised on the House, as it was understood that the whole expense to the public, both for the purchase of the ground and the erection of the building, was to be 240,000l.

the city of London would contribute that proportion which was a fair compensation for the benefit it would receive from the improvement in point of convenience and appearance, from opening an avenue in that part of the town where the office was to be built. A further delay would much enhance the expense of purchasing the site, and the public would pay at a most ruinous rate of interest for the saving which might be occasioned by that delay. An objection had been made to the application of money from the Orphans' Fund; but that fund, whatever was its origin, was at present to be regarded in no other light than any other local fund; many of the same nature existed in the ports of the kingdom: the duty by which it was supplied, sixpence on the chaldron of coals brought into the port of London, was scarcely felt a proof of which was, that no one had experienced any benefit from the repeal of the war-duty to a much larger amount, viz. 3s. a chaldron. As the post-mittee of the upper stories of the building; office must be rebuilt, and as no equally good situation could be found, he thought the House had strong reasons for agreeing to the Report.

Mr. Rose said, that in the opinion which he gave, he was entirely guided by the previous recommendation of the committees which had sat on the subject. If the present post-office was decided to be inadequate for its uses, the balance of expense between its enlargement and the erection of a new one, was, in his opinion, in favour of the latter, from the many advantages which it embraced.

Mr. Browne defended the decision of both committees, which had fully entered upon every consideration relative to this question, although they had heard every thing which was pertinaciously urged in opposition by the hon. gentleman near him (Mr. Sumner), and also by the hon. member for Taunton (Mr. Baring), who he supposed had altered his opinion on the subject, as he no longer persevered in his opposition.

The House divided, when the numbers were: For receiving the Report, 56; Against it, 16:-Majority 40. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Report was ordered to be received on Monday next. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved the order of the day for the House resolving itself into a committee of supply. In the com mittee, the right hon. gentleman moved, "That a sum, not exceeding 240,000l. be

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that there was a deduction made in the estimate on account of the value of the present Post-office materials, and the ground on which it stood.

Mr. H. Sumner thought it should be distinctly understood, before the House voted a large sum for clearing the ground, what was to be the building to be erected on it. No plan had been before the com

and he much suspected that those parts would be occupied with apartments for the officers, which, besides being an indirect increase of their salaries, would by augmenting the number of residents increase the danger of fire.

Mr. Grenfell read a part of the Report, which distinctly stated that the whole expense to the public would be only 240,000l. both for the site and building of the new Post-office.

Mr. Bankes observed, that such would be the amount (it was true) of the ultimate expense; but in the mean time the purchase-money must be provided, which would be reduced by the re-sale of part of the ground, by the contribution from the Orphans' Fund, and the value of the old Post-office.

Mr. Gordon urged the propriety of building the Post-office at Somersethouse, where there was sufficient ground already in the hands of Government.

Mr. Wrottesley thought the space vacant at Somerset-house would be quite inadequate to the extent of the building required.

Mr. H. Sumner, on the ground that the sum of 240,000l. would not be required till the exact extent of the building to be erected was determined on, proposed an amendment, that the sum of 100,000l. be voted for the purpose above mentioned.

Mr. Butterworth observed, that the sum of 240,000l. would be paid, not all at once, but by instalments.

[blocks in formation]

This proposition was opposed by Messrs. Calvert, Gordon, Sumner, Grenfell, and sir M. Wood, on these ground :-that no estimate of the amount of the proposed compensation was presented; that in fact. no indemnity was due for poor's-rates, because as the houses were to be taken down, if the amount of the poor's-rates were reduced, there would be also a proportionally diminished claim upon those poor's-rates in consequence of the reduced population; and also that there was no precedent for such claims; nothing of the kind having been ever suggested in Westminster, upon the removal of so many streets to make room for the recent improvements.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer argued on the other side, that it would be unfair to allow the funds of a particular district to suffer a severe loss, by the creation of an establishment for the public good, and that there was a precedent for this proposition in the case of the new gaol of the City.-A division took place: For the motion, 52; Against it, 21: Majority, 31.

CHAPEL EXEMPTION BILL.] On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Bill "to exempt churches, chapels, and other places of religious worship from parochial rates," was recommitted.

Mr. Wrottesley said, it was his intention to propose a clause, that no chapels which should be built hereafter, should be exempted from the payment of parochial rates, unless in every chapel a certain number of free seats were provided, proportioned to the size of the chapel.

General Thornton was extremely averse to giving patronage to dissenters: he considered that the Bill would be injurious both to Church and State. He then moved to leave out the words "meeting-houses,' and to insert in their stead, chapels according to the established religion.'

[ocr errors]

Mr. H. Martin begged to know whether the hon. general meant that chapels not (VOL. XXXI. )

conforming to the established religion, should be subject to the payment of poorrates?

General Thornton said, he objected to the principle of the Bill, and would oppose it in every stage. He had a great dislike to the levelling system, and thought it improper to throw additional rates on parishes. The Bill was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he hoped it was not a measure of administration. He was not for giving such encouragement to dissenters, by making the persons of the established church pay for the rates of meeting-houses. It would be much better to throw them on the public.

Mr. Martin said, that if such were the sentiments of the hon. general, he ought to have opposed the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Serjeant Onslow observed, that there never was an amendment more hostile to the principles of a Bill. He perfectly agreed with the opinions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and thanked him for bringing the Bill forward. If the hon. general meant to make the Bill ridiculous, he was perfectly right in proposing his amendment; but he hoped he would stand single.

Mr. Protheroe supported the Bill, as he thought it would remove a very galling distinction now subsisting between two classes of the community.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended the introduction of the Bill as relieving a number of meritorious individuals from considerable vexations, and by no means infringing upon any parochial privileges. At the same time he did not wish to be considered as giving any other weight to the measure than what it might justly derive from its own merits.

Mr. Davies Giddy considered the Bill a matter of conciliation, and that it ought to be adopted. He observed, that the rates arising from places of worship were inconsiderable.

General Thornton stated, that in one parish, that of St. George's, Hanover-square, the amount was 1511. 18s. 4d. He did not at all desire to infringe on the Toleration Act, but he thought this Bill extremely injurious to the established religion.

Mr. Bankes observed, that as many chapels were built in the west end of the town, on speculation, and for the sake of profit, it was perfectly just to compel the payment of rates. If those parochial rates were not enforced, it would be putting so much the (2 P)

Mr. Serjeant Onslow was a strong friend to the Established Church, but he could not look on this Bill in the light in which some gentlemen had viewed it. As to free seats, he perfectly agreed with the clause which the hon. member was about to propose.

more money in the pockets of the proprie- | the service as lieutenant-colonels, be adtors. He thought that the clause to be in-vanced to the rank of generals? At the troduced by the hon. gentleman (Mr. commencement of the French Revolution, Wrottesley) respecting free seats, should private persons were permitted to raise not be prospective only, but also retro-regiments, in which they held the tempospective. rary rank of colonels, but were at the same time precluded from the possibility of promotion, in consequence of the nature of their commissions. Among others he noticed lords Uxbridge, Craven, and Lynedock, each of whom was compelled to resign his temporary commission, entering the service de novo, and passing through the regular gradations, in order to obtain the capability they before wanted. From this necessity the German officers were exempted, while our own were compelled to submit. Sixteen Germans were now generals in our service, which he conceived a great hardship to British officers. On the late regulations with regard to the Order of the Bath, ten Grand Crosses were reserved for foreign officers in our service. The present Bill he conceived to be contrary to the Act of Settlement, and he would therefore move, "That the Report be taken into consideration that day three months."

General Thornton's amendment was then put, and rejected. Mr. Wrottesley then brought up his clause, which was carried. General Thornton next moved, that the words or for the gratuitous instruction of the poor,' should be omitted. After a few words from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Martin, and general Thornton, the motion was put, and negatived. The report was then brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday.

FOREIGN SOLDIERS ENLISTMENT BILL.] -The order of the day being read, for taking into further consideration the Report from the Committee of the whole House, on the Bill" to continue two Acts of his present Majesty, for enabling Subjects of Foreign States to enlist and serve as Soldiers in his Majesty's service, and to enable his Majesty to grant Commissions to Subjects of Foreign States to serve as Officers, under certain restrictions,"

Lord Palmerston thought the House would hardly entertain the noble lord's proposition, which went to cut off 20,000 men from our army, at the very moment when the country was again at war. As to the other observations of the noble lord, it would be very hard if the German officers in our service were to lose that rank in peace, which they had merited by their conduct in war.

Mr. H. Martin thought it rather alarming for the House to hear, that at no period, even of peace, these foreign officers would cease to belong to the British army.

Lord Folkestone observed, that the present Bill was one of the most serious im. portance, considered in a constitutional point of view, as its object was to admit 16,000 foreign soldiers, commanded by foreign officers, into the kingdom. The Lord Palmerston explained, that all that Bill likewise differed from the former, was meant by this Bill, was to continue the inasmuch as the present authorized the in-services of German officers, as we were now troduction of such a force during any war, at war. The Act was limited to the rewhile the former limited it to that during turn of peace. which it had been enacted. But, not satisfied with admitting those foreigners into the kingdom, to enjoy rank within their immediate corps, the Government had given them commissions in the English army, and had advanced them to the rank of generals commanding brigades and districts. On what principle was it, that while Englishmen of rank and fortune were prevented by the rules of the service from arriving so suddenly at the head of the army, these foreigners should be exempt from their operation; and, having entered

Lord Folkestone's motion was then put, and negatived. Several clauses were introduced into the Bill, which was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 2.

ROSEBERRY DIVORCE BILL.] The Mar quis of Lansdowne moved the third reading of the Roseberry Divorce Bill.

Earl Stanhope, after adverting to the discussion which had taken place relative to

certain clauses in the Bill, especially the|trates would be consumed in judging beclause declaring any marriage between the tween opposing interests, which would offending parties illegal, said, that he had have no other good effects than in filling thought it most proper to refrain from lawyers' pockets. He wished well to the taking any part in that discussion, because, measure, if it could be exempted from as it had been asserted that the case was these objections. already provided for by law, he conceived it would be right previously to examine how the matter stood. He now found that there was such a law,-an Act, 32 Henry 8, by which such a marriage was in effect declared illegal. If that was the case, the clause on that point in the Bill was improper; because, in the first place, it was useless; and in the next place, because to declare that to be law which was already clearly so, only weakened the law's authority. If the lawyers should affect not to understand this Act, the plan would be to pass a general declaratory bill, and not introduce such a clause in a bill proceed ing at the instance of a private individual. The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, June 2.

PAUPERS' REMOVAL BILL.] Sir Egerton Brydges moved the second reading of the Bill to prevent the Removal of Chargeable Paupers, till a final adjudication of their respective Settlements.

Mr. Atkins Wright objected to the Bill, not because he was adverse to the principle, but because he feared that its provisions were impracticable. He thought that the whole of the Poor Laws required a revision; and that till some clear and comprehensive alteration of the whole could be made, it was in vain to apply partial remedies, and patch up a faulty system. He was afraid that the clause, which gave opportunity to parishes to be heard in the first instance against an adjudication by which they might be fixed with the pauper's settlement, would foment, instead of allaying litigation, and would be attended with a great deal of trouble both to parishes and magistrates.

Mr. Nicholson Calvert was favourable to the principle of this Bill; but he feared that the complexity of its machinery would render it far less beneficial in its effects than the hon. mover supposed. He dreaded the number of hearings and re-hearings that it would cause: he was afraid that it would stir up attornies in the first instance, to contend with one another, and that the time and attention of magis

Mr. Western disapproved of this measure, as he had done last year, in toto. He saw in it endless difficulties: he could not comprehend its machinery; and if he could, he could not see cui bono it was created. He thought that parishes might thus be called on to oppose, at a great expense and inconvenience, adjudications before magistrates; and the consequence might be, that it would turn out that the pauper's settlement was not with them, but with some third parish; and so it would be proved that they never ought to have been summoned. And then another parish might be called on in the same way; and so it might go on from parish to parish. He therefore highly disapproved the Bill.

Mr. Wynn really felt sincere reluctance at giving his opposition to any measure which had in view so beneficial an object, as that proposed by the hon. mover of this Bill. But he much feared that the present Bill would have a very contrary effect from that which was contemplated. The clause which provided for calling on parishes to resist adjudications, was pregnant with seeds of contest and trouble. He thought that if removals did not take place, as now, in the first instance, parishes would lose the benefit of ascertaining a pauper's identity by his presence among them; and that they ought not to be put to the expense of taking a long journey to cross-examine a pauper, and satisfy themselves by a personal examination. As the law now stood, the pauper was brought home to their doors for this purpose, and they had all the benefit of it in case of appeal. For thus they could better judge, whether there was ground for such appeal: while, so long as he was in the custody of the removing parish, they could not have an equally free and impartial examination of him.

Sir Egerton Brydges was not a little surprised at the arguments which had been urged in opposition to this Bill. He rather thought hon. members must have totally misunderstood both its nature and provisions. Its principle was founded on the most incontrovertible justice. would scarcely be contended in these days, and it did not seem to be contended,

It

« PreviousContinue »