Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

would for a single moment have supposed that he lent himself to any unfair or improper proceeding; but, at the same time, as he has called your Lordships' attention to this subject-though I had no idea that it would be brought before your Lordships to-night, and know nothing of it except what took place elsewhere-I cannot but think that there has been in some quarter a gross dereliction of duty with regard to this affair. For, in the first place, the Speaker's warrants would run in the dockyards without any interference upon the part of any Member of the Government; and I do not, in the next place, understand for what purpose the Speaker's warrant was required. I believe Speaker's warrants are only necessary where persons have de clined to obey the summons of the Select Committee appointed to try the election petition. Supposing these persons had been summoned and had disobeyed the summons, then there would be ground for applying for a Speaker's warrant. But this Committee is not expected to sit until after Easter. I want to know, therefore, what was the reason why, two months before the sitting of the Committee, and consequently before any summons could be issued by the Committee, the Speaker's warrant was sent down to order the attendance of persons, without the slightest knowledge of the evidence that they were about to give or the ground of their presence being required. I cannot help thinking-and the noble Duke will forgive me for saying so I acquit him altogether-I cannot help thinking that there are circumstances that make this a most suspicious transaction. In the first place, one of the petitioners was Mr. Phinn, who has been one of the Secretaries to the Admiralty, and is now, I believe, an officer employed under the Admiralty. He is one of the petitioners; and on his application -his connection with the Admiralty being notorious-the unusual step is taken to send down a Speaker's warrant two months before the meeting of the Committee; and these persons, instead of being visited at their homes, are collected together in the presence of officers of Her Majesty's Navy,

served with the warrant, and examined and cross-examined as to what evidence they were prepared to give two months hence. Now, a Speaker's warrant does not authorize any proceeding of the kind, but simply orders the persons served to attend when called upon to attend; and to have these individuals, who are in the employ VOL. CLXXXI. [THIRD SERIES.]

of the dockyard, and who are under the control of the Admiralty, summoned before officers of the Admiralty, and examined and cross-examined in their presence, then and there to elicit in evidence that which is to be brought forward in support of a petition promoted by and in the interests of the Counsel to the Admiralty, does appear to me to implicate some Members of the Government connected with this dockyard in a course of proceeding that is utterly unjustifiable, and that demands the most serious consideration of Parliament. It is not merely sending down a Speaker's warrant, but it is sending down a purely fishing inquiry, to ascertain what evidence could be obtained on the part of the petitioners against the sitting Members; and this is done by the authority and direction, and with the sanction and in the presence of the officers connected with the Admiralty. I must repeat that it is a question which deserves the most serious investigation by Parliament; it is a tampering with the freedom of election not likely to be passed over; and though I entirely acquit the noble Duke of having had anything to do with it, I think that the matter ought not to be allowed to rest here, but that there should be a full inquiry how it was that these parties were subjected to an utterly illegal and unauthorized proceeding.

THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: I agree with the noble Earl that this is a subject which ought to be thoroughly inquired into; but I wish in justice to Mr. Phinn, to state that I have received a letter from him, in which he says—

"I have nothing whatever to do with the Devonport election petition. It is the petition of the electors, and it is true that they claim the seat for me, but they have done so without my concurrence and against my advice."

THE EARL OF DERBY: I make no

charge against Mr. Phinn, who did quite right in endeavouring to get as much as he could out of the officials. What I complain of is that it was perfectly well known that Mr. Phinn was a subordinate of the Government and Counsel to the Admiralty, and that it was in his interest that this investigation took place.

MARRIAGE LAW (IRELAND.)-PETITION. MOTION FOR PAPERS.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH rose to present a Petition from Richard Talbot, of Ranagham, in the County of Westmeath, in Ireland, and to call the attention of the

2 Y

House to the statements in that petition. | the suggestion of that rev. gentleman's The noble Marquess said, the subject re- name. In the speech the magistrate was ferred not so much to matters of religion denounced at great length, and it evidently as to those of law and order, and he was appeared that the bench dared not proceed anxious to hear what defence the Irish with the charge of the illegal marriage. Government could make for itself in respect The offence was the issuing the summons; of the matter to which the petition re- and it was not difficult to understand that ferred. In the month of October last the in Ireland the greatest offence any one daughter of the petitioner was allured to could commit was to endeavour to make a marry a Roman Catholic against her father's priest amenable to law; but the Irish Gowishes, she being then under age, and Tal-vernment had been informed twice of the bot being a Protestant and a respectable facts of this case, and why had it not inyeoman of the county of Westmeath. terfered to vindicate the law? Daily occurThe petitioner, believing that his daughter rences in Ireland led too plainly to the was living in a state of concubinage, such inference that there was no justice to be a marriage being null and void by the had for the poorer classes of Protestants 19 Geo. II. c. 19, made a deposition, there. A favourable hearing was reserved which he sent to the Irish Government for those who were instrumental in bringon the 2nd of December, requesting it to ing Members into Parliament to support take the matter up. No answer having the Ministry. A poor Protestant might as been returned to that application, on the well speak to the wall as appeal to the 13th of January Talbot issued a summons Government for remedy against injustice. against the priest who had performed the He was not an ultra-Protestant-far from marriage, and who by that act had com- it; he was always willing to do justice to mitted a felony within the meaning of the his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, but Act 7 & 8 Vict. c. 13. The priest came at the same time he claimed equal rights to the court attended by an immense crowd, and equally just treatment for their Prowho appeared to be amenable to his wishes. testant neighbours. It was in this spirit He got upon a car which was covered with that his Motion was couched, and he belaurels, and addressed the crowd, bidding lieved the Government would hardly venthem be peaceable, but at the same time ture to refuse to accede to it. Parliament reminding them of many circumstances has heard much, and probably will hear calculated to exasperate them against the more, about the grievances of England; but magistrate who had signed the summons. I have to tell the Government that as long Having entered the court, the priest said as Roman Catholic Priests are permitted there was no occasion to examine witnesses, directly or indirectly to interfere with the inasmuch as he had done the act for which administration of justice there, there can he was summoned, and would repeat it as be no peace. He concluded by moving an often as he had an opportunity. The ma- Address forgistrate, having regard to the state of the country, and that the mob were thoroughly with the priest, believed it would not be safe to take information against a priest, and the case was not gone on with. The next day the priest was surrounded by a much larger assemblage at the neighbouring town and near the chapel. Addressing about 2,000 persons, he proceeded on the assumption that he had achieved a great victory, and inquired of the mob what they would do if he was summoned again before the magistrate. The mob replied that they would "mallet" the persons who should summon him, which, of course, meant "murder them. The priest, however, suggested that this should not be done, but that Father Carey should be sent for. The people had been made to believe that a man had died in consequence of Father Carey having denounced him; and hence The Marquess of Westmeath

"Report of the Officer of the Constabulary to the Inspector General of the Language held by the Roman Catholic Priest addressed to the tumulCotherstown on Tuesdays, the 14th, 21st, and tuous Meeting assembled and following him at 28th of January, 1866, and of all the Circumstances coming under his Observation at that time."

LORD DUFFERIN said, that if any miscarriage of justice had taken place, their Lordships must feel that it had occurred contrary to the wish and intention of Her Majesty's Government. The difficulty in the case arose, as he understood, from the fact that, when the prosecution was about to be instituted, no information whatever had been sworn. It was perfectly unusual to produce papers of the description asked for without previous communication with the Irish Government. He therefore trusted the noble Marquess would not press his Motion.

LORD DUFFERIN: What I said was that it was unusual to accede to a Parliamentary Motion such as that of the noble Marquess without first inquiring from the Government of Ireland whether there is any objection to our acceding to the request.

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH | tinued during the natural life of his Serene Do I understand the noble Lord to say Highness. The first payment was to be that it is unusual to produce the reports of made on the first quarter day next occurring the police ? after the death of Her Royal Highness, and the subsequent payments on each of the four usual quarter days; the money was to come from the Consolidated Fund. My Lords, this annuity of £50,000 was to be received by his Royal Highness Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, and he did receive it until he ascended the Throne of Belgium, when he voluntarily resigned the annuity, which he was entitled still to receive, and placed the whole in the hands of certain trustees, of whom I have the honour to be one, to the use of certain trusts, which being

THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATH: In that case I shall postpone my Motion to this day week.

Motion postponed.

THE LATE KING OF THE BELGIANS satisfied the residue was to be paid annually

THE TRUST ESTATE OF 1834.

THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, were any of my colleagues Members of the House of Commons I think I should probably intust to them the duty of bringing before that House, as being more directly concerned in financial matters, the statement with which I am about very shortly to trouble your Lordships. But, inasmuch as that is not the case, and my co-trustees have only been members of the trust for less than two years, while unfortunately I am the sole survivor among the original trustees appointed in the year 1834, your Lordships will not think it unnatural or unreasonable at the close of such a trust that I should desire to lay before the House a summary of the mode in which we have executed that trust, and disposed of the large sum of £1,500,000 which in that time has passed through our hands. I shall trouble your Lordships with as few figures as possible; but I will endeavour to show that we have acted from the beginning to the end in the spirit and in accordance with the terms of our trust. In the year 1816, as your Lordships are aware, a marriage was contracted between the late King of the Belgians, then his Serene Highness Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg, and the Princess Charlotte, heiress to the Throne of England, and thereupon an annuity for their joint lives of £60,000 was settled by Act of Parliament, with a provision that in the event of his Serene Highness surviving the Princess-an event which certainly could not have been regarded as likely to occur so shortly-he should be entitled to receive the diminished annuity of £50,000 a year. This annuity of £50,000, as the settlement shows, was to be paid immediately after the death of the Princess Charlotte, and con

into the British Exchequer. Under these trusts we have received a total sum of £1,534,962; and I take the opportunity of saying that during the whole period, from the time of our accepting the trust down to the day of the late King's death, His Majesty has neither directly nor indirectly received a single shilling of that million and a half of money which he would have had a right to receive according to the law of England. I will now, with your Lordships' permission, state shortly what were the objects contemplated by the trust, the limitations of those several objects, and the manner in which they were executed. In the first place, we were to pay the rent and taxes of Marlborough House up to the year 1835, and the taxes levied on the premises at Claremont and Melbourne Lodge-a smaller house near Claremont-and keep them in such a state of repair that they should be always fit for habitation; but the whole of these expenses were not to exceed £6,000 a year in amount. There was also set forth a list of pensions and allowances-I will not trouble your Lordships with the names, but they were not to exceed £8,941 yearly-with the power of striking off any names that might be thought fit, though power was not given to add any. In addition to this a number of charities were to be paid, and among these were some charities bequeathed by the Princess Charlotte to the amount of £360 a year. The first trust was to provide £7,183 for the rent of Marlborough House; to allow to the agents such expenses for the general purposes of the trust as we deemed necessary, and thereafter to pay over to the Exchequer the balance remaining. But I must remark that when we took the houses at Claremont under our control they were certainly not in a very complete state of repair, and they

of July, we met together, and received the auditor's report for the year which had passed, and the resident steward's estimate for the year to come. The latter recorded in detail every item of expenditure which he considered would be necessary. Sometimes we objected to and disallowed an item, and sometimes, when in doubt, the trustees would maturely consider the matter. Once, Mr. Edward Ellice went down to Claremont to examine into the circumstances of the case, in order to see whether the expenditure was absolutely required. When we were satisfied with the estimate we referred these repairs, both general and extraordinary, to the Treasury; and having obtained the sanction of the Treasury, we directed that the repairs should be executed under the authority of the Board of Works

required a very large expenditure from year to year to keep them in a habitable condition. I need not say that the long residence of the ex-Royal family of France increased the expense of housekeeping and those other expenses incidental to keeping the house constantly in a state fit for habitation. But, my Lords, I am happy to say that, notwithstanding we had these difficulties to contend with, we have succeeded in discharging the duties devolving upon us as managers of the Claremont Estate by the expenditure of a sum considerably within the sum of £6,000 a year. We have been receiving during a period of 31 years. The first quarter commenced in July, 1834, and the last ended with October, 1865. £6,000 a year during that period amounts to £187,500; but our actual expenditure has been only £181,610, and this-the extraordinary repairs by the Crown, sum was expended in the following manner. The ordinary expenses of the house, including the wages and keeping the property both in and out of doors in repair, came to £142,451, or an average of £4,556 a year; and that is a sum which I think your Lordships will not think disproportionate to the extent of the buildings and grounds. Then the ordinary repairs of Claremont Lodge, which, as I have said, were of necessity extensive, cost during the 31 years £36,258, or an average of £1,160 a year. The repairs of Melbourne Lodge cost £2,900, or an average of £82 a year. These totals make, as I have said, £181,610 or £7,000 less than the sum we were authorized to expend. But, my Lords, I must here mention another item of expenditure which does not strictly come under the head of repairs, but which we have described as extraordinary repairs. These were works of a permanent character, which we in reference to our own property would call landlord's repairs; for they were such as no tenant would be expected to incur, especially if he held under a tenancy depending upon the life of a man advanced in years. Still, these repairs were necessary for the comfort of the Royal inhabitants, and it was advisable they should be made in the interest of the reversioner-that is to say of the Crown. But the expenses to which I allude have not been very large. They consisted of the erection of a new range of stables, the carrying out of an extensive system of drainage, and various other permanent works of a similar character. None of these repairs were ordered without due consideration. Once a year, in the month The Earl of Derby

and the ordinary repairs by the Trust; but the expense of the whole, amounting to £20,917, were paid out of the funds in the hands of the trustees. The next sum of which I have to speak is that representing the pensions and allowances, over which we could exercise no control, because they were fixed, and determinable only by death. They have amounted to £190,462; but if none of them had fallen in they would have amounted to £269,418, or £8,941 a year, but the falling in of lives made the actual sum £190,462. We can, however, claim no credit for this reduction. Then, the charities, including the £336 paid under the will of Princess Charlotte, and including also several small contributions to local charities, which seemed to fall upon the trustees as landowners, amount to £11,296. Then come the expenses incurred under the Trust. The auditor's and resident steward's salaries amount to £550 a year, or a total of £17,127; and the other expenses of the Trust, including the cost of one or two journeys to Belgium, amount to £1,984 in the 31 years. I think your Lordships will agree with me that we have not been very extravagant on this head. The total, then, of these sums brings up the expenditure to £430,852; and after paying all charges on the Trust we have a balance of £4,880 in hand, for which we are accountable to the Treasury, to whom we have already paid £1,099,500. That sum, I repeat, has been received by the country clear, and over and above all the necessary expenses. I think a slight mistake has been made in the notice of Motion placed on the paper in my name. It is stated that I gave

notice of my intention to lay upon your Lordships' table a statement in regard to this matter; but I have no such power. I thought, however, it would be satisfactory to your Lordships to be made acquainted with the manner in which we had conducted our affairs, the liabilities we had discharged, and the balance which we have paid into the Exchequer. I will come now to the position in which the trustees were placed by the death of the King of the Belgians, which took place on the 10th of December, exactly when two months of the current quarter had expired. From the moment of the late King's death I apprehend that our legal powers as trustees expired, and that all which we were entitled by law to do was to wind up the accounts. But it was clearly necessary that the establishment should not be suddenly broken up, and that provision should be made for the more pressing exigencies, -such as, for instance, supplying the household with mourning. And, therefore, immediately after the King's death we wrote to the Treasury requesting their sanction to our ordering those immediate expenses, and that it would furnish us with directions for the future management of the estate. We also requested very earnestly that at the earliest possible period we might be relieved from the obligation of discharging duties which we were discharging from that moment without any legal sanction. We also asked whether Her Majesty's Government intended to pay over to the trustees of the late King the fractional part of a quarter which had already expired, of the £12,500, which was the amount of the quarterly payment; and further, whether we were authorized to pay over to the pensioners out of the funds in our hands the fractional part to which we conceived they were entitled up to the King's death.

absolute unimportance, for the result would be that having received £8,000 additional, we should have had £8,000 more to account for when the accounts were closed. But let me call attention to the case of the pensioners. I do not for a moment say that it was not the duty of the pensioners of the higher class of pensioners-in common prudence, to have insured his Majesty's life, so that they might not suddenly find their means cut off by his death. But it was not to be expected that those who were receiving £20, £30, or £40 a year would have the prudence to insure, or, in fact, could have insured his life for any amount. And I am sure we must feel the hardship which the sudden stoppage of these pensions must have inflicted upon this class, to whom the sudden stoppage of even two months' pension would be a great disaster. Great hardship has fallen upon these persons, and one poor old woman, who more than fifty years ago was the servant of the Princess Charlotte, and had nothing but the pension to depend upon, has been driven by this sudden stoppage to the union work house. I am happy to say that since I gave notice to bring this subject before the House-in fact, this very day-we have received from the Treasury an official notification that, upon reconsideration, with reference to the pensions

"My Lords will not object to their being paid out of the balances in the hands of the trustees on the 10th of December, the period of the King's death, if the trustees consider such a course desirable, and on the assumption that the balance will be sufficient for the purpose." Certainly I received with great satisfaction that intimation, and, as far as I am concerned as a trustee, I cannot desire anything further. But your Lordships, recollecting that many of these are persons in We received an answer-humble life-that not one of them has been and it is with reference to that I call atten- less than thirty-one years upon the list of tion to the wording of the Act. The an- pensions and allowances-will, perhaps, swer was, that inasmuch as the Act did think it is a case-though, of course, they not provide for the payment of any frac- have no legal claim-which might fairly tional part of a quarter the Treasury would command the favourable consideration of pay to us no part of the expenses of that the Treasury, if they can by any means quarter. Fortunately we had, by arrange- give relief to these persons from the conments previously made with the Treasury, sequences of the sudden stoppage of a certain balance in our hands. We have their pensions. But the expression used received another letter since the 10th of in this answer was that the money was October, stating that we were not autho- available out of the balances at our disrized to pay any of the fractional portion posal. In the same letter we received for of the pensions to those who had hitherto the first time the intimation, for which we received pensions. As far as we were con- had been earnestly pressing for nearly the cerned as trustees that was a matter of last three months, that on the 5th of April

« AnteriorContinuar »