This day in history

Henry Ford formed the Ford Motor Company 1903

Macademia nuts first planted in Hawaii 1892

Act passed to prevent the sale of parliamentary seats 1809

?

Stardust wrote:?

Your guess is as good as mine Stardust.  This is what it was all about.  Not that it makes it any clearer to me

SALE OF OFFICES PREVENTION BILL.
HC Deb 20 April 1809 vol 14 cc113-21

On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,

  Lord Folkestone said, the present bill professed to check abuses in the Sale of Offices in every department of the country. He felt it difficult to follow the bill in its different parts, referring, as it did, to the act of Edward the sixth on the same subject. He was satisfied that the object of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been to make the bill as comprehensive as possible, for which he gave him full credit. He was, however, of opinion, that little good would attend the bill, as indeed, little good in general attended Bills of Prevention. The house knew well what bills had been passed to prevent bribery and corruption in the elections of members of parliament, yet that the evils sought to be provided against still existed, because the only effect of these acts was to render the persons concerned more circumspect, and the practices more difficult of detection. If the Inquiry, for which he had moved the other night, had been allowed, it would have been in the power of the house to see whether the bill proposed would be likely to do any good. That Inquiry, however, had been refused, and he was therefore bound to say, that however an act like the present might increase the difficulty of continuing the practices sought to be checked, the evils themselves would still exist. He did not quarrel with the right hon. gent., however, on this account. He had no doubt the right hon. gent. had done what he thought best; but he would ask, why any exceptions had been made? Why had offices in the Courts of Law been exempted, they being the most objectionable of any? Was it fitting that offices connected with the administration of justice should be made the subject of sale? It surely was not so, and the present was a fit opportunity of eradicating the practice. There was, however, another exception in the present bill more important than that to which he had just alluded; more important, on this account, because the attention of the house and of the country had been more particularly called to it in consequence of the Report of the East India Patronage Committee, that Seats in Parliament were trafficked for. When he considered that this practice had been of such long standing, he thought it impossible that the house should not take some notice of it. He threw it out, therefore, for consideration, if it would not be proper that a provision to prevent this disgraceful practice in future should not be introduced? Or if it would not be the better plan to institute an inquiry in the first instance, and then to pass such a provision? He was satisfied the right hon. gent. would not object to the introduction of such a provision. The Treasury was said to have a great trade in this traffic. The Secretaries of the Treasury were understood to be the great persons concerned in carrying it on. If the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his friends, chose to deny the charge, he should be glad to propose the appointment of a Committee to inquire into it. He was not, nor ever had been, connected with any traffic of the kind. He could not therefore say that it consisted with his own knowledge that the charge was true; but this he could say, that he understood and believed that it was. (Hear, hear! from the Ministerial bench, particularly from Mr. Rose). He was happy to hear himself cheered by the right hon. gent. What he stated was matter of public notoriety; and it was even understood that previous to every election an Office was opened in the Treasury, for the purchase of seats in parliament, which again were sold to others, of more or less interest and ability, who again in proportion to their possession of those qualities, paid a higher or lower price for their seats. There had even lately beers a vacancy in that house, because the person holding the seat had not been willing to comply with the stipulation on which he received it. His lordship believed the right hon. gent. would not deny what he had stated. If he did, his lordship was anxious for a Committee to inquire into the fact. He should not propose the appointment of one at present, but only threw out the observation, that the attention of the right hon. gent. should be directed to it. According to what should fall from him, he should regulate his conduct. He could not, however, forbear from expressing his surprize, when the right hon. gent. assisted by the Attorney and Solicitor General, saw occasion to bring forward a Bill of this kind, that they should have kept out of view that offence which was more important than any other species of trafficing whatever.

   
   Mr. Bankes said, the East India Patronage Committee had not expressed any opinion, that sales of offices in the service of that Company should be exempted from the operation of the present Bill, but only that there was no necessity for any separate and specific legislative measure applicable to that Company. They had done so the more particularly on this account, because the East India Company were already armed with greater powers than those which the country possessed; the former being permanent, while the latter was subject to change, and dismissal from office always following the commission of the offence in the one, while it was by no means so necessary a consequence in the other. He did not know whether the noble lord objected to this bill or opposed it. For his own part, he did not see how any man could expect from a legislative measure, that it should operate to the extinction of crime. If it rendered it more difficult, he conceived it did all that could be expected from it. He was desirous to entertain the Bill, and if any thing could be added to it in the committee, so much the better. The great object was to make the hazard and risk greater than the temptation. He believed it would be a long time before any abuses were again heard of in the patronage of the East India Company; and if the instance of the dismissal from the Stamp Office was acted up to, the evil would be greatly done away.

       Mr. Creevey said, that the noble lord was perfectly correct in stating, that Seats in Parliament had been notoriously bought and sold by the Treasury. He would say, that this was not only his belief, but that it was within his knowledge. The Treasury not only openly bought and sold those seats, but they kept, in a great degree, the monopoly of that market. If this was attempted to be denied by ministers, he should be glad to have the opportunity of proving it, and he could easily prove it from the lips of any one who had ever been Secretary of the Treasury. It was absolute nonsense and delusion on the public, for the house to spend their time in considering abuses in the Commissioners of the Lottery, and every other minor department, when they knew, and when the public knew, that, the greatest of all abuses was constantly practised by every Secretary of the Treasury, in buying and selling Seats in Parliament. To talk of a dissolution of parliament as an "appeal to the people" was mere mockery and imposition. It was perfectly well known that a dissolution of parliament was not an appeal to the people, but to the Treasury (Hear! hear!). Although he had great respect for the last government, and owed some personal favours to them, yet he must say, that their dissolution of parliament, at the end of four years, like the dissolution by the present ministers, at the end of about four months, was not an appeal to the people but to the Treasury (loud cries of Hear! hear!). Until the house was disposed to suppress this odious and unconstitutional traffic, the legislating on those minor abuses was mere mockery and delusion.

   The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he could not help congratulating himself a little on the declaration of the noble lord (Folkestone), that he was satisfied that any obscurity which was to be found in the bill proceeded from a wish on his part to make the act comprehensive. If there was any obscurity, he hoped it would be removed, and this might in some measure be effected by introducing and incorporating into the present Bill the Enactments of the act of Edward the 6th, rather than by referring to that act. The objection that the Bill only went to increase the difficulty in committing the crime sought to be prevented, he suspected, would apply to every bill. He had even attempted to do away the temptation to commit the crime, by annexing forfeiture of office to the detection of it. As to the omission of offices in our courts of law, he suspected the noble lord had not calculated the disadvantages which would arise to counterbalance any good arising from their being comprehended under the present bill. Never was the administration of justice more pure in this or any other country than at the present moment. However much we might be surprised, therefore, that the sale of offices in our courts of law should ever have formed any part of the emoluments of our judges, yet having done so for ages, and it following as a necessary consequence, if the sale of these offices were now to be abolished, that some remuneration must be granted instead of them, the question was, if the inconveniences arising from a fresh call on the country on this account, and other disadvantages with which the alteration would be attended, would not greatly outweigh the advantages to be expected from it? There were also a certain description of patent offices granted for life, with the privilege of disposing of other offices connected therewith. These he had also omitted out of the bill, as for them too, if the sale was to be prevented, an equivalent must also be given. He did not believe the advantages to be derived from introducing these into the bill would at all equal the disadvantages attending it.—There was only one other point in the noble lord's speech to which he felt it necessary for him to advert, namely, that no provision had been introduced into the bill to prevent the trafficing for Seats in that house. This question, he presumed to think, would come more properly to be considered in another stage of the bill, and if the noble lord would bring forward his proposition in that stage, he (Mr. Perceval) would consider if the provision was capable of being applied effectually to prevent the abuse of which the noble lord complained. The hon. gent. who spoke last had borne testimony, not only to his belief, but also to his knowledge, of the abuses alluded to by the noble lord, declaring that the practice of these abuses was common to all administrations. As that hon. gent. had particularly referred to an administration with which he himself was connected, it was natural to suppose that he had special knowledge and information on this head, particularly so far as that administration was concerned. He (Mr. Perceval) however, did not recollect that the hon. gent., when a particular charge was brought forward on this subject against that administration, had told the house all that he had the means and knowledge of observing on this subject, because, if he had, that would have been something confirmatory of the charge, and would have tended to elucidate the truth or falsity of the statement of the then Secretary of the Treasury, that what he had done, and the influence he had exerted, had been used by him, not in his official situation of Secretary to the Treasury, but in his private character of a freeholder of Hampshire. If the hon. gent. was then in possession of all this information, belief, and knowledge on the subject, why did he not appeal to the house then, as well as on any other occasion? Why did not his patriotism then actuate him, as it did on the present moment, to divulge every thing which he knew? To the general inquiry he should oppose himself as decidedly as he did on the former day. But let the hon. gent. only bring forward those circumstances to which he alluded, as consisting with his own knowledge; let him do so impartially, not forgetting the practices of the administration with which he himself was connected, and with which, of course, he must be most intimately acquainted, and the house would know how to deal with them. He again declared that he was ready to receive and to attend to all the suggestions of the noble lord, as well connected with trafficing for seats in that house, as for offices.


   Mr. Creevey, in explanation, said, that what he had stated was not as a charge against any particular administration, but a mere matter of fact. The knowledge which he spoke of by no means proceeded from any confidence which had been reposed in him by his friends.

   
   Mr. Whitbread said, he was so well pleased with part of what had fallen from a right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval,) that he should say the less on that part to which he objected. He was happy to observe, that the right hon. gent. agreed with the noble lord, that the practice of trafficing for money in seats in that house was a scandalous abuse; one which should not be allowed; and that the right lion. Gent. would meet the inquiry and expose the practice wherever it should be seen to exist. He hoped, however, as the right hon. gent. called on others to expose the practices of other administrations, that he would not be backward in stating all that he knew of his own administration. It was impossible that the right hon. gent. could be ignorant of the abuses which existed. Every person knew that abuses did exist, and there were few who did not know, more or less, of the nature and quality of them. The public knew well, many members of the house knew well, that there were in that house persons who represented nothing but their own money; that there were some, who were not even then free agents, but that there was occasionally such a thing as conscience in the transaction, which sometimes forced them to abandon both their seat and their money too. Why, then, he asked, should the right hon. gent. use these tauntings, when the practice was well known, even to himself, to exist? The right hon. gent. talked of Hampshire. It was the right hon. gent.'s fortune on that occasion, which it had been during only a very small period of his life, to be in a minority. He seemed on that occasion to be impressed with a belief, which he (Mr. W.) had felt a great deal more frequently, that minorities were not always in the wrong. But to reconcile himself to this one misfortune, he could only recommend to the right hon. gent. to look to all the rest of his political life, and from thence he would be convinced that majorities were not always in the right. There, too, (in the case of Hampshire) he would find that the Secretary of the Treasury was a freeholder of the county. But that in general Secretaries of the Treasury for the time being were not only in the habit, but even reduced to the necessity of carrying on such a traffic as that described, and that a public market was opened for it. If smaller evils required being corrected, why should not this flagrant and shameful abuse be guarded against? Why not strike at the roots of the evil, and cut up a traffic of magnitude? If the rt. hon. gent. really entertained any doubt on the subject of the purchase and sale of Seats in parliament, let him turn to his near neighbour (lord Castlereagh) and learn what they had done in Ireland, where one million and a half of money had been taken out of the pockets of the people, to pay for the purchase of boroughs.—It was impossible, he conceived, for the right hon. gent., to consider these circumstances without feeling that, in one way or other, an end must be put to this system, or it would put an end to them. An hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes) talked of the benefits likely to result from the removal which had taken place from the Stamp Office of an inferior person there, detected in improper practices. He hoped that persons of every description would be obliged to relinquish them, and that superior officers, if detected, would not be spared. He agreed that the administration of justice in this country was as pure as it could be, and that the practice of the sale of offices in courts of law had no effect on the administration of justice; but still he did not think it proper, that even the very idea of the sale of any tiling connected with justice should be allowed to exist. Whatever expence might thence arise he was of opinion might be made up by throwing the fees of these different offices together. At all events he thought the practice of selling such offices should be abolished, that no ground of objection on this head might remain even to the most captious caviller. He could not help differing from his hon. friend (Mr. Creevey) as to a general election being at all times an appeal to the Treasury. He believed the Treasury did possess a most preponderating influence; but at the same time he knew that the people had a voice which would be used. The infringement therefore on the elective right of the people was not so great if they were not first driven mad and then appealed to; if they were not first driven into a State of phrenzy and then desired to make use of their senses. Parliaments were not so difficult to be won that dissolutions were at all times necessary. The last parliament but one had furnished majorities to three different ministers, and each found itself strong enough to carry every question it required. He felt infinitely obliged to the noble lord (Folkestone) and to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval) for the hopes which from their joint efforts were now held out to the country. With the expectation he entertained on the subject, he felt inclined to hail the present Bill as one of the happiest restoratives of the country and constitution. He hoped the right hon. gent. would not, in the course of the bill, draw back from those expectations which he had this night held out.

   
   Mr. C. Wyn said, that though this was not the time to argue the clauses of the bill, yet he could not but observe that the provision against the sale of Offices in the law departments should not be included in the present bill, as the adjustment of the remuneration, which undoubtedly must be made on the abolition, was a subject of great importance, and fitting for a substantive measure in itself, whereas introducing it now, would, in his opinion, rather tend to check the progress of a measure they had all so much at heart. With respect to the clause in the bill, dismissing from their situations, such as obtained them through the medium of corrupt practices, however innocent of the existence of the means, he could by no means approve of it, as a principle equally contrary to justice and humanity.

   
   Mr. Bankes explained, that such a measure did not come recommended from the Committee upon East India Affairs, but was a positive rule laid down in their regulations.

   
   Mr. H. Thornton agreed in the propriety of including the purchaser of seats in that house among the offences of the bill, as it would be unfair to inflict a punishment upon minor offences, and at the same time to pass over those of greater turpitude and mischief. The nature and extent of the remedy itself would be best considered when the clause for that purpose was brought in.


The Bill was then read a second time.

London Underground Northern Line opened 1907

South Africa reclaims its seat at the United Nations 1994

A packet of chewing gum becomes the first product scanned by its barcode 1974

Arthur Miller married Marily Monroe  1956

http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/marilyn-monroe-marries-arthur-miller  

First tightrope crossing of Niagara Falls  1859

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/c/blondin/

First colour television transmission in Britain  1967


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328760/Britains-oldest-colour-TV-going-strong-42-years-on.html

William Booth formed The Salvation Army in Whitechapel, London 1865

Thomas Cook travel agency was founded. 1841

"Lights of New York" the first all talking feature film presented. New York. 1928

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle creator of Sherlock Holmes died 1930

NSPCC founded, London 1884

Lightning struck York Minster and set the roof on fire 1984

Andy Pandy first shown on BBC television 1950

The first World Cup organised by FIFA, Uruguay 1930

Suffragette leader Emmeline Pankhurst born Manchester 1858

Margarine patented, Paris  1869

Here you are kk ---- before you wave your stick at me  

On this day in 1869, challenged by Emperor Louis Napoleon III to produce a satisfactory substitute for butter suitable for the empire's armed forces, French chemist Hippolyte Mege-Mouries patented a substance called oleomargarine, later known as margarine.

Facing a growing population and hordes of hungry French soldiers and sailors whose nutritional requirements were not being met, Emperor Napoleon III launched a contest offering a prize to anyone who could make a successful substitute for butter, that most prized of French staples. Specifically, Napoleon III was looking for a substance that not only tasted like butter and contained enough fat to bolster his population, but also did not turn rancid as quickly as the real thing.

Mege-Mouries went to work on Napoleon's challenge and emerged from his lab with a successful substance two years later. It was an emulsion of water and oil, more precisely animal fat like beef drippings, low-fat milk, and ground cow udders. The product was spreadable, had a long shelf life, and tasted like butter—sort of. The product's name, margarine, was a nod to its pearly luster (the Greek word for pearl is "maragon"), gained from the emulsion of the fatty substance. Mege-Mouries was awarded the patent for his kitchen-chemistry creation on 15 July 1869 and he also won Napoleon's coveted prize.

But it wasn't enough for food-minded Europeans. Housewives at the time turned their noses up at the chemical substance. And in 1887 a Margarine Law was introduced in Germany, stipulating that margarine should be displayed separately from butter and clearly labeled as margarine and not butter. More efforts from the dairy industry to melt margarine's sales followed, and to some degree, worked.

Finally, in 1872 chemists patented a process for emulsifying margarine with skimmed milk and water, and it became sufficiently palatable for commercial success. Today margarine is predominantly manufactured using vegetable fats rather than animal fats, and its popularity has spread across the world, with its main markets including the US, Russia, India, and Germany. The French, however, appear content to stick to the national spread of choice, butter.

Whiskers wrote:Here you are kk ---- before you wave your stick at me  

    Well, as you know, my stick folds away safely out of sight and only comes out when absolutely necessary.  Also, it's a very friendly, colourful prop, decorated with pretty flowers to brighten the mood and dispel any negativity that might come in its path.  

I LOVE this thread - and thank you so much, Whiskers, for providing it here.  
However, I do feel it can be appreciated even moreso by using it as a vessel for learning.
Going beyone the headlines - finding out the whys and wherefores - checking out the full story ...........
all good educational tools.  There is some good brain food potential in this thread.  Indeed, if we had more members here, the thread could be a good base for some healthy and interesting debates.

Back down to earth though .... as it is, it's nice to learn a bit more about past events which very much go to shaping all our lives as they are today.   So, providing a link(s) with the headline helps to broaden our horizons - IF that is something we wish to do.

We are priviliged to have all this technology available to us - it's a shame and a waste not to use it!  

Kitkat wrote:I LOVE this thread - and thank you so much, Whiskers, for providing it here.  
However, I do feel it can be appreciated even moreso by using it as a vessel for learning.
Going beyone the headlines - finding out the whys and wherefores - checking out the full story ...........
all good educational tools.  There is some good brain food potential in this thread.  Indeed, if we had more members here, the thread could be a good base for some healthy and interesting debates.

Back down to earth though .... as it is, it's nice to learn a bit more about past events which very much go to shaping all our lives as they are today.   So, providing a link(s) with the headline helps to broaden our horizons - IF that is something we wish to do.

We are priviliged to have all this technology available to us - it's a shame and a waste not to use it!  

Thanks KK.     What you say does make good sense.  And it's good to know people do read it.  I wasn't sure if anyone did or if I was talking to myself here.  I will try to add details every time for the ones that want it.  


Today in history:   First atomic bomb test explosion New Mexico  1945

  http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/atomictest.htm

New video footage of Titanic wreckage revealed  1986

Professional football legalised in Britain 1885


http://www.thefa.com/about-football-association/history

Aretha Franklin arrested for disturbing the peace in Detroit  1969


But what did she do to disturb the peace?   Can't find details anywhere. Only headlines that she was arrested.

Ice cream cone created by Charles E. Menches, France  1904


The History of the Ice Cream Cone:   http://inventors.about.com/od/foodrelatedinventions/a/ice_cream_cone.htm

The window tax in Britain was abolished  1851


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Window_tax

FBI established, Washington 1908

Bob Hope, legendary comedian, died aged 100    2003


Bob Hope estate saga awaits a punchline
http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/hot-property/la-fi-hotprop-20150726-story.html#page=1

Fingerprint used as a means of identification for the first time 1858


http://onin.com/fp/fphistory.html

J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Fellowship of the Ring" published 1954

England win the World Cup 1966

Slavery abolished in British Empire 1834

Source of the Nile discovered by John Speke 1858


http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/nile%E2%80%99s-source-discovered

Queen Mother celebrates centenary 2000

Marilyn Monroe found dead 1962

Meteorite found in Antarctica reveals evidence to scientists of ancient life on Mars 1996


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/marslife/

Whiskers wrote:Meteorite found in Antarctica reveals evidence to scientists of ancient life on Mars 1996


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/marslife/

As recent as 1996 ??    

Don't those scientist guys ever read?      As far back as the 1950's people have had 'evidence' of life on Mars.  

Employment of boy chimney sweeps prohibited 1840

Britain's first nudist beach established  1979

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00j84cs

Greenwich Observatory founded 1675


http://www.rmg.co.uk/

First race meeting at Ascot 1711

The IBM Personal Computer is released 1981

Dangerous Dog Act introduced in Britain 1991

Woodstock music festival began, over 400,000 people attended  1969

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=woodstock+1969+full+concert

The first rules of boxing published 1743

Whiskers wrote:The first rules of boxing published  1743

 



   16th August 1977 - Elvis Presley passed away.  

Gone, but never, never to be forgotten.  

Oh, dearie dearie me .....  I've just watched that video through (the one I put up in the previous post) and only just realised what the "What if ..."  title is all about.     (Takes all kinds)    

Also just read the comment that the publisher of the video has written too:

Published on 24 Jun 2015

In 2012, I filmed the movie "Elvis What If". Since that time it seems like a certain company (that I will not name here), and other companies owned by that nameless corporation, have done everything possible to stop the fans from seeing this film. It didn't work. And that is thanks to people like you watching and sharing the film. I also noticed that shortly after it became obvious that my movie wasn't going to be shoved away in a corner another, more mainstream, movie was released that also proposed a different account of history in the "Elvis world". You may have seen it. It's called "The Identical". If you've seen both "Elvis: What If?" and "The Identical" then you know that they present drastically different possibilities for you to consider. I'm not going to say which account (if any) is the actual, true, historically correct one. I've always left that up to you to make up your own minds after seeing what I found. I will say that the timing of the release of "The Identical", which presents a much more "corporately acceptable" version of history, has always seemed a little "fishy" to me. Again, you can make up your own minds on that one too.

Anyway... I never imagined the impact that my little ole' "No Budget" film would have both on the Elvis community and in the halls of corporate America. So on advice from people I trust I've decided that I should take another look at my film and make it something that I think is worthy of all the attention it's gotten.

You can now take a look at the new version of "Elvis: What If?" here...I'd really appreciate it if you could let me know what you think of it now!

Thanks,
Icizzle

Here's a better one to remember The King:




and .....

a rather more serious look at the controversy:

I take it you have no interest in boxing KK.


Registration of births, deaths and marriages introduced in Britain 1836

Electric powered taxis appeared in London  1897


Bersey cab goes on display at the Science Museum

http://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/insight/2012/07/09/the-surprisingly-old-story-of-londons-first-ever-electric-taxi/