The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-16 00:00:00

House, that when the Right Honourable Gentleman
Sir E. SUGDEN said, it be in the recollectthieon
Chan-
cellor cellor of the Exchequer ;proposed the resolution
the objections
(Sir E. Sugden) being perfectly aware of
so
as
that might arise, but not wishing to state them
to throw in an impediment in the way of what was
for 8,000/. he
than
that heg hadng on,
better got
thatm fferor
tuapkeantdhesurgesgoelsutteidontofotrhe3Ro,ioooghtl.H, oinne.iGutheungtlewinrosett_
the Duchess was already entitled to. He did not blameedthe
not having adopted his suggestion, but he only mention
that his object was not to raise an impediment, but pine
at
the purpose of putting himself right with the House, andto toresvheo:t
an obstruction. With these observations, he would co
ver
"Tatethat
once to the real question at issue. Now, he must
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had no right I:3i'. ,egal
to disqualify himself upon the gronnd of wanited
knowledge, because he had discussed it with a know
subject which no gentleman could dispute. The two questions
law arose on the two Acts, and the third question was that which
forms
the Noble Lord had called to his attention—the question upe
wt.nt7
geofthoef
forms of the House. As redarded the two Acts, he agreede
colt".
the Right Hon. Gentleman they should be put out of the question.
I n
and 6,000/. for the honourable support and education
of
Her Royal 'Highness had, under the Act of 1825, 4,000/. forher-
selfofthe
Princess ; and she was now, subject to the approbation tens:
House, entitled to B,oool.—that made 18,000/., and the qadudi_
tion now was, whether the resolution should he for the
first
tienal 12,0001., added to the Bill. As regarded
question relating to the Act of 1825, the Right Hon. Gthenetlemtahne
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the case of
Duchess of Kent was similar to the case of an annuity grantedi.,
a married woman for the support of herself and children, mitt if
they died the annuity vested in herself. Generally speaking
was so, for this reason, that the intention was so clear nobt
could doubt it—he who ran might read. " I give to nil %if
5,000/. a-year for her own support and the bringing 'PI
her children"—what did that imply? but that she was to Dren_i
up her children while they required to be brought 11P•
therefore no such question could arise there. As retiar"va;
the particular construction of the Act of 1825, it depended
particular grounds, and he would state to the Housegenerattiy. what be
he considered to be the grounds. He begged again to say n
would state his opinion as if friend,
lie was talking to any
.private
and not as an individual sitting on the Opposition benche
( Hear, hear.) The rule of law was that the title of an Ist
e..
should agree with the preamble ; but, generally speaking, the pale
amble did not contract or govern the
rue enacting part. Taking Act
statute of 1825, by that re they would find the title of the Iv,
agreed with the preamble, and the preamble was to find an an:n the-1
for the Duchess and the Princess. This was an annuity .t
Duchess for the honourable suppdrt and maintenance of thePrineei...
s 5•
It might be that it was intended for life, but there been'
an an ambiguity, they were entitled to look at the preamble to
up that ambiguity-, and to gather from the preamble what
the
t
intention was. Taking the preamble and the enacting part tog
ther, and giving it a fair and honest construction according to
meaning, he should hold the meaning of it was to provide
of
uual sum to the Duchess for the annual support and education
the Prince:s—durng what time ? Why, necessarily tint's::
ng
the time the Princess needed it. His own opinion
not giving it as from the Opposition side of the II 4.`"ind
that that grant of 6,000/. had virtually, if not lesaliy,
according to the true intent of the Act, ceased, and was no long
in existence. Now the question as regarded the annuity of 10,
under the Act of 1831, was of a different nature, and he believed
that presented a dilemma in the way of the Right Hon.
as regarded the third point, to which the Noble Lord had ee.„
the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with refe-
rence rence to the construction of the Act of 1825.--( Hear,
The annuity might have been wanted beyond the minority_
of the Princess to pay for her education ; and the Act, he had 3r
doubt, was drawn in the most general and ambiguous terms
order to let in any case that might occur. As to the Aet,_°..
Gentleded
1831, that admitted of no question or dispute about the purpose ":0`
which the 6,000/. a year was to be given. The preamble was ''ss
make a condition " for the better support of her Royal Iliglinect
the Duchess of Kent, and the honourable support and education
the Princess." The way in which that Act empowered the Crown,
to grant the annuity of 10,0001. was 4,000/. a year for the life
the Duchess, and 6,0001. a year for the life of the Princess. 'ln..
4,0001. a year was given to the Dechess of Kknt for her own
support, and therefore for her own life ; the 6,000/. beinges
for the education of the Princess, was confined to t"
life of the' Princess, and was not given to the Duchess in her ova,
right. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the annuity !);
6,000/. endured for the life of the Princess. If it did, it ',sul
be necessary to go into Committee of the whole House. The Right
Hen. Gentleman had stated very positively his opinion that In'
was the case, but he (Sir E. Sugden) was decidedly of a contrail
opinion. Hei had no more doubt than he had of his own existence
that the annuity would not endure to the personal representative
of the Duchess beyond her life. The rule of law is, if it was in-
tended to make a personal gift, it could not go to the personal re"
presentative. The grant here said nothing about the executors or
for
administrators of the Duchess ; it only said that 6,0001. was .
the life of the Princess Victoria, and the 4,000/. was for the life.
of the Duchess. Now he held it to be as clear as any point could b°
that if a personal grant was made to the Duchess for the life of the
Princess, and another to the Duchess, that if the latter died, ther4
would be an end to the payment. Then it would be true that a
case had taken place that was not provided for by the Act, b 4
if that was so, then they must come again to the House'
Another point arose upon the Act of 1831 which had bees
argued by his Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer'
v , whether the Duchess during her lifetime would be entitled to al
6,1001. in the event that had happened. In his opinion, she wont
certainly not, according to the equity of the case or the spirit 01
the Act. The 6,000/. had been given for the education of the
Princess, and when that object was rendered unnecessary, thel
grant would cease. He considered; therefore, that the gTantlfer.
6,000/. had ceased, with the necessity for which it was voted. , au.
did not consider the case of the late Duke of Clarence to be, at
in point. Had the grant to his Royal Highness been for his na-
tural life, no change of station could -have terminated it ; but, in
fact, it was surrendered on his Royal Highness's accession
to the
•
Throne.—( Hear.) There was another point on which he wishe
to make an observation as to the effect of the resolutions of the
Committee. Assuming even that, as the Chancellor of the Fa"
chequer had stated, the second Act gave the additional annuity to
her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent for her life, it was clear
that the House must go into Committee to make a new grant; fori
the life on which the annuity was granted could not be change"'
without a resolution of that House. It was not a question as t°
which life was most valuable. Supposing that one was worth a
year's, and the other torty year's purchase, the former could I,ot
be changed for the latter, without a resolution of that House. 11
d point of law, he submitted, most undoubtedly in point 0,
equity, and according to a fair construction of the words
the Act of Parliament, the 12,0001. a year did not exist for
the purposes of expenditure. But it was the general feeling of
the House that her Royal Highness should enjoy the whole
30,0001. per annum, zs some mark of the nation's gratitude for
her careful education of her illustrious daughter—(Cheers)---
without offering the least objection therefore to that grants he
merely suggested that a Committee of the whole House should take
the question into consideration, for the purpose of making the Pr°-
ceedings conformable to precedent.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHAN CEL LOR of the EXCHEQUER was extremely gls4
of the proposal made by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite,i
and without going further he would say the course lei°
down by him would relieve the House from the dangr
of any misapprehension in a matter of such importance. He WO'
therefore, adopt the course suggested by the Right Hon. Gent,„'',
man, and move that the House resolve itself into a Committee °`
the whole House, in order to pass a resolution which would be
conformity with its rules. If the Right Hon. Gentleman saw no
objection, he would, in order to give effect to his suggestion, PI
the Committee en the Bill for a future day. into
The motion on the Order of the Day for the House going'
Committee on the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill, was then
leave withdrawn.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of the albeit'
House—Mr. BERNAL in the Chair.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then tnoseel
Resolution to the effect, that it was expedient that the allot",;,
granted to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent should ee
and determine, and that a sum of 22,000/. in addition to the 5
of 8,000/., already voted, making in all 30,000/. per annunl,
granted to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent.
Colonel SIBTHORP had a motion to bring forward of w_jble
he had given notice, but at the suggestion of his Rightlion• r"ehe
near him, he would not now detain the House, hoping that ant,'
opportunity would be afforded him for the purpose. and
Sir G. SINCLAIR would follow the example of his Hon'
Gallant Friend ; at the same time he must observe that the discus-
sion that had taken place would be productive of great advantage'e,
The resolution was then put and agreed to, and the House advantage
susned.
Mr. BERNAL reported the resolution to the House.
THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
p.
The House went into Committee upon the New Houses of
ar
liament Bill, in which , of
Mr. E. J. STANLEY moved the insertion of a elaus'
which we did not collect the purport.
The Bill went through Committee, and the report was brought
up immediately.
PRISONERS' BILL.--(IRELAND.) rasa
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL this Bill was
a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.
SESSIONS COURT BILL.—(IREL AND. ) s gee
On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, this Bill svn
read a second time. and ordered to be committed on Monclaf•

_
LAW OF TENANCIES.
Mr. AGLIONBY, not seeing the Attorney-General in
place, postponed the motion of which he had given notice roe'.
g the present state of the law of landlord and tenant to Meedal.
m
CASE OF GOMPERTZ. bee
Mr. AGLIONBY rose to present a petition which hadjust jot•
put into his hands respecting a case which was decided last Vt."
Ho had shown the petition to the gentleman who had brouf A.)
matter on, on the part of Mr. Gompertz ; and as he Os'er:oded,
meant to move on Monday that the order be rentii,erneri
lie should now move that the petition be printed. The gene fittest
who appeared at the bar on the part of Mr. Gompertz was the rti.
person to claim the indulgence of the House for Mr. 06raPe de-
The petition stated that the petitioner, since lie had see"
bate of last night, had ascertained that the witness, Mr. 11°ss'ertz,
represented himself as the parliamentary agent of Mr. Gem, .P be
neither was nor ever had been so. He moved that the petttft the
printed with the votes, and he would move on Monday t"
vote of last night might be rescinded. that
Mr. FRESIIFIELD said it ought to be borne in re.'" •th
Parliamentary agent in conjunction 191
Mr. Moss stated he was g
Mr. Florence.
The House then adjourned.

SILVER TEA AND COFFEE SERVICES.-
T. COX SAVORY, 47, Cornhill, London, offers for selection an
elegant and most extensive assortment of Silver Tea Services, var.l-
- in price from 151. to $O/. the service of Teapot, Sugar 13381"9
and Milk Ewer. The groundloor, and first, second, and third floors,
are fitted up expressly for the display of Plate and Plated Giro°
and a Pamphlet is given gratis, with Drawings, and a list of pri;e•
T. COX SAVORY, Goldsmith, Watchmaker, and Silversrn
47, Cornhill, London.

BIRTH S.
On the Bth inst., in Hereford-street, the lady of John C. White-
man, Esq., of a daughter.
At Brookfield, near Ryde, Isle of Wight, on
the 6th inst., the
lady of the Rev. A. Hewitt, of a
_
D lED.
At Lausanne, in Switzerland, of inflammation of the liver, Car
taro William Clarke Jervoise, R.N. aged 48.
On the 10th inst., at Goudhurst, Kent, Airs. Dorothy Bathurst*
aged 94.
On the 11th inst., in Warwickshire, W. L. L. wad, Eicl•P °f
Guilsborough Hall, Northamptonshire. evonsh Treby
ire,
On the 6th inst., at Delamore, D gale
Esq., Lieut.-Colonel of the East. D,,voti Militia, sc'oi
London: Printed and Published by MURDO
and,ijin
112, Strand, at The Sun Office, No. 112, StrY24t72;:"l"
of Middlesex.--Saturday, December, 16, 1&37'