The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-14 00:00:00

lif
ear, hear)—and like the pension to King Leopold,
Was not of such a nature as could be withdrawn by any act
z•itle Government, but only by Act of Parliament.—
ear.) The pension 'continued to be received by the
ofng of Hanover as it was before his accession to the throne
that M
kingdom.—(Hear.) H
e
, ME then asked if it was the intention of her
rh_ alesty's Government to bring in any Bill to repeal the
Act which gave the pension, as it certainly was never
!ranted with the intention that it should be received under
such circumstances as it was at present ?—( Cheers.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
v
the Government had no intention to do in the case of
the King of Hanover that which they could not do in the
ease of the King of Belgium.—(Hear.) The pension was
!ranted by the law of the land, and he was not prepared
to introduce a Bill affecting it.—( Hear.)
Mr. HUME then stated that he would himself do so
early
in February.—(Hear.)
An HoN. Memeeet expressed his intention of seconding
°eh a motion, but we could not ascertain his name.
In reply to a question from Colonel SIBTHORP,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that since King Leopold had ascended the throne of Bel-
gtn none of his pension had been received by him, and
that upwards of 110,000/. had been paid over to the use of
Lue puhlic.—(Cheers.) The conversation then ceased.
FICTITIOUS VOTES (SCOTLAND.)
On the motion of Mr. HORSM AN, the Committee
appointed to inquire how far the intention of the Reform
Ifl.l had been defeated by the creation of fictitious votes in
Scotland was nominated.
THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE.
message,
BERNAL brought up the Report of the Queen's
message, and on the question for agreeing to the resolution,
Mr. HERRIES said he wished to call the attention
of the House and of his Right Hon. Friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to the position in which her Royal
highness the Duchess of Kent would be placed if a Bill
were introduced founded solely on this resolution. The
effect of this resolution, if he understood the statement of
his Right Honourable Friend, was, that a sum of 8,0001.
Year should be granted to her Royal Highness the
Duchess of Kent, in addition to the grants which had
already been made to her. As. far as he was concerned,
,
could assure his Right Honourable that it was not his
Intention to offer the slightest objection to that part of the
Proceeding,,. or to the course pursued by her Majesty's
Ministers in this particular instance taken all together.—
(Rear, hear.) He thought, however, that his Right Hon.
l?riend had, in bringing the subject forward, overlooked an
objection which ought to have presented itself to his mind,
ItS it was one of considerable importance. The last grant
Made to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent was in
,1831, but he could not concur in the doctrine laid down
°Y his Right lion. Friend, notwithstanding his having taken
Competent legal advice as to the effect of that grant, and
acting on the opinion which the law officers of the Crown
had given him, that it was to continue to her Royal
highness the Duchess of Kent, and to her executors and
representatives after her death, during the lire of the Queen.
lie entertained very great doubts as to the correctness of
this proposition, and what he was inclined to think was that
this grant of 10,0001, would continue to her Royal Highness
the Duchess of Kent only during her own life, provided the
Queen lived so long. He was clearly of opinion that by the
decease of the Queen, the Duchess of Kent would be de-
Prived of 6,000/. of this 10,000/. He had advocated the
Previous greet made to her Royal Highness in 1825. Now,
the terms of the Act by which that grant was made
Were so precise and clear, and lay in so narrow a compass,
as to edmit of no doubt, and, unless he was greatly mis-
taken, it followed that the sum of 6,000/., granted in 1825,
had lapsed, and it would be necessary, in order to its con-
tinuance during her Royal Highness life, to go into another
Committee, for the purpose of reviving it.--(Hear.) The
Act to which he referred was the 77th cap. of the 6th
Geo. IV., and the title of that Act expressly stated that
"it was an Act to enable his Majesty to grant an annual sum
to her Royal Highness Mary Louisa Victoria Duchess of
Kent, for the purpose of enabling her Royal Highness to
suPport and educate her Royal Highness the Princess
Alexandrine Victoria." In the preamble of this same Act
it was further stated that—" Whereas it is expedient that
his Majesty should be empowered to grant to her Royal
highness, the widow of his late Royal Highness the Duke
of Kent, an annual sum to enable her Royal Highness tomake
adequate provision for the support and education of their
deughter,her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrine Vic-
toria ;" and then it goes on to enact or effect that a sum of
6,000/. should be granted by his Majesty to her Royal High-
ness the Duchess of Kent for that express purpose. Now,
it appeared to him that this grant, so made in conformity
with Act, was made, not only legally, but solely and exclu-
sively fie. a specific object. That object bad been accom-
plished, and her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent was
no longer burdened with the obligation which the Act im-
posed on her, and to meet which the grant was made. If,
therefore, there ever was a case in which the legal maxim,
eseente ratione cessat lex, applied, this was the case ; for
it must be obvious to every one that, with the cessation of
the specific purpose for which the grant was made the grant
itself
must cease.—(Hear, hear.) If, then, the effect of
this Act were such as he apprehended it to be, it seemed
Clear that the change which had taken place in the circum-
stances of the Princess Victoria, now Queen Victoria, would,
even with the 8,0001. proposed to be given by way of in-
crease, leave her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent an
income of only 24,000/., and not 30,000/. a-year.—(Hear,
hear.) If lie had understood his Right Hon. Friend cor-
rectly, it was the intention of the Government to give her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent a clear income of
• 30,000/., and, for one, he (Mr. Herries) would not object
to that grant ; but he believed that could not bo done with-
out going into a fresh Committee, for the purpose of reviv-
ing the grant of 6,000/. with a view to its being continued.
He threw out this suggestion because he feared that, other-
wise, his Right Hon. Friend would not be able to carry his
own purpose into effect.—( Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thanked
his Right Hon. Friend for the objection which he had
stated, and the mode in which lie had made that objection.
His Right Hon. Friend was quite right as to the intention
of her Majesty's Government. The object which they had
in view certainly was to give to her Royal Highness the
Duchess of Kent an income of 30,000/. a-year for life.
There could, he thought, be no mistake as to that, and he
must say that he was glad the proposition had been so una-
nimously responded to by that House. He was exceedingly
happy to know that his Right Hon. Friend meant to make
no Objection to it ; but, on the contrary, that his suggestion
Was thrown out for the sole purpose of giving full effect to
the Resolution of the Committee of last night.—(Hear.)
lie would tell his Right Hon. Friend that lie had not un-
dertaken to bring in the Bill without previous consultation
and advice. Those whom he had consulted on the subject,
and he considered them to be fully competent to form an
Opinion on such a question, informed him that the prior
grants were made to her Royal Highness the Duchess
of Kent for her life, and therefore that the grant now
proposed to be made to her Royal Highness was to be
regarded only as a supplementary grant. If, then, this
Were to he considered merely in the light of a supple-
Mentary grant, the course which former precedents
had pointed out as proper was to bring in a Bill to
Consolidate the whole of the prior grants, and at the same
time carry into effect the object which the resolution on
which it was founded had in view. Suppose he were right
In saying that he had a sum of 22,000/. a year under prior
grants, then it would follow that all he need call on the
House for was a vote for the difference between that sum
and 30,0001. a year. He should, however, cause a proper
inquiry to he made on the point before the Bill reached the
Committee ; and this he should do because he was fully
aware of the value and weight which ought to attach to the
opinion of his Right Hon. Friend, whose authority on the
tfubject of grants of this kind was so deservedly respected
°Y every Hon. Member of that House.—(Hear.) It was
true that he had obtained leave to bring in the necessary
Bill, but, although it would not empower him to ask for
More than 8,0001., still, as the blanks were not filled up, he
Would have an opportunity between this and the Committee
of ascertaining whether the suggestion which his Right
lion. Friend had thrown out was well founded or not. If
it were well founded all he could say was that he should
not hesitate to move for a new Committee, but, if it were
not, the House would have the power of carrying the inten-
tion of the resolution into full effect by filling up the blanks
themselves.—( Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said that he did not rise to object
to the additional grant ; on the contrary, he concurred in its
Propriety. As, however, her Royal Highness the Duchess
of Kent was no longer called upon to provide for the sup-
Port and education of her illustrious daughter Queen
Victoria, he wished to know whether the sum which had
been allowed her for those purposes had been paid to her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent since the accession of
her Majesty to the Throne.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied,
" Yes, it has."
Mr. GOULBURN said if such had been the case it was
c),nly right that they should see whether the course which
~.trie Right Honourable Gentleman opposite was pursuing
was the regular one or not.
Mr. GROTE said that, as he was not in the House last
bight when the resolution was agreed to, he wished to say
1/4 few words on the present occasion. The observations
which he meant to make were the seine that he would have
nddressed to the House had he been in his place when the
resolution was brought forward. if lie understood cor-
rectly from the explanation which he had received of what
11.118 lion. Friend the Member for Kilkenny had said on
itiis subject, all he could say was that be entirely concurred
I._,the view which his Honourable Friend had taken. It
did appear to him that the proposed increase of the income
e
her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent could not be
Justified on any good or satisfactory ground. In saying

this he knew that he was speaking in opposition to the sen-
timents of the Members of that House, though -it was in
accordance with a feeling which he had no doubt would be
very general throughout the country when they heard of
the proposition. When he found that her Royal High-
ness the Duchess of Kent had already an income of 22,000/.
he could see no reason which could induce him to impose
an additional burthen of 8,0001. a-year on the people. If
he allowed himself to be swayed by the feelings of respect
and esteem which he entertained towards that illustrious
person he thought he could not for shame oppose any
other grant that might be purposed. Such feelings ought
not to have any weight in that House, and when grants of
this kind had been asked for, it was the general practice to
disclaim that personal character was the leading ground on
which they were called for. In every point of view he con-
sidered the present a most unsuitable season for making
such an increase ; and if he had any connection with the
Royal family he would not hesitate to tender his respectful
opinion that the members of that family, if they wished to
possess the respect and esteem of the people, would do well
to make the charges they imposed on the country as light
as possible. No one could respect or admire her Royal
Highness the Duchess of Kent more than he did, but still
he felt it necessary to express what he knew would be the
opinion of the country at large when they found the public
money voted away in this manner. He was the advocate
of strict economy, and if be did not raise his voice against
grants to persons in exalted stations how could he oppose
the pensions given to individuals in more humble life ? If
he were not solicitous for the public purse in the one case,
he ought not to be so in the other. The same measure of
justice should be dealt out to all parties, as far as it could
be, by that House ; and for his own part he did not hesi-
tate to say that this was a grant which never ought to have
been proposed.
Mr. BORT LI WICK said that in much of what had fallen
from the Hon. Gentleman who bad just sat down be con-
curred, but he, at the same time,-thought the Hon. Gentle-
man had misunderstood the grounds on which the grant
proceeded. The fact was, that it proceeded not on the
ground of either respect or esteem, but upon two other
totally distinct grounds. In the first place the grant was
made as a mark of the country's gratitude to the Royal
and Illustrious person who had been named, for the admi-
rable manner in which she had educated the Princess
Victoria, and for having placed on the Throne of
Great Britain, not only the most accomplished, but
the most beloved Sovereign of Europe.—(Hear, hear.)
The second ground was the remembrance which they had
of the heavy charge which had been imposed upon her Royal
Highness the Duchess of Kent, and the care, pains, and
labour which that Royal person had expended on the edu-
cation which bad effected these accomplishments which now
adorned their Queen.—(Hear, hear.) It was upon these
two grounds that he supported the motion of the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer.) If the grant had been proposed merely as a testi-
mony of their respect and admiratiou for her Royal High-
ness the Duchess of Kent, he would agree that it ought not
to be granted. He thought it would be a very bad prece-
dent to give the public money away merely out of respect
or esteem to individuals, because they held exalted situa-
tions, and were placed near the throne ; but he must say
the case was very different when the grant was made as a
mark of the country's gratitude for services so important
and so efficiently rendered as those which her Royal High-
ness the Duchess of Kent had performed.
Mr. COURTENAY said that at both sides of the
House the real facts of the case seemed not to be under-
stood. The matter was one of simple calculation, and as
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had apologised for the manner in which he had di-
charged his duty, he (Mr. Courtenay) would not hesitate to
supply one deficiency in the statement which the Right
Honourable Gentleman had made. The truth was,
that the Right Hon. Gentleman had not brought the matter
forward in a way that was very intelligible. Hon. Gentle-
men on both sides of the House seemed to suppose that this
was an additional grant of 8,0001., but it was not exactly so,
because they ought to take into account the difference of
value between annuities for the life of the Queen and the
life of her mother. This, according to the ordinary calcu-
lations, would give a sum of 30,000/., and it was therefore,
clear that the burthen to the public would be diminished to
the extent of that sum.
The resolutions were agreed to.
THE CIVIL LIST BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved
the second reading of the Civil List Bill.
Mr. HUME gave notice that it was his intention to pro-
pose, as an instruction to the Committee on this Bill, that
certain reductions, which he would specify on the motion for
going into Committee, should be made in the List.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that the Hon. Member for Kilkenny should have a full op-
portunity afforded to him for taking any course he might
think fit, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should
take care that the subject was brought on at an early hour
of the evening. '
Mr. HU NIE asked when it was to come on ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
on Friday.
Mr. HERRIES asked whether it was to come on the
first thing in the evening ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied
—Yes.
The Bill was then a read a second time, and ordered to
be committed on Friday.
Lord MORPETH obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
regulate the expenses of conveying prisoners in Ireland, and
to place them on the same footing as in England.
Mr. PRYME also obtained leave to bring in a Bill to
amend the Act 54 Geo. 111., c. 170, sec. 11, so far as re-
lates to the discharging from the payment of rates such
persons as are unable through poverty to pay the same.
Mr. HINDLEY asked the Right Hon. Gentleman,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the Government
intended to bring on the Irish Poor-law question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
not say, but if the Hon. Gentleman would put the ques-
tion again to-morrow, when his Noble Friend (Lord J.
Russell) was in his place, he had no doubt his Noble Friend
would eive him an answer.
The house then adjourned at half-past Seven o'Clock.

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 14, 1837.