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

CIVIL LIST.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then
brought up the Report of the Committee on the Civil List Bill.
'The Bill was ordered to be read a third time on Monday.
Mr. CHALMERS gave notice that he would on Monday
next move the omission of the 15th clause, which fixed on the
Consolidated Fund a charge of 10,000/. for secret service,
which was to be removed from the Civil List.

Mr. GROTE did not intend to oppose the bringing up of
the Report, but he begged to give notice that it was his in-
tention on the third reading to move the omission of the clause
relating to pensions ; and it was his intention to take the sense
of the House upon the subject. He should have done so last
night, but for the late hour to which the debate extended.
The Report was then brought up.
On the question that the Report should be engrossed,
Mr. HUME wished to take that opportunity of making
some observations relative to those made by the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, respecting a statement he had made last night.
Though he differed with almost every Member of the House,
in opinion, they ought not to differ in facts. He observed

that in the report of what took place last night, it was alleged
in answer to what he stated, that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer said so and so, while what he (Mr Hume)
did state, was kept out of view altogether. Now, what
he did state was, that his object was not to continue in
the amount of the Civil List, the expenses of the two
Departments of the Lord Chamberlain of the House-
hold, and the Lord Steward, at the same time observing
that he did wish to affect the amount for the Privy Purse
of 60,000/. What he wished to say was, that as they had been
reiucing every establishment in the country to the proximity
of fall of prices for 1792, he thought they were not acting
fairly to the public, when they had the opportunity, in not
applying the same rule to the establishment of the Civil List
in all public departments. In order to show that such was
not the case, he had referred to the amount of the salaries of
the Lord Chamberlain up to 1792, which was 47,9421. At
the present moment it was 66,4991. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in answer to that statement, had told him that
great reductions had been made in other departments—that
the salaries, which had been 1,2001., had been reduced to
7001. He had stated again that be was not aware of the
amount of fees that had been removed, and that he had no
doubt that ho (Mr. H.) must hare been cognizant of that,
as he had always been an advocate for the removal of fees.—
(Hear.) He (Mr. IL) admitted that his object always
had been to remove fees that were levied upon business trans-
actions. He thought that nothing was more preposterous than
the fees which were exacted in the Lord Steward and Lord
Chamberlain's offices from the tradesmen of the Crown. If
those fees were reduced, what would be the consequence ?
Why, that the tradesmen who now made an extra charge of
five per cent. for the purpose of enabling them to pay those
fees, would be enabled to furnish the articles in which
they dealt at so much less price.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
So that, so far from being an argument against him (Mr.
Hume), the statement of that Hon. Gentleman was in his
favour, and Ministers were not giving the public the benefit of
the reductions. In the Lord Steward's department the ex-
penditure had been increased from 29,1531. to 36,3811. ; in
the department of the Master of the Horse (we understood),
the increase had been from 12,7911. to 27,650/. He ( Mr. H.)
had examined the accounts of all the (our departments—that
of the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord High Steward, the Master
of the Horse, and the Master of the Robes—and it appeared
that the whole charge of those departments, for the six years
from 1786 to 1792, was 90,9661., and it was now proposed to
raise it to 131,2601. for the year 183 g. There was, on the
whole, an excess in this Civil List of 40,294/. above the List
of 1786 to 1792.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the House
ought to pause before it granted so disproportionate an aug-
mentation in a Civil List which was to last (as he
hoped) at least 10 years. He appealed to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer whether he ought to continue in
the present day the antiquated and useless sinecures which
were charged upon the Civil List—and whether these ought
not to be abolished so as to bring back the expenditure to the
scale of 1792. But the Chancellor of Exchequer ac-
tually was raising the charge forty per cent., when the country
had a right to expect a reduction of forty per cent. The
amount of the tradesmen's bills in the departments of the
Lord Chamberlain, Lord High Steward, Master of the
Horse, and Master of the Robes, were in 1786 up to 1792,
118,200/. The amount proposed for 1838 was 172,5001., being
a❑ excess of 54,3001. in the tradesmen's bills, besides the in-
crease of 40,294/., which he had already shown to be the increase
for salaries in those departments.—( Hear, hear.) He had
taken pains to compare the prices of the former period to
which he referred with those of the present day, and he found
that the difference was by no means such as to justify the ex-
travagant increase which had taken place in the bills of the
tradesmen. In most articles the increase of price, if any, was
very small, and in many articles there Lad been a considerable
reduction. He was anxious to reduce the burdens of the coun-
try, when he saw thousands of the people living upon three or
four shillings a week, and when he knew, as every Hon. Gen-
tleman there very well knew, that in some parts of the country,
for instance, in Devonshire and Wiltshire, a labouring man
could not earn more than eight shillings a-week, he must
say that it was not dealing equal justice to make such
extravagant allowances out of the burthens of the people.
Parliament had made reductions in all other departments
of the public expenditure, except the Civil List, and
when the country saw, that out of 400 Members, only
22 voted for his motion last night, the people would
be' convinced that a majority of that House was not dis-
posed to lighten the public burthens.--(Hear, hear.)
The Monarch should attend to the wants and wishes of her
people, and endeavour to live in their affections, instead of
wringing from them the utmost extent of money which the
aristocrrcy in that House might be disposed to grant. One
half the officers of the Royal Household were not at all neces-
sary for the comfort or dignity of the Soverrign; but were a
part of that empty parade which, during the reign of
George the IV. was introduced into the Court. In 1792,
16.000,0001. was the whole amount of annual revenue de-
rived from the people; 50,000,0001. now was wrung from
their hard earnings. 5,000,0001. then paid the whole ex-
pences of the Civil List, of the army, the navy, the ord-
nance, and other public establishments ; now nearly
20,000,000/. was applied for those objects. lie (Mr.
Huine) as he did not believe this enormous amount of in-
come was necessary for the comfort or dignity of the Crown,
so, he did not think that it %yrs desired by her Majesty,
but that it was only demanded by her Ministers. And he,
theren re, complained on the part of her Majesty—whom he
wished to stand high in the respect and affections of her
subjects—of the immense load of sinecures and abuses which
her Ministers were endeavouring to hang upon her.
Mr. FIE LD EN said, that although he did not wish to
throw any impediment in the way of a suitable provision far
the Crown, he yet felt himself called on to oppose this grant.
The lion. Member, who spoke in so low a tone of voice that
he was scarcely audible in the gallery, was understood to
say, that when he found by the Report of the Commissioners
of Poor Inquiry that there were nearly two millions of
starving poor in Ireland, when he found that in Scot-
land flare were such a number of hand-loom weavers out
of employ ment, and in a state of such misery and destitu-
tion as had been represented to that House, be did think with
his Hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny, that the people had
a right to complain of an Administration which had advised
the Queen to accept this grant, without informing her of the
suffering condition of vast masscs of her people. He wa4; con-
vinced that if her Majesty was at all aware of these facts, she
would not consent to accept a grant which could be so much
better applied to their relief.
'1 he clause was then put and agreed to.
DUCHESS OF KENT'S ANNUITY BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the House resolved itself into Committee on
the Duchess of Kent's Annuity Bill.
Mr. GO UL BURN rcse for the purpose of making a few
observations on the Bill then before the House. Whatever
objection he might have to the Bill in its present form it did
not arise from the provision made to her Royal Highness, the
Duchess of Kent; but the point he had in view, and which he
was anxious to impress on the House was, that in all money
bills especially they should Le extremely careful not to
depart from the line of precedent on this subject, which
guarded the public against improper conduct, either on the part
of individual Members, or on the part of the Government of
the country. It was not merely matter of form, but was
also matter of substance. The principle on which the
House acted with respect to money grants was well known
to be this—that no money grant could be made to the Crown
until that grant had been considered in a Committee of the
whole House. That was the first principle of all money
grants, and it stood on a just ground, that there might be
an ample opportunity of previous discussion, so that on a
question of money there might be the fullest possible
discussion in the first instance. The second principle, which
was one immediately arising out of the other, was that when.
ever Bills should be brought in that there should be no power
in that Bill of augmenting the provision that had been pre-
viously made in the Resolution ' - otherwise they would have the
power of defeating the original rule, which was to have the
amplest discussion on the whole grant in a Committee of
that House. If the House bore that in mind, and looked at
the printed Bill, they would see that the Bill was a direct
violation of the rules and orders of the House. The resolu-
tian the House passed on a previous evening was, that her Ma-
jesty be enabled to grant an additional yearly sum, not exceed-
ing 8,0001., out of the Consolidated Fund, for a more ade-
quate provision for her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent.
On looking at the Bill to see how this resolution had been
carried into effect, he found it was stated that " her Majesty
should be empowered to grant by letters patent to her Royal
Highness, for the term of her natural life, a certain annual
payment or annuity of 30,000/. of lawful money of Great
Britain." Now it was obvious to any one, that upon the face
of the Bill there could be no possible discovery of any con-
nection between the grant of 30,0001. in the body of the Bill,
and the vote in Committee of Supply of 8,000/.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—The
words are—" additional yearly sum."
Mr. G 0 UL BURN—Yes, that was stated ; but those were
not the terms in which the vote ought to have been made. The
House would bear in mind the second principle he had laid
down--namely, that there was to be no augmentation in the
payment, that was not stated in the previous vote. He was
prepared to show, that even admitting the whole force of the
word " additional," on which it appeared the Chancellor of
the Exchequer intended to insist that there was in this
30,000/. an additional grant, for which no provision had ever
been made by Parliament. The next sum to which her Royal
Highness was entitled was a sum of 6,0001., given to her
Royal Highness by an Act passed in 1825, and as his argu-
ment with respect to the discrepancy between the Bill and the
resolution rested upon that and the subsequent Act, it would ba
sufficient for him to deal with it as applicable to that
Act, and not trouble himself or the House with the other.
The Act which gave her Royal Highness 6,000/. was an Act
to enable his Majesty to grant that sum annually to her Royal
Highness the Duchess of Kent, for the purpose of enabling
her to provide for the support and education of the Princess
Alexandrina Victoria. The preamble stated that it was expe-
dient to make an additional provision for her Royal Highness
I the Princess Victoria ; and it was granted in such a way, that
in the body of the Bill no person could suppose that it was
extended beyond the support and education of her Royal
Highness the Princess Victoria, nor was there one word to
imply that it was granted for her Royal Highness's life.
There was not one word to intimate that it had been given for
the life of the Princess Victoria ; but it was expressly stated
that it was given for her support and education. Let, them
construe the Act, therefore as they would, it could not be ex-
tended beyond the life of the Princess Victoria. He ( Mr. G. )
looked, and believed that when her Royal Highness became
Queen, that sum necessarily ceased, because her relation to
the Throne necessarily superseded any provision for education,
which was the object of the Act—and therefore his own
opinion was that the Act referred only to her support and
education, and that when these causes ceased to operate the
grant necessarily dropped. He confessed, therefore, that it

was with some surprise he heard that that principle was con-
tested; but he would take it in a more extended sense, and he
would say what no one could deny, that the money which had
been granted for the support and education of the Princess
Victoria, could not endure after she had expired, and that if it
was contended that the grant bad been given during the life
of the Princess Victoria, whenever she died they were •bound
- necessarily to put an end to it. Even if the former principal
which he had laid down had been denied, no one could• deny
that the death of the Queen would put an end altogether to
the grant. He thought his Right Hon. Friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer would admit that fact.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—No, no;
and I will state why I say so.
Mr. G 0 UL B U RN —He would be surprised to hear by what
argument the Right Hon. Gentleman could maintain that her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent was entitled to that
grant after the death of the Queen ; but if they had a right
on the death of the Queen, as he would take for argument
sake, to put an end to that grant, it came only to this, that the
Duchess of Kent had an annuity granted to her during .the
life of the Princess Victoria. He begged the House would
follow him in his argument upon that point, for he feared he
had not made himself very intelligible. What did the Bill
do ? It gave 30,000/. to the Duchess of Kent for life ;he had
been told that 8,0001. additional was all that the resolution au-
thorised, and as they stated it was so, the Bill ought to
have been drawn to grant 8,0001. in addition to the provision
previously made for her Royal Highness by Act of Parliament.
That would be conformable to the manner in which votes had
been made in Commitee of Supply in that House : but here it
was said that they gave her Royal Highness the grant for the
whole of her life. He had shown them, by reference to the'
statute of 1825, that the graat of 6,0001. was for the life of the
Pincess Victoria. Taking it in the most extended sense
6,0001. which had been granted for the life of the Queen
could not be extended into an annuity for the Duchess
of Kent ; and although the probability wes, that the
Queen, being in younger life, might survive her
Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and that the pro..
bability further was, that her Majesty might survive her; yet
an annuity granted for the life of an individual herself, was
far more valuable than an annuity granted for the life of
another : and although it was probable that an annuity for the
life of the Duchess of Kent would not be continued so long
as one for the life of the Princess Victoria, yet it was more
valuable to the individeal to have it granted for her own life-
time. That was, therefore, in the Bill a more valuable grant
than the one stated in the resolution, and it was therefore a
violation of the rules of that House. But if he was right on
the other point, and that the grant had been given for the
educational support of the Princess Victoria, then he said that
he had made out a case to show that the 6,0001. now
granted ought to have been granted in Committee of Supply
before it had been introduced into the Bill.—( Hear, bear.)
He would not apply the argument which he had thus stated,
te another 6,000/. granted under the same circumstances, to
which that argument equally applied, though, perhaps, to a less
extent. If the tenure upon which an annuity was granted,
was rendered more valuable than it at first was, the grant was
in fact, actually larger than had at first been voted by the
Committee. He had felt it his duty to bring this question be-
fore the House, for if the Bill had passed in its present shape a
precedent would have been created for all succeeding Govern-
ments to vary the grants of public money from the sum
voted in Committee.—( Hear, hear.) This practice bad not
been followed in preceding reigns :—for when the tenure
upon which annuities were granted to Royal Princes was
changed, the resolutions of the Committee had distinctly
stated the real nature of the grant to be conferred.—( Hear,
hear.) All that he (Mr. G.) now asked was, either that:the
Bill should, like former Bills of the same kind, follow the
terms of the resolution of the Committee of Supply, or that a
resolution should be come to in Committee, expressly grant..
ing to her Royal. Highness, the Duchess of Kent, 30,000/. per
annum for life, in lieu of the allowance now given by Act of
Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) He therefore thought the proper
course would be to move a Committee of the whole House to
make a grant to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
his Right Hon. Fliend, in bringing the subject before the
House, had done what was precisely his duty, and he per-
sonally thanked him for calling it to the attention of the House.
Whether the Right Hon. Gentleman was correct in his reason-
ing, or the inferences which he drew from the Act, undoubtedly
the Bill on the table of the House was not conformable to its
resolutions, and for these reasons it was the duty of the House
to see that the Bill introduced was precisely co-incident with
those resolutions. He wished to call to the recollection of the
House, that even if the arguments of the flight Hon. Gen-
tleman were correct, there had been no mystification on his
part.—( Hear, -hear, and Cheers.) It was desirous that he
had assumed that her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent
had an income of 22,000/., and that he proposed to make it
30,0001.: there, .therefore, could be no charge of bad
faith on his part, nor did he understand that any imputation
had been cast on the Government by the Right Hon. Gentle-
man by the course he had taken.—( Cheers.) He knew that
there was a difficulty in procuring tke attention of the House
to a subject like the present, but he thought it was one worthy
of its consideration, and he therefore felt bound to bring it be-
fore the House. He thought, consielering the facts lay in a
minute compass, that he should not feel it necessary to
occupy its attention for any length of time. His Right
Honourable Friend had stated rightly that the Duchess of
Kent held her income under three Acts of Parliament,
as the Jointure Act was not now in question he would pass
that by. The Act of 1825, in the recital and preamble de.
clared that it was to provide for the more honourable summit
and education of the Princess Victoria, but then came the
enactment which granted to the Duchess of Kent an annuity
of 6,0001.: in the enacting part no reference was made to the
Princess Victoria—it was a grant to the Duchess of
Kent of 6,0001., and it was true that there were no
words on the Act giving it to the Duchess of Kent for her life.
He would now come to the second Act of 1831, which
was to provide for the better support of her Royal Highness
the Duchess of Kent, and for the better support and educa-
tion of the Princess Victoria. That Act granted an annuity
to the Duchess of Kent of I 0,000/. , but it states that 4,000/.
is for the life of the Duchess of Kent, and 6,000/. is for the
life of the present Queen, then the Princess Victoria.
Now he contended that, with respect to the grant of 4,000/.
a year to the Duchess of Kent as her jointure, there could be
no question. The only question that could arise regarded the
annuity of 6,0001 a year, which bad been granted in 1831 for
the life of the Queen, and the grant that had been made in
1825. He believed that if he stated the feet:, the House
would agree with him that no difficulties could arise with re-
spect to these annuities either. He would first ad-
dress himself to the grant of 6,0001. which was
made in 1831—and he held that with respect to
this grant, there could not be a possibility of doubt that it endured
far the lifetime of the Queen. Here was a beginning and an end
as clear and as distinct as anything could be, for the Act declares,
without a possibility of doubt, that the annuity shall subsist from
the time of the grant, and during the life of the Queen. Now, if
it was a principle of law, that in doubtful enactments the intention
of the Legislature waste be arrived at by the preamble or recital of
the Bill. It would be clearly shown by the preamble of that Act
that such was the intention.—(Hear, hear, hear.) But there
was nothing at all doubtful in the wording of the Ast itself,
for it declared that the annuity was to commence from the time
of the grant, and to endure during the life-time of her Majesty,
and that it was payable to the Duchess of Kent. Now, it could
not be contended either that the Queen was still living, or that
the annuity was not payable to the Duchess of:Kent. Any other
construction would be in direct centradiction to the word o f the
Statute itself. Here again he wished to impress on the House
that the grant was made for the life-time of the Queen. The
question then resolved itself into this,—was the Queen still living,
or was she not ? and if she was still living, whether the
annuity granted to the Duchess of Kent was to endure or not.
Now he held that on every principle that annuity so granted still
subsisted. He would take the liberty of referring the House to a
precedent which he considered a most important one, as bearing
on this question ; namely, the annuity granted by statute to the
Duke and Duchess of Clarence for their lives. The Duke and
Duchess of Clarence ceased to exist when they became King and
Queen of England, but did the annuity cease ?—( Hear, hear.)
Certarnly not, for it subsisted during the life-time of the parties.
If a new construction were to be put upon the Act of 1831, to the
effect that the annuity of the Queen Dowager, under that Act, was
terminable upon the death of his late Majesty, the allowance to the
Duke and Duchess of Clarence ought, by a parity of reasoning, to
have ceased upon the alternate status of those personages, when
the Duke of Clarence was raised to the Throne. There was a
difference between the statute of 1825 and that of 1831.
The former did not specifically declare that the grant to the
Duchess of Kent was to be for life. If there had been a clause
to that effect, the Act would be the same as the statute of 1831,
which expressly authorised a grant to the Queen for her life, and
letters patent were made out also in those terms. But what else
did the statute imply than that the grant was te her for life ?
(_Hear.) Would it be that the grant was to be enjoyed only during
the pleasure of the Crown ?—( Hear.) He was glad to see tke
Right lion. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Sir E. Sugden)
taking notes, as he (Mr. Rice) should have the advantage, of his
legal knowledge upon the question. He (Mr. Rice) could
net see any ground for doubting that it was a grant for life.—
(Hear.) But if it were regarded as a grant during pleasure
that construction would defeat the intention of the Statute. Or
was it, on the other hald, to be taken as a grant for the education
of an individual, and to cease when the education of that indivi-
dual was completed. Nothing was more common between subject
and subject, than to mttke a settlement upon a wife for the educa-
tion of the children ; and though one of them should actually die,
the grant would continue to the mother. He knew that a grant
from the Crown was to be considered on different grounds from a
settlement between subject and subject. Amongst private individuals
a grant was to be construed in favour of the " grantee ;" but, on
the contrary, when the Crown was concerned, the grant must be
construed in favour of the " granter." Well, if it were contended
that the grant in the case of the Duchess of Kent, that (contrary
to the law that prevailed in similar cases between subject and sub-
ject) the grant should cease on the completion of the education
for which it was granted.—(Hear, hear, hear)--he begged
them to look at the Statute, and see what its terms were.
The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that though he
hoped that he had satisfied the House, that (as he had acted cer-
tainly on the best advice) the proceedings upon this subject had
been perfectly regular, he should be happy to hear the Right lion.
Gentleman opposite, for if a mistake had been fallen into, he would
most willingly correct it.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL-Will tke House allow me to say a
few words before the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite addresses
himself to the question. I would_remark that there are two dif-
ferent parts of this question ; one is what belongs to the Duchess
by law—and what is allowed to her by this Bill. And the other
which has been raised by the Right Honourable Gentleman oppo-
site, is, as to the forms of this House and the mode of proceeding
which should be adopted in order to make this Bill conformable to
precedents. As to the first question, I think my Right
Honourable Friends' argument—confirmed as it is by the
authorities which he stated—is fully sufficient to dis-
pose of it. But with regard to the other question,—of the Bill
being conformable to the resolutions of the Committee—l think
there may be considerable doubt upon it.—( Hear, hear.) And I
shall be happy to hear the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite
address himself to both parts of the question, for I agree, that in
our present proceedings it would be well to leave no doubt upon the
subject, and that what we do should be in exact conformity to for-
mer precedents. —(Hear, hear.)