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

actly the same sum as his Hon. Friend had recommended. After
the disposal of the motion of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny,
he should support a proposal that the total amount should be
375,000/. instead of 385,0001.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose only to take the opportu-
nity of contradicting the mistake into which the Honourable
Member for Liskeard had fallen. 'He was entirely in error
in supposing that the great officers attending the Court, to
whom he had alluded, were in the enjoyment of sinecures ;
they had duties to perform, and he (Lord J. Russell) could
not imagine that a Sovereign could hold a Court and main-
tain sufficient dignity without them.—( Hear, hear.) He
thought that Hon. Members would be rather surprised, if,
when the Speaker of that House leached the Royal Palace,
they should find only two footmen to show them the way.—
(Hear.,) These noblemen had, therefore, duties to discharge
and they did per:fOrm them. Iu reference to what had fallen
from the Honourable Member for Lambeth, he did not mean
to say that if any amendments had been proposed .to her Ma-
jesty she would eat have acceded to them ; he felt no doubt
but that she would have cheerfully received and accorded to
any proposal which might be made ; but he did hope that
Hon. Members would not place any difficulties in the way of
the Sovereign, tied he could conceive no more painful duties
which could be imposed on her Majesty's Ministers, then to
ask her to withdraw what were considered unjust and unrea-
sonable demands—( Hear, hear)—and that the House would
not make any nice calculations, or objections, to the grant
of the same amount, as had been enjoyed by other So.ve-
reigns.—( Hear. )
Mr. KEMB LE had been returned as a Conservative, and
he should be sorry, in the most remote degree, to detract from
the comfort or the dignity of the-Crown; but he thought that
he should be best acting up to his character as a Conservative
by supporting a due and proper regard for economy in that
Houie. He could not, conscientiously, vote for the
motion of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny and support a
reduction to the amount of 50,0001., because be had not
heard sufficient reasons advanced for so large a reduction.
The House had appointed a Committee to investigate the
subject, and not having given power to that Committee to
send for persons, papers, and documents, he thought that
the House was bound to take the statement of the confiden-
tial advisers of the Crown, which had been laid before them.
By a reference to the papers it appeared that the only diffe-
rence in the expenditure occasioned by the circumstance of the
reigning Sovereign being a Queen was 2,000/. a year—(No,
no, from tine iiinisterial Benches.) Such was the fact, for
whist the number of ladies in the Household had been in-
creased, tbel.c. ‘,as a reduction in the number of males ; the
inerea,ed expenditure on this account was only 2,000/., and
the saving ought to be 10,0001. The increase was 8,000/
therefore, and for the vote of such a sum no ground bad, in
his opinion, been stated, The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
indeed, had referred to the saving of 50,000/. a-year in con-
sequence of our not having a Queen Consort, but it was
highly probable that her Majesty would soon have a husband
—( Hear, hear)—and they should recollect that to support his
dignity a much larger tutu than the 50,000/. now saved
would be required.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The House had
been told that the establishment of ‘l4illiam the Fourth was
fully adequate to the dignity and the splendour of the Crown ;
and yet, without any sufficient reason assigned, an increase of
more than 8,000/. had been recommended by a Government
professing amongst their leading principles a great attachment
to economy. Although he could not vote for the motion of
the Hon. Member for Kilkenny, he would support a reduction
to the amount of 10,000/.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN srid a few words in support of the
reduction suggested by the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Lambeth.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY thought that he should have no
great difficulty in inducing the Hon. Member for Surrey to
vote for the reduction of the proposed sum by an amount con-
siderably larger than he had stated. Was the House disposed
to throw away the lights of experience? It was no specula-
tion as to the amount of the expenses of the Royal House-
hold. The Report of the Civil List Committee, imperfect
as it was in many respects, yet was sufficiently full to give
some clue to the amount. At page eleven of the Report
there was a summary of the aggregate money received by
the Crown during the six years of William the Fourth's
reign. The total received durtng this period was 3,000,000 L,
and after providing to the utmost for the grants in the reign,
and which remained unpaid, there was a surplus of 22,750/.
carried to the Privy Parse, exclusive of the 60,0001. a year
granted for that purse ; after deducting the 3,045,091/. paid
out of the total money received, still there remained an ad-
ditional surplus unappropriated of 14,909/. Add this to the
sum of 22,750/. carried to the Privy Purse, and there would
be found an excess of 37,6591. during the whole six years,
being 6,000/. a year more than the Crown could spend, even
under the old provision made for the Monarch's support, and
yet the House was called upon to increase this sum. In addi.
tion to all this, there was a proposal in the present Civil List
of 8,040/. for unapp.opriated moneys, being, in fact, a
proposed expenditure of upwards of fourteen thousand
pounds a year more than had been proved by a six years'
experience to be necessary. He took it, then, that the Hon.
Member was willing that a diminution of 16,0001. should
take place ; but in what way did the House get at the reve-
nues of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which were
shut out from their control, practically, by the course which had
been adopted by the Government? It was not denied that the
actual income arising from the Duchies was very little short of
50,000/., and the Honourable Member for Kilkenny would,
therefore, have been justified in adding the sum of 16,000/.
to that of 50,0001., which he suggested. He knew the effect
produced by rumours both in and out of the House, and he
would rather vote on a division in favour of a reduction of the
amount by 10,0001., if the Hon. Member for Surrey would
move it—and he would rather hope in that feeling of Con-
servative contrition—( A laugh)—that Hon. Member would
set an example—than he would vote with a small minority in
favour of the reduction by 50,000/. If the Hon. Member
would move this by setting an example, and it would be re-
ceived by the country with 'gratitude, as a sort of Christmas-
box. It would be a boon, indeed, that it should be proposed
by an Hon. Member on that side of the House; and if he
would only move that the amount should le‘ reduced to
375,0001., it would be better than to divide with a small mino-
rity in favour of the Hon. Member for Kilkenny. If, however,
the lien. Member for Kilkenny should persevere in dividing
the House on the course which he had suggested, be should
vote with him : but at the same time he hoped that the Hon.
Member for Surrey would not be terrified from moving that
the amount should be decreased to 375,000/.
Mr. KEMBLE—I never said I would move the House on
the subject; and I will ask the Hon. Member what he means
by Conservative contrition 2—(A laugh,) I only expressed
my regret that I sheuld be obliged to vote with the other side
of the House under certain circumstances, but I deny that I ex-
pressed any Conservative contrition ; but, on the contrary, I
glory in the principles which I profess.—( Loud laughter. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXHCEQUER felt it his
daty to state that the excess of the revenue was appropriated to
purposes with which he thought the Committee would entirely
agree. The appropriation of the balance bad been to the pay-
ment of the funeral expenses of his late Majesty.—(Hear,
hear.) He would offer one word with regard to the observa-
tions made by the Hon. Member for Surrey. He said there was
an excess in the present Civil List over that which was before
agreed to, and that there was a surplus of 10,000/. He should
wish, in order to satisfy that Hon. Gentleman and the House, to
refer to what had passed on a former occasion. On the late
Civil List being brought forward, a sum larger than that now
contemplated was carried in the House (the sum being, be
believed, 11.0000 to meet contingencies. The proposition
was made by the Hon. Member for the University of Cam-
bridge, and it was assented to by Lord Spencer, and actually
voted, but by some mistake the sum was not inserted in the
Bill. It was not proposed now to vote that sum as unappro-
priated. but be thought it better to take the small sum of
8,0001. unappropriated, in looking forward to a long reign.
But to refer to the cote carried on the motion of the Hon.
Member for Aberdeen, that substituted an annual grant for
new pensions, not exceeding 1,200/. for the maximum sum of
75,0001. which was originally the amount. This was not his
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) proposition, and therefore
whatever benefit might arise to the public, and which would ap-
pear on the statement he was about to put forth, was to be at-
tributed to the labours of the much maligned Committee. He
had supported it, but he was happy to attribute it origi-
nally to the motion of the Honourable Member for Aber-
deen. He was talking of a saving of 10,000/. and in retie-
faence to it he had had a calculation made by an officer of
Government most experienced in such matters, Mr. Finlayson,
and it appeared that the highest value of 1,200/. in twenty
years by progressive accumulation, adding the decreased pen-
sions on the consolidated fund to the increased pensions on the
annual grant of 1,2001., would show that a benefit would be
derived, and it would be found that the absolute reduction
produced by the alteration would far exceed the sum saved by
any other menus. The present charge on the Civil List was
72.9701., and by a calculation of lives irr twenty years it would
be found that it would be reduced to 20,043/. ; this any in-
surance-office would at once take as the basis to go upon, and
would make an arrangement to pay off the whole. The new
Pension List, at 1,204/. per annum, would in twenty
years amount to 21,1791. and the total amount would be found
to be 41,222/., by which a saving of 33,7781. would be effected
under the head of pensions. Therefore, when it was said
that the new, Civil List was not a reduction on the
old one, he showed that here alone there was a reduction of
33,0001. a-year. He would call the attention of the House,
before he sat down, to the fact to which he had first alluded,
but that was no ar'urnent against another saving. It was
highly expedient, on the commencement of a new reign of a
young Sovereign, that there should be some unappropriated sum
to meet contingencies.
After a few words from Mr. CLAY,
Mr. BARING, in explanation, said that the resent ad-
dirdons to the Cicil List amounted to 8,000/. or 9,000/. ; and
if the House should place the Queen in the same situation in
which hi- late Nlajesry was, there would have been an advance
of 10,00 e I.
Mr si LT ME, in reply, said that the House seemed to be
satisfied that flee-sum which had been granted for the last
seven years should be Continued; He would tell them that
they were now taxed' to the amount of fifty millions, while
before the taxation was sixteen millions, and yet it was pro-
po red to raise the Civil List,
1 he house then divided—
For the amendment l9
Against it 199
Majority
The Committee then divided on the Amendment of Mr.
Hawes— ,
- -

For the amendment
Against it 173
Majority
On our rejurn:to the gallery we found Mr. TOWNLEY
PARKER addressing the House. He wished to know
whetheerfre Government intended to retain the office of the
Master dfrthe Horse and that branch of theroyal establish-