rose to move the second reading of the Recovery of Tenements Bill. He would not go through the whole matter, and would content himself with shortly stating that the reasons which induced him to introduce the measure was the fact, that in two former Sessions this Bill was read a second time without opposition, so far as affecting the principle of the Bill in the least. During the Committee on the details of the Bill some opposition was raised on the part of one or two hon. Members, an opposition which was no doubt most conscientious, but raised at an inconvenient period; and then not against the details, but against the principle of the measure; and in one night there were no less than four divisions for postponement and adjournment. On one occasion there were only two Members in the minority, and on another only one. He still hoped that if there were any objections to the principle of the Bill they would be made at once; and if there were any to the details they might be brought forward in the Committee. He had not obtruded himself upon the House in bringing forward this measure. He had appealed to the law officers of the Crown, and from what he had heard from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that the revision of the law between landlord and tenant would fairly come within the consideration of her Majesty's Government, he had repeatedly attempted to draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the subject without effect. He had, however, had his attention called to the question from every part of the country. If the evil were great, as no hon. Member denied, they were bound to apply a remedy. This measure might, perhaps, in some respects prove to be partial in its operation, and he had never shut his eyes to the difficulty which existed. Understanding from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a former occasion, that some measure for the establishment of local courts was forthcoming, he had withdrawn his Bill. The same course was adopted last Parliament of delaying the progress of the Bill. He had attended fourteen Wednesday nights when the House was counted out. No delay, however, had occurred on his own part. The Bill was read a second time without opposition; but on going into Committee the Bill was opposed by two hon. Members, and the hon. Member for Finsbury having stated he had serious objections to it he was induced to withdraw the measure. To show how ancient the evil was which this measure was proposed to remedy he would quote a passage from "Burn's Justice." That learned author held that the remedy was not adequate to the evil; both, because it was uncertain and difficult of operation. The commissioners of common law, in their fifth report, held the same doctrine, in the case of tenants of small tenements, where they held unduly over their term. He had in his possession a volume of correspondence, stating the evils which existed. He must be permitted to advert to the various frauds which were continually resorted to by tenants. He had heard of one case in Liverpool where a dog was left in possession of premises. He knew also a case in Manchester where the undertenant required 5l. to induce him to quit, and the tenant from whom he held required 30l., and the head landlord was obliged to pay them both before he could obtain possession of the house. This was only one of many such cases which were continually happening in various parts of the kingdom. He had divided his Bill into two parts, which so far differed from the Bill of last Session. One of the parts referred to tenants under 20l., the other, to tenants above that amount. The Bill provided that parties should go before a magistrate, and make certain declarations in the Bill provided, and which were intended to satisfy the magistrate; first, that notices had been given in a manner described in the Bill, which notices were to give the magistrates jurisdiction; and, secondly, to satisfy the magistrates of two facts, that the relation of landlord and tenant did at one time subsist between the parties, and that it no longer existed. If any question of title was included in the case the magistrate might dismiss it to a higher jurisdiction. The Bill provided, further, that if a landlord used this process to gain possession of a tenement to which he had no right, the tenant so ousted might bring an indictment against the person who made the false representation, and an action against the landlord. The Bill gave a remedy against the landlord, for he (Mr. Aglionby) thought the magistrate ought to be protected from any action whatsoever. With respect to the 50l. clause in his Bill, which gave the landlord, after bringing his action of ejectment, power to call on the tenant to enter into security for costs, he was prepared, notwithstanding the objections that might be urged against it, to justify it, on these grounds:—He might be told that it gave the landlord power to dispossess tenants of large holdings for political purposes; but he contended that it would have no such effect. Let hon. Gentlemen look to the expenses to which a landlord was put by an action of ejectment against the tenant, who, if he happened to be a man of straw, would leave him in beside for the costs. The object of the clause was to meet cases of this sort; and it was grounded on no less an authority than the report of the commissioners of common law, from which the clause was copied almost word for word. If, therefore, he erred in introducing such a clause into his Bill he erred on great authority. He would call the attention of the House more particularly to the effects of the clause. After the landlord had brought his action of ejectment he could go before the judge, and call on him to give a summons to the tenant to come before him, prepared to give security for the costs of the suit. The judge was to determine whether the bail which he offered was considered to be sufficient or not. In what way, he would ask, would a tenant be injured by this? No one but a dishonest tenant would put a landlord to the ruinous process of ejectment; and it was but fair that, in such a case, he should be made answerable for the costs. He begged to apologise for detaining the House so long. He had adverted to some matters which might have been better mentioned in Committee; but he preferred alluding to them now, as he might not have another opportunity of answering objections.

said, it had been his duty more than once to oppose this Bill; he had been a party to the opposition to it when he, with the hon. Member for Finsbury, divided against it, and successfully. He was satisfied that this was a landlords' Bill, that it was an oppressive measure which established invidious distinctions between the rich and the poor. The hon. Member had said sufficient to satisfy him that some measure was necessary in order to enable landlords to recover possession in certain cases; but he would ask, was not a measure oppressive which provided that as regarded the poor, a magistrate was a sufficient tribunal, whereas as regarded the rich the sanction of the law was necessary? The arguments of the hon. Gentleman only served to show the necessity for local courts. He had stated that the bill had been twice read a second time in that House in aid of his arguments, but yet the hon. Gentleman now said that he would alter it, and make the magistrate a judicial officer. But, in fact, the measure, if it became the law, would subvert the whole rule of ejectment and the nature of the common law of the land. There was no man who had any experience at nisi prius who must not be satisfied that it would subvert all their notions of real property and the law of landlord and tenant. Landlords were ready and willing enough, and rich enough also, to be able to make communications to the House of cases of hardship on their parts; but he would ask if the tenants, could they be heard, had no cases of hardship also. He had known two cases at the assizes in Cheshire, in which rich landlords attempted to oppress tenants. The cases were these:—the tenants held two inclosures from a common, for which they paid a quit-rent. The landlord gave them notice to quit on the ground of tenancy, but they contested it, and a jury, finding that it was a quit-rent they had paid, settled them in possession. Had the bill now proposed been in existence those landlords might have gone before a magistrate, made the declaration required, and those two tenants would have been turned out of their holdings, and left to bring actions against the landlords if they were insane enough to do so. He was surprised that such a proposition should come from his hon. Friend. In all towns, where the ten pound householders lived, the landlords, by keeping them constantly under notice, from half-year to half-year, would have the voter completely in their power for if he refused to do as they wished the remedy was easy—they had only to go before a magistrate, and have the tenant in four days turned out of his house. The bill of his hon. Friend assumed that all tenants were rascals, and that the law should be stretched to give a security to the landlords which was given in no other case. Though in a few cases the landlords might suffer, yet if they were more attentive to the bargains they made, and the security of the tenant, the establishment of local courts would be found a remedy for all the other evils complained of. The House, he trusted, would not countenance this bill, though there could be no doubt but his hon. Friend in bringing it forward was actuated by the best, although mistaken, motives. He should, therefore, move as an amendment that the bill be read this day six months.

was aware that the question which his hon. Friend (Mr. Aglionby) had brought forward was so surrounded with difficulties that they had only a choice of difficulties to deal with. The question was, whether it was so clear that the balance of probabilities was against the bill, and that they should refuse to entertain it. If the evil were admitted, he knew of no better remedies than those which were proposed in the bill, and the motive for bringing the bill forward was the impossibility, under the present law, of ejecting tenants who had small holdings. It was said that this was essentially a landlord's bill—and so, indeed, it ought to be called if it gave a proper remedy to an injured landlord. If it did more than that it was an improper bill, but if it only redressed an injured landlord they would disgrace themselves if they did not entertain it, lest it should be said that it was altogether a landlord's bill. Was the landlord, he would ask, the only person interested in this bill. Had it never occurred to the hon. Member that individuals would be loth to embark their money in building small cottages if they had not some security like this? and thus, though indirectly, the Bill operated for the benefit of the tenant as well as the landlord. Individuals were now put to the inconvenience of a tedious process of ejectment, whereas by this bill the individual, having given security, or a declaration on oath before one or two magistrates, the tenant in the tenantry was expelled. It was competent to a magistrate to alter the relative position of the parties, forcibly putting the one in possession, and leaving the other to his remedy at law. There were many causes, it might be said, in which parties clearly supposed themselves to be holding as ordinary tenants, whereas it might be proved that they held by payment of a quit rent. The parties could not have an absolute security. This was a mere question of practice, and he thought the difficulty which had been thrown in the way by the hon. Member for Chester tended only to show that the balance was in favour of, and not against, the bill. It was perhaps a matter of opinion on which side the balance rested. Again, the measure introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth was very much what had been recommended by the common law commissioners. That report had emanated from a Committee composed of the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir F. Pollock), who was the chairman, and several other distinguished Members of the bar from both sides of the House. With regard to larger holdings he did not see the force of the objection. Under all these circumstances he trusted the House would allow the bill to be read a second time.

said, that the House, when legislating generally on the subject of landlord and tenant, should be careful to satisfy that vast body of persons who filled the relation of tenant that they were not anxious merely to secure their own rights as landlords, but were merely anxious to make security for the rights of tenants. Now, he thought, the Bill was in direct violation of all principles of legislation as regards mutual remedies. He did not deny that there ought to be such a modification of the law as would, by lessening the expense, give a more speedy remedy. It was a mistake to suppose, that by making the remedy more speedy, if it was a just remedy, the landlord only was benefitted. It tended to prevent litigation between landlord and tenant, and therefore conferred equal benefit on the one as on the other. But his objection to this Bill was, that it did not admit of any modification. No alteration in Committee could make it such a Bill as the supporter of the Bill himself stated that it ought to be. It went upon this ground, to take away all security whatever from the tenant, and to place him entirely in the power of the landlord. It ought to be a matter of grave consideration whether the power of deciding upon questions between landlord and tenant should not, up to a certain amount, be given to the magistrates, though certainly this would be placing them in a very delicate position, and they would probably be the first to object to it. The hon. Mover had stated that the magistrate was to see that the relation of landlord and tenant had once existed between the parties, and that it no longer existed, but the Bill provided no such thing; it only provided that the justice was to see that a certain notice had been delivered and a certain declaration made. The tenant wrongly ejected, indeed, might bring his indictment or his action; but how seldom would he have the power to do so. A man in full possession, with his family and furniture in the house, receives a notice to quit, which he does not believe to be legal, or, perhaps, he does think that his term has not expired. He says to the landlord that he will resist him; and had he not a perfect right to do so? What, however, said the hon. Member? He would not stay to inquire whether the landlord was right or wrong, but would go to a neighbouring magistrate, and having filed his declaration, the magistrate was bound to issue his warrant, and within four days turn the tenant out of doors. What, however, was to be done with his furniture? Suppose that he was not able to find security for the costs, it was to be sold within fourteen days. Was this fair, was this consistent with the laws of England? The hon. Member would give a hearing to one side, but would deny it to the other. If he said that he would summon the tenant, and that he would hear his statement before resorting to any extreme measure of this sort, he could then understand the proposition; but he never could believe that the House of Commons could give its sanction to a measure so unjust in principle and so oppressive in practice. He. for one, as belonging to the class to which those powers were given, would feel great alarm, lest a feeling o. suspicion should be engendered in the minds of the people of England that, in sanctioning such a measure, they were thinking more of their interests than of the justice of the case. The hon. Member asked what harm will this Bill do the tenant? "I give, to be sure, extraordinary powers to the landlord, but I give the tenant something in return." What did he give? He gave him an action for damages, and an indictment for perjury. Was it possible the hon. Member was aware of the state of the law, and made such a provision as this? Did he consider the relation in which the class of persons stood who were likely to be affected by this Bill, and believe that such a remedy as this would not be inoperative? Suppose the landlord was wrong, what was the remedy which the hon. Member gave the tenant? An indictment for perjury. This was a remedy which would scarcely if ever be resorted to, and the tenant was thus wholly left without protection. He would never be a party to a factious opposition to any measure; but he would never give his sanction to a Bill which he believed to be so objectionable in all its details. He thought that in any measure of the sort which might be introduced, the tenant had a right to demand the same security as the landlord had. He was quite satisfied that, whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the details of the measure before the House, there could be but one opinion as to its principle. He should, therefore, although reluctantly, vote against the proposition.

thought, that the objection of the right hon. Gentleman might be answered in Committee. Every man must know the difficulty felt by landlords in ejecting bad tenants. The expense and loss not unfrequently amounted to as much as the value of the fee simple of the property, and not seldom the tenant would demand a sum of money to induce him to quit. If it was thought the magistrate ought to have a power of adjudication, a clause might be framed and introduced in it in Committee. It should also be remembered that if the magistrate decided wrongly, the tenant had no remedy from another tribunal.

, although he had voted last Session against the measure, yet thought that the House ought immediately to adopt some remedy. He thought the course to pursue, if the hon. Member for Cockermouth would agree to it, would be to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, where it might be advantageously considered with another Bill, which had been introduced for the rating of small tenements—one Bill being for the relief of landlords, and the other for the relief of tenants. It appeared to him that the two measures could be very properly blended, and this could be easily accomplished if referred to a Select Committee. It was clear that the proposition contained in this Bill would never be satisfactorily arranged in a Committee of the whole House. It had been tried in two Sessions, and had signally failed, and they had heard to-night that it would be impossible to make it a law without violating some of the first principles of the statute and common law of the land. Besides, the hon. Member for Cocker mouth was of a different opinion now from that which he held last Session and the Session before, as to one of the principles of the bill. Formerly he considered that the magistrate should possess merely a ministerial power, but now he considered that he should have a judicial authority to determine whether tenancy had expired or not. He therefore thought that the hon. Member could not object that the bill should be referred to a Select Committee, where those propositions could be maturely considered, and witnesses examined, both landlords and tenants, as to the present state of the law.

could not agree to reject the bill. He considered the principle of the measure valuable. At the same time, he could never agree to a provision that the landlord should have the power to eject without inquiry as to whether the tenancy had ceased. That, however, could be remedied in a Committee of the whole House, or a Committee upstairs. He thought there should be a cheap mode of ascertaining whether the tenancy had ceased, for the expense was at present a great difficulty, especially to a poor man; he considered that some summary mode of ascertaining this should be agreed to.

said, that the evil of the present system was acknowledged by all parties as one which was grievous to both landlord and tenant. He thought that the bill should be read a second time, in order that its provisions might be discussed in Committee.

thought, that landlords ought to be protected by some bill —he would not say the present bill in its present state; but they ought to be protected, and he would vote for the second reading of it, in order that its provisions might be discussed.

although he had no objection to a Select Committee on the bill, yet thought that this was not the stage at which this course should be adopted. If the House sanctioned the second reading of the measure, then he would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, although he thought he could show the House that nothing would be gained by it.

supported the second reading of the bill. At the same time he thought the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, for the consolidation of the rating of Small Tenements' Bill and the present measure, worthy of consideration.

said, that with reference to the objects of the bill which it was now proposed to read a second time, he was convinced, from experience, that the freemen were the worst part of the constituencies of the country. An hon. Member had said upon a former occasion that the restrictions to be removed by this bill had pressed very heavily on a certain class of electors, and ought to be removed. The bill, however, said that other restrictions upon the household voters should also be removed. Now the restrictions on the freemen were the only guarantees for their being bonâfide entitled to vote while the restrictions on the householders deprive them of their franchise. In its present shape he thought the bill had no chance of passing the House, and the Government were thus defeating one object by uniting it with another which was every way objectionable. Though he would not oppose the second reading of the bill, yet he suffered it to pass that stage only in the hope that some alteration would be made in the Committee.

said, that as the freemen had been deprived of the principal part of their former privileges, they ought not to be required to pay a tax for the remainder. It was complained that the rate-paying clauses of the Reform Bill were a hardship upon the new constituency created by that bill, but the tax upon the admission of freemen was far more unjust. He would not oppose the bill now, but would do so at a future stage.

would never hear the freemen of England abused without rising to say a word in their defence. He did not know what the freemen of Wolverhampton were. If they were the mad set of people the hon. Member for Wolverhampton considered them to be he begged to say, that the freemen of the city which he (Colonel Sibthorp) had the honour to represent, were a very different description of persons, and he should not like them to come in contact with the freemen of Lincoln, because a scabby sheep would endanger a whole flock. He would not oppose the second reading of the Bill, although, at the same time, he begged leave to say, that it was one of those very many bills which the noble Lord found himself obliged to introduce from time to time, to show that the Reform Bill was not what it had been represented to be, a final measure. He had long endeavoured, but in vain, to induce the noble Lord to give him some idea of what had been the expenses attending the printing of the Reform Bill. In his conscience, he believed that a better man than the noble Lord did not exist in private life, but a worse man never showed himself in public life. His policy had been dark and crooked, and he had been working, like the mole, under ground. The freemen had been treated shamefully, disgracefully, and faithlessly. They had been told that their rights would be preserved, but such was not the case. He would say nothing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's conduct, but, without meaning anything disrespectful, it appeared to him, that the noble Lord and his Friend were like the Siamese twins. He hoped the freemen of Stroud would, some day, remind the noble Lord of his ingratitude towards the entire body of freemen, some of whom, when he was kicked out of another place, had sent him to that House.

approved of the Bill so far as it went to relieve bona fide householders and rate-payers from the clause which compelled them to pay the taxes due in April before the 25th of July, as from that clause the greatest inconvenience had arisen. He protested, however, against the sweeping charges and unwarrantable insinuations which were made against the freemen of England by Gentlemen on the other side, who represented an entirely different class of persons.

would not be a party to what the hon. Baronet had so justly designated the unwarrantable insinuations which had been thrown out against the freemen. He had the honour to number a good many of them amongst his constituents, and not one of those persons had ever received a single farthing for his vote. He did not see why a body of electors should be attacked in this way. All those insinuations would better apply to the borough of Liverpool, for which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton was once, he believed, a candidate—and where it was notorious that bribery and corruption had formerly been practised to an enormous extent. He most cordially supported the Bill of the noble Lord, and, by withdrawing the notice which he had on the paper for to-morrow, would give him four months to try to carry his Bill into a law. If, after that time, it should prove to be a failure, he trusted the House would renew to him the motion which they had on a former occasion allowed him to make, to bring in a Bill to abolish the stamp duty on the admission of freemen. Although he supported the present Bill, he had much rather have seen the two questions it comprised introduced in separate Bills.

did not deny that great malpractices had formerly existed in the borough of Liverpool, but he was firmly persuaded that the freemen of that place no longer deserved the imputation which had been cast upon them. Those freemen were generally poor men, and it was because they were poor that he was the more strongly induced to stand up in their favour. He would take this opportunity of noticing a remark of the hon. Member for Finsbury on a former occasion. The hon. Member had charged him with deluding and wheedling the operatives of Liverpool, by pretending a great desire to maintain their electoral privileges. He thought, that that hon. Gentleman had no right whatever to make any such accusation against him. It was quite natural, that the freemen should not be particularly favourable to the opposite side of the House, as hon. Members on the opposite side had taken every possible opportunity to deprive them, by every means, directly or indirectly, of their franchise. With respect to this Bill, he should prefer to see the two questions it contained placed separately upon their own merits.

saw nothing unfair or unkind in that mode of proceeding, which, while it relieved the freemen with regard to the stamp duty, afforded a corresponding benefit to the other electors, through the provisions of the present Bill. Well, but it was said that this measure would not be passed, if it were to confine the advantages proposed to be conferred on householders to that class; that one measure could not pass without another to the same purpose; and that any relaxation of the rules hitherto required to qualify a voter, if made with regard to the householder, should also be followed by similar immunities in favour of the free- man. Now, he did not think that the House should be confined by unchangeable bars within a certain course of legislation, and he was persuaded that if the householders were not permitted to obtain the proposed benefit, there ought to be no legislation at all on this subject. He did not see the advantage of having hon. Members opposite putting their veto on measures, unless they were in the precise form which suited their and their friends' nice taste. He would not then enter into any argument on the measure, but merely state the object of the intended relief. Electors, who had paid their rates up to the 5th of April, the first year they became possessed of the franchise would be excused for succeeding years up to the 11th of October if, through any inadvertence or forgetfulness, they had neglected to pay at the prescribed period. Where the solvency was not doubted, it was considered hard that the franchise should be lost merely through an act of remissness. It did appear to him that this was a perfectly fair measure, and he should be sorry to see a stop put to it, as it comprised one of those changes in the Reform Bill which he considered just in principle, and the reasonableness of which was obvious. Bill read a second time.

said, he would take the present opportunity of putting the question to the noble Lord (Morpeth) which he had been prevented from putting at an earlier part of the evening by the intervention of the Speaker. He wished to know, if any, and what steps were to be taken by her Majesty's Government with respect to a very important circumstance connected with the national system of education in Ireland, namely, the exclusion of the reading of the sacred Scriptures from the schools, by which great dissatisfaction was given to conscientious Protestants?

replied, that steps would be taken which he trusted would have the effect of satisfying the conscientious scruples to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred. It was proposed that those children who wished to have the opportunity of reading the Sacred Scriptures should have a separate room afforded them for that purpose in a different part of the school. There were other matters of detail to be adopted re- specting the system of Irish education which it was not now material to allude to more particularly, but which, he trusted, and, indeed had little doubt, would be productive of very general satisfaction.

wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he had last night stated that the 6,000l. a year to Pringe George of Hanover was now to cease, what was to become of the 21,000l. granted as a pension to the Duke of Cumberland, who had now acceded to the throne of Hanover?

replied that the pension to Prince George had been of a different description to other pensions. With regard to the 21,000l. to the present King of Hanover, it had been granted to the Duke of Cumberland for life—and, like the pension to King Leopold, was not of such a nature as could be withdrawn by any Act of the Government, but only by Act of Parliament. The pension continued to be received by the King of Hanover as it was before his accession to the throne of that kingdom.

Was it the intention of her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill to repeal the Act which gave the pension, as it certainly was never granted with the intention that it should be received under such circumstances as at present?

replied, that the Government had no intention to do in the case of the King of Hanover that which they could not do in the case of the King of Belgium. The pension was granted by the law of the land, and he was not prepared to introduce a Bill affecting it.

would bring in a Bill early in February.

wished to know what sums of money had been received by the public out of the pension of 50,000l. granted to Prince Leopold, now King of the Belgians?

said, that the conduct of King Leopold with respect to the pension granted to him on his marriage with the late Princess Charlotte was most honourable. As soon as his position with respect to this country had been altered by his accession to the throne of Belgium, he made arrangements for vesting his pension in the hands of trus- tees. The trustees were Lord Althorp (now Earl Spencer) and the Marquess of Lansdowne, who were to pay out of it certain pensions to members of her late Royal Highness's household, for whom King' Leopold thought it incumbent on him to provide. After the payment of those pensions, the sum of 35,000l. a-year remained, which was annually paid over to the public, and in this way the sum of 110,000l. had already been paid into the Treasury.

brought up the report of the resolution for granting 8,000l. a-year to the Duchess of Kent in pursuance of the Queen's Message. On the question for agreeing to the resolutions,

wished to call the attention of the House and of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor 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 hon. Friend, was, that a sum of 8,000l. a-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, he could assure his right hon. Friend 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 altogether. He thought, however, that his right hon. Friend had, in bringing the subject forward, overlooked an objection which ought to have presented itself to his mind, as 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 by his right hon. 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. His right hon. Friend stated, that the grant made in 1831 was to continue to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent and to her executors and representatives after her death, during the life of the Queen. He entertained very great doubts as to the correctness of this proposition, and what he was inclined to think was, that this grant of 10,000l. 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 deprived of 6,000l. of this 10,000l. He had advocated the previous grant 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 admit of no doubt, and unless he was greatly mistaken, it followed that the sum of 6,000l. granted in 1825 had lapsed, and it would be necessary, in order to its continuance dining her Royal Highness's life, to go into another Committee, for the purpose of reviving it. The Act to which he referred was the 77th cap. of the 6th Geo. 4th, 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 Alexandrina 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 to make adequate provision for the support and education of their daughter, her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrina Victoria," and then it goes on to enact or effect that a sum of 6,000l. should be granted by his Majesty to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, for that express purpose. Now, it appeared to him that this grant, so made in conformity with this Act, was made, not only legally, but solely and exclusively for a specific object. That object had been accomplished, and her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent was no longer burthened with the obligation which the Act imposed on her, and to meet which the grant was made. If, therefore, there ever was a case in which the legal maxim, cessante ratione cessat lex applied, this was the case, for it must be obvious to everyone that, with the cessation of the specific purpose for which the grant was made, the grant itself must cease. 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 circumstances of the Princess, now Queen Victoria, would, even with the 8,000l. proposed to be given by way of increase, leave her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent an income of only 24,000l. and not 30,000l. a-year. If he had understood his right hon. Friend correctly, it was the intention of the Government to give her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent a clear income of 30,000l., and, for one, he would not object to that grant, but he believed that could not be done without going into a fresh Committee, for the purpose of reviving the grant of 6,000l., with a view to its being continued. He threw out this suggestion because he feared that, otherwise, his right hon. Friend would not be able to carry his own purpose into effect.

thanked his right hon. Friend for the objection which he had stated, and the mode in which he 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 30,000l. 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 unanimously 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. He could tell his right hon. Friend, that he had not undertaken 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 be considered merely in the light of a supplementary grant, the course which former precedents had pointed of 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 22,000l. 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 30,000l. a year. He should, however, cause a proper inquiry to be 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 subject of grants of this kind was so deservedly respected by every hon. Member of that House. 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 8,000l., 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 hon. 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 intention of the resolution into full effect by filling up the blanks themselves.

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 support 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: Certainly.] If such had been the case, it was only right that they should see whether the course which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was pursuing was the regular one or not.

took that opportunity of saying a very few words with which if he had been in his place last night he should have troubled the House. If he had been present he should certainly have felt it his duty to express his concurrence in the views of the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Hume), although he believed what his hon. Friend had stated did not meet with the general approbation of the House. It did, however, appear to him that the proposed provision was not justified on good and satisfactory grounds. He could not help saying, however unsuitable the statement might be to the judgment of most Gentlemen in that House, that his opinion was confirmed by those with whom he had communication out of that House, and, he believed, by many persons throughout the country. When he looked at the present income of her Royal Highness, which was 22,000l. a-year, and found that an addition of 8,000l. was proposed to it, he really could not see sufficient ground for making an additional charge to that amount on the people of England. If he could allow himself on this occasion to be swayed by respect and esteem for the character of her Royal Highness, undoubtedly he should readily accede to this grant, and even a much larger one; but he maintained that his judgment of the personal character of her Royal Highness should not prompt him to give her unnecessarily an additional income, and ought not by any means to form the leading consideration in determining his vote. He was sure that so far as the incomes of those who composed the royal family were concerned allusion to personal character had been generally disclaimed, and decidedly never made a leading ground for deciding the vote of the House. When, too, h considered that in the present situation of her Royal Highness she was relieved from a large outlay, he could not but declare that the proposition for increasing her income was made at a very unsuitable season. If he had any such connection with any Member of the royal family as would authorize him to tender to them a respectful opinion, he would certainly take the liberty of offering them his humble advice, and of saying that they who were in an exalted position should impose as slight a burden as possible for their support on the people. And he was quite sure that in expressing these sentiments, so far from speaking in a manner derogatory to the esteem and respect entertained towards the royal family, he should be only giving utterance to the opinions of that large portion of the community who entertained those feelings in the very strongest degree. He thought it incumbent on him to express what he had now said, more particularly because he was one of those who took the strongest view of the duty of economising the public money. He often, therefore, felt bound to resist the claims made on the public purse by those who belonged to the middle station, and to that more humble than it. He could not take that course with satisfaction to his own feelings or conscience, unless he was prepared to exercise the same scrutinising investigation into the claims of those who filled an exalted station, and to mete out the same measure towards those in whose favour every respect which could be derived from position was enforced. This grant ought, in his opinion, never to have been proposed, and he felt convinced that it never could be justified by her Majesty's Ministers on tenable grounds.

said, that in much of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down he concurred, but he, at the same time, thought the hon. Gentleman 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 admirable 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. 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 education which had effected these accomplishments which now adorned their Queen. It was upon these two grounds that he had given his support to the motion of the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). If the grant had been proposed merely as a testimony of their respect and admiration for her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent he would agree that it ought not to be granted. He thought it would be a very bad precedent to give the public money away merely out of respect or esteem to individuals, because they held exalted situations, 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 Highness the Duchess of Kent had performed.

said, that t boh sides of the House the real facts of the case seemed not to be understood. matter was one of simple calculation, and as the right hon. Gentleman he Chancellor of the Exchequer, had apologied for the manner in which he had discharged his duty he (Mr. Courtenay) would not hesitate to supply one deficiency in the statement which the right hon. 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. Gentlemen on both sides of the House seemed to suppose that this was an additional grant of 8,000l., 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 calculations, would give a sum of 30,000l. and it was, therefore, clear that the burthen to the public would be diminished to the extent of that sum.