§ Mr. Hunt rose, for the purpose of asking a question of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A vast deal had been said in the public papers respecting the non-attendance of the Duchess of Kent and the Princess Victoria at the Coronation.
§ The Speaker
The hon. Member, in putting a question, must take care not to raise an argument, upon it.
§ The Speaker
The hon. Member will see, that any explanation of facts is disorderly, inasmuch as it may create debate when there is no question before the House.
§ The Speaker
And the hon. Gentleman must have likewise heard the comments to which that breach of order gave rise.
§ Mr. Hunt
I really do not know how I am to put the question I have to ask. I hope I may be allowed to state my facts first, and to put my question upon them afterwards. It has been stated in the public papers, that the Duchess of Kent, and the Princess Victoria did not attend at the late Coronation. Various editorial arguments have been raised upon their non-attendance, into which it is not my intention to enter at present. These arguments in the Papers had led to divers attacks on the Duchess of Kent, and the young Princess, her daughter. Now, I think that the Princess Victoria, and her mother, the Duchess of Kent, ought to be protected from such attacks; arid I, therefore, put a question to the noble Lord opposite, which, I trust, he will answer. Will the noble Lord, or any other of his Majesty's Ministers, be kind enough to state the reasons why the Duchess of Kent, and the Princess Victoria, did not attend at his Majesty's Coronation? I should have stated, that such and such reasons were given in the newspapers for their non-attendance, and should have asked whether those reasons were true or not, only I have been told that it is disorderly.
§ Lord Althorp
replied, that great misrepresentations had appeared upon this subject in the newspapers. On hearing that the Coronation was announced for a certain day, her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent stated, in a letter to his Majesty, the reasons which induced her to wish to be excused from attending on that occasion. Those reasons appeared satisfactory to his Majesty, and his Majesty had, in consequence, excused her attendance. It was not for him to enter into an explanation of the mistakes which had appeared on this subject—he would only say, that 265 the statements to which the hon. member for Preston referred, were not consistent with fact.
§ Mr. Croker
thought the question of the hon. member for Preston a most proper question, and all England would rejoice at its having elicited this official explanation.