§ Mr. Robinsonsaid, that as the right hon. Baronet at the head of his Majesty's Government was in his place, he would take the liberty of putting a question to him. He would ask, whether since last year, when he had put a question to the late Government respecting the income granted by Parliament to Prince Leopold, now King of Belgium, any money had been paid into his Majesty's Exchequer, on account of that illustrious personage—what was the amount of money paid in, if money had been paid in—and whether the right hon. Baronet would have any objection to lay on the Table an official account of the payment of money so received? He asked this question now, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he asked it last year, gave him to understand, that after the 1st of April, in the then next year a large sum would be paid into the Exchequer on the part of his Belgian Majesty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that a payment had been made into the Exchequer, in consequence of the conditional resignation by the king of Belgium of the annual pension formerly granted to him by Parliament. That 531 payment amounted to 4,000l., but he understood that the trustees appointed by King Leopold were prepared to make an additional payment, and that it was only owing to the absence of some of the trustees, whose signature was necessary to authorize the payment, that that payment had not been already made. He believed that the payment to which he had alluded would be made very shortly, and that arrangements would be entered into for the purpose of securing the appropriation of it at regular periods in future to the objects for which King Leopold had destined it. He had no objection to lay an official account of this payment on the Table of the House, but, for the reasons which he had already stated, the House would see that that account would lead to a very erroneous conclusion.
§ Mr. Robinsonwas so disappointed by the answer which he had just received, that he begged leave to make a distinct Motion for a return of the monies which had been paid in.
§ Mr. Humesuggested that, after the statement of the right hon. Baronet that certain impediments of form only had caused a delay in the payment of an additional sum into the Exchequer by the trustees of the king of Belgium, it might be as well if the hon. Member for Worcester withdrew his Motion for the present, in order to bring it forward again in a few days.
At a later period in the evening the following explanation was given by
Lord Stanley.The trustees entered upon the discharge of their duties in June last, having declined to act till certain liabilities and incumbrances were at an end. The right hon. baronet was correct in stating, that in addition to the amount already accounted for, there was a very considerable sum now lying at the banker's, and which would be paid into the Exchequer as soon as the signatures of all the trustees could be obtained, it being necessary that the whole body should sign an order for payment. The right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. E. Ellice), who was one of his trustees, was not at present in the country, but the moment he returned the transfer would be made. During the three-quarters of a year that the trustees had been acting, the balance that accrued was something more than 27,000l. In the course of the present year he anticipated that the amount carried to the public 532 credit would not be less than 34,000l. Next year the payments out of the annuity would be diminished by 3,000l., on account of the rent of Marlborough-house; and in a year or two he supposed that the public would receive 40,000l. out of the original 50,000l.
§ Mr. Robinson,after the satisfactory explanation offered by the noble Lord, felt no hesitation in withdrawing his notice of Motion on the subject.