§ On the Order of the Day being read for the second reading of this bill,
§ Mr. Granville Harcourtrose to present a petition from the Duke of Marlborough praying to be heard at the bar of the House by counsel against the passing of this bill, which has been introduced for the purpose of reimposing upon all pensions the tax, which was virtually repealed by an omission in the Pension Act of last Session. He reminded the House that all pensions now granted for great and illustrious military services were paid to their holders free from any deduction whatever, and argued that it never could have been the intention of the Parliament of Queen Anne, which granted to the great Duke of Marlborough, for his victories at Blenheim and Ramillies, the pension which his descendant now enjoyed, to diminish its amount by submitting it to a tax of 27½ per cent., which for some years past had been levied upon it. He did not know whether he was in order in offering to present this petition now. He had not been a party to the presentation of it. If his advice had been asked, he should rather have suggested the propriety of introducing some clause into the bill to exempt the case of the Duke of Marl-borough's pension from its operation. He hoped that this bill would, at any rate, offer an opening for some discussion of the noble Duke's case. Considering the change which had taken place in the value of money since the reign of Queen Anne, and considering also that the Parliament of that day evidently intended that the Duke of Marlborough should in all future time receive the full amount of the pension granted to the illustrious hero on whom it was first bestowed, free from all taxes and deductions whatsoever, he thought that the subject-matter of the petition was well entitled to dispassionate attention. Living as he did in Oxfordshire, and representing as he did that county, of which the park and castle of Blenheim were such distinguished ornaments, he might perhaps be forgiven for stating that that noble monument of national gratitude was in some risk of not being sufficiently attended to, and of not being kept in that state of, 726 conservation which Parliament would naturally desire. After several other observations, which Were quite inaudible in the gallery, the hon. Member, as we understood him, asked leave of the Speaker, if it was not contrary to the rules of the House, to bring up the petition which he held in his hand.
§ The Speakersaid, the hon. Member might adopt a more regular; mode of proceeding than that of presenting the petition.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequersuggested that the proper course for the hon. Member would be, to propose a clause in Committee to effect his object.
§ Petition withdrawn.
Mr. Goulburnthought the House ought to have some information as to the grounds of making that a permanent duty which, from the period of its imposition, had been only annual. The preamble of the bill, which stated that doubts had arisen as to the right to levy the duty after the 5th of July, 1835, was perfectly unfounded, for nothing could be clearer than that the duty could not be levied after the expiration of the Act under which it had been granted. The subject admitted of no doubt.
Mr. Francis Baringassured the right hon. Gentleman that an impression did exist, till recently, that the duty might be levied, notwithstanding the expiration of the annual Act, and-that to remove all doubt, and clear the matter up, the present bill was brought in. As to the right hon. Gentleman's objection to rendering that perpetual which had been hitherto granted annually, if he would take into account that the duty amounted to no more than 10,000l. a-year, the right hon. Member must perceive that there were no great grounds for jealousy on the subject, as no very considerable check was taken out of the power of Parliament by the alteration.
§ The bill was read a second time.