HC Deb 21 August 1839 vol 50 cc468-70

On the Order of the Day being read for bringing up the report on the Duke of Marlborough's Pension Bill,

Mr. Wakley

said, he hoped some one in the House would divide with him against bringing up the report. He did think that, on principle, a more objectionable measure could not have been submitted to the House. The hon. Member for Kilkenny had already offered a fruitless opposition to the bill. This bill ought to have a different title. It should be entitled "A Bill for increasing the Pension of the Duke of Marlborough by 375l. a-year." If such a title were adopted, it would be understood by the public; but the public would have great difficulty in comprehending why a Duke was relieved on this occasion, when, if a person of less consequence came before the House for redress, he would find none. But being a Duke, of course he had an ample number of supporters in the House, and got a Gentleman to argue his case with such great ability, that he induced the right hon. Gentleman—he had nearly said the noble Lord—to bring in this bill. The right hon. Gentleman had now a great sympathy with Dukes, because he was about to be associated with them. He had no such sympathy; and he looked at the case with reference to the merits of the question, and not to the situation of the particular individual who claimed redress. He wanted to know if the Duke had performed any public services which entitled him to the consideration of the House? He might have voted as hon. Gentlemen had wished on sundry occasions in the Upper House, but it would be paying dear for his votes to give him and all who came after him, 375l. a-year for what he had done in this respect. How did the House deal with the poor under the Poor-law Amendment Act? How did it treat the Chelsea pensioners, who had no person to represent their interest in that House? But a Duke, having considerable family interest, came there and found relief. The House could show its sympathy in that case, but it could show none with reference to the poor of this country. He, therefore, moved that the report be received that day three months.

Mr. Hume

said, before strangers withdrew, he wished to state his entire concurrence in the views of his hon. Friend. He had opposed the bill on a former occasion, and, although he had had a seconder, he had not had the good fortune to have any supporters. Finding the opinion of the House to be entirely against him, he thought it unnecessary to offer any opposition on the present occasion, having already recorded his opinion on the subject; but if any other hon. Member wished to divide, he would not withhold his support from him. It had been argued that the Duke of Marlborough was entitled to the 5,000l. a year Parliament had originally allotted to him. According to that argument, this bill would not place him in the situation he ought to be in. Parliament thought fit to tax his pension, first 4s. in the pound, and then again 1s. 6d. in the pound; the latter deduction amounted to 375l., and he considered the present bill in the light of a grant for that amount; for he held that, at the present moment, the Duke of Marlborough was on more entitled to this than if he had never had it; and such was the opinion of the Treasury in the year 1811, who had made a deduction for the two preceding years from the pension, thus carrying the intention of the Parliament into effect. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend, that if any person in humble circumstances had applied for this relief, he would not have obtained it so easily as the noble Duke had. He agreed with the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, that the whole of the pension ought to have been retained, if any was retained. He objected to it on another ground, that it ought to have been brought in earlier. He could not see why the present Duke of Marlborough should receive more than his father.

Mr. Aglionby

, as a member of the committee, felt bound to state, that the hon. Member for Finsbury had completely mistaken the course adopted by that com- mittee. In that committee the question, whether the claimant was a peer, or the meanest subject in the realm, was not taken into consideration. The hon. Member was entirely in, error as to the votes of that House, which had never denied the right of the Duke with respect to the 1s. 6d. duty. When he went into the committee, from all that he had heard in that House, he had a bias in his mind against the claims of the noble Duke; but after the arguments that were adduced before that committee, and the further evidence that had been brought forward, his opinion was entirely changed, and he now believed that the Duke had a just and equitable claim to be relieved from the 1s. 6d. duty, but his opinion with respect to the 4s. duty remained the same. He hoped, therefore, the bill would meet with the unanimous concurrence of the House, because the recommendations of the committee had on every point been unanimous. He must say, that it was not fair of the hon. Member for Finsbury to put the question on the ground of the claims of the high station of the Duke of Marlborough, because it had never been brought forward or supported in the committee on such grounds.

Mr. Brotherton

said, whatever defence was attempted to be made, there was no doubt the bill would be an increase of the pension of the Duke of Marlborough, who had for thirty years acquiesced in the deduction. If any of the relations of sailors or soldiers applied for pensions after such a period, they were told it was too late—the books were closed. Why should not the same principle be applicable to all?

The House divided on the original question.—Ayes 48; Noes 5: Majority 43.

List of the Ayes.
Adam, Admiral Grimsditch, T.
Aglionby, H. A. Hawes, B.
Baring, F. T. Hobhouse, T. B.
Bernal, R. Hodges, T. L.
Broadley, H. Hodgson, R.
Callaghan, D. Hoskins, K.
Campbell, Sir. J. Howard, P. H.
Chichester, J. P. B. Loch, J.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Lowther, J. H.
Dalmeny, Lord Lushington, C.
Divett, E. Lygon, hon. General
Eliot, Lord Meynell, Captain
Ellis, J. Morpeth, Viscount
Ewart, W. Morris, D.
Freshfield, J. W. O'Connell, M. J.
Gordon, R. O'Ferralt, R. M.
Grey, rt, bon. Sir C. Parker, J.
Parker, R. T. Sanford, E. A.
Pechell, Captain Smith, R. V.
Pigot, D. R. Stock, Dr.
Price, Sir R. Townley, R. G.
Pryme, G. Wood, C.
Redington, T. N.
Rice, right hon. T. S. TELLERS.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Stanley, E. J.
Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A. Steuart, R.
List of the NOES.
Brotherton, J. Vigors, N. A.
Duncombe, T. TELLERS.
Finch, F. Wakley, T.
Hector, C. J. Hume, J.