[BILL 43.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 February 1866)

§ MR. HADFIELD

said, he did not wish to oppose the grant of £15,000 a year; but, looking to the experience which the country had in former years, he thought the grant should be made inalienable. Creditors should not have the means or the motive for extravagance and debt. Those who recollected past times would remember 1270 the pain, the dissatisfaction and the disgrace which arose from the want of a provision of this kind. They should not grant such a sum as this for creditors. It was an ample amount to secure the country against such obloquy and disgrace, and as there should be no temptation to traders to give credit to one in the position of His Royal Highness, the allowance should be for his absolute enjoyment. The Blenheim estate was inalienable, and so was the estate purchased for the Duke of Wellington. For public services they made grants with regard to annuities and property which they took care the individual who first received them should not dispose of. He would not mention names in the past, but, hypothetically, might not a person who was to receive an income like this be so incumbered that without it he might be in want? Supposing creditors had the power of coming upon property of this kind, an inducement would be given to credit, and such an inducement, in the case of grants for public services, had led to families being very much incumbered. Since the accession of Her Majesty the prudence, economy, and good management which had marked the Royal Household had given great satisfaction to the country and great strength to the Throne. But if one, possessed of these means, should be seduced by creditors they knew not what might happen. Money might be lost by gambling for instance. Therefore, for the satisfaction of the people who bestowed this magnificent sum on His Royal Highness, which he begged to say he did not begrudge, he hoped to receive an assurance that it would be reserved for his own personal enjoyment.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, the remarks of my hon. Friend may be understood as having reference to two perfectly distinct objects, both of which are of great importance in themselves, and both of which may legitimately be held in view by Members of Parliament. The first is the security that there will not be a renewal of the demand made in respect of Prince Alfred, in consequence of the waste and disappearance of this provision. This is one object—that Parliament should know that it will not he called upon to do over again that which it is now called upon to do. Unfortunately, in former times—very different times, which I hope I may say will never return —there were many examples which justified Parliament in exercising a wise jealousy on this subject. With respect to 1271 the other object contemplated by my hon. Friend the welfare of the Prince himself, which, as my hon. Friend says, would be seriously compromised if we supposed it possible that this annuity could be improvidently used, I would make this remark. I am bound to say that the more absolute this grant is to the Crown—and this is a grant to the Crown, and not to Prince Alfred—the more does the House discharge itself of responsibility and make it difficult for any renewal of the demand on Parliament. If we were to attempt any limitations on the Crown as to the mode of dealing with the annuity, we should be more likely to lay ourselves open to a renewal of these demands. I speak in the abstract. Practically, as it is not probable the contingency will occur, we need not apprehend any likelihood of the kind. Of the precise legal incidents attached to this annuity it is not for me to speak with great confidence. My hon. Friend will observe that the Bill leaves it to Her Majesty to determine the manner and the conditions of the grant of the annuity. I apprehend that this being a grant to the Crown, and intended for a permanent provision for the Prince, Her Majesty will proceed in the regular course to execute a deed, and on the terms of that deed will depend the precise legal incidents of this annuity. I think I may venture to assure my hon. Friend that this annuity will not be in the position of property which can be conveyed away. Beyond that I do not know that it is possible to go, because we are all perfectly well aware that indirect understandings may be entered into between those who borrow and those who lend, and attempts to fetter or prevent such understandings commonly have no other effect except that of raising the rate of interest on the money lent. I quite agree in the prudence of my hon. Friend's view, with respect to placing this annuity in a position of absolute certainty, so that it may not be taken away from the person for whose benefit it is intended. I confess, however, I think he may rest at ease upon this subject. Having made these observations, which apply to such a contingency as he has mentioned, it is but just, fair, and respectful to the Royal Family that I should say on my own part, and I am sure I may say so on the part of my hon. Friend, that these remarks are made on the one side and on the other on grounds purely abstract and general, and that they have no reference whatever to the ease of 1272 Prince Alfred, with regard to whom in every respect we have reason to entertain the most favourable anticipations. He is one whose illustrious birth has been accompanied by an education, careful and judicious, as becomes his high station and its responsibilities; who has matured many manly and valuable qualities in the pursuit of a profession which is dear to the people of this country, and who is endowed by nature with gifts and talents which make him in every way worthy to be the son of his distinguished father. It is not, therefore, from anything connected with the character of Prince Alfred—and I am quite sure I am now speaking for my hon. Friend as well as myself—that this short discussion has taken place, but upon the grounds of general prudence which it is the duty of the Government and of Members of Parliament invariably to keep in view.