HC Deb 22 June 1871 vol 207 cc400-1
MR. ANDERSON

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Who are the parties now in receipt of £4,000 a-year pension granted in 1790 to the heirs of William Penn; whether he is satisfied that the grounds on which it was granted were such as to make it a fair and legitimate perpetual burden on the people of this Country; and, whether it is not desirable and possible to arrange some limit to its duration?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

In reply, Sir, to the first Question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that the person at present in receipt of the pension is Mr. William Stewart, the representative of William Penn. With respect to the grounds on which that pension was granted, the circumstances are such as no Englishman can think of without regret. The family of William Penn were the possessors of property in the State of Pennsylvania, estimated by the Commissioners at £500,000. That property was lost to the family entirely in consequence of their adhering to the mother country in the war between the mother country and her colony. In 1790 Mr. Pitt proposed, as a very inadequate compensation, as he thought, for the loss sustained by a family which had rendered great public service in the Plantation of Pennsylvania, that a pension of £4,000 should be granted to them. So far as I can collect, the sense of the House rather was in favour of £5,000 than £4,000; but ultimately it was agreed between Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox, without any dissentient voice, that the amount should be £4,000. It was declared that the pension should be placed on the Consolidated Fund, and be considered in the nature of real property, and subject to all the provisions of any settlement as real property would be. The pension was removed from the Consolidated Fund and placed on the Estimates, but I am distinctly of opinion that, under the circumstances, and after an enjoyment of 80 years, it would not be consistent with public credit and good faith to alter it. The third Question of the hon. Gentleman is whether it is not desirable and possible to arrange some limit to the duration of this pension. Certainly I think it is not possible or desirable to limit the grant that Parliament made; but in several cases we have purchased up such pensions—the pension, for instance, of the Duke of Grafton—and I do think such a proceeding would be both wise and prudent. I will give my attention to the subject, and see whether some terms could not be come to with the heirs of William Penn for purchasing up this pension.