RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 7 August 1876)

MR. J. COWEN
said, before the Resolution was passed, he desired to make a few observations. To put himself in Order he begged to move that the amount be not allowed. He did that, not because he disapproved of the course the Government had adopted in commuting this Pension. On the contrary, he approved of the arrangement by which the 756 annual payment was to be commuted by the payment of a lump sum. It was undesirable, however, for the subject to pass out of consideration without some remark. Hon. Members might not be aware of the circumstances under which this large pension was granted. The facts were these—The pension was conferred on the family of the Duke of Schomberg in 1690. This nobleman was one of the Dutch followers and favourites who were imported into this country by the Prince of Orange. He was made Commander of the Army, and sent to Ireland to suppress the rising of the partizans of King James. He was general of the English Forces that fought the famous battle of the Boyne, and when directing his troops, was killed by an accidental shot from one of his own soldiers. His patron, King William, conferred upon his family a pension of £4,000 a-year. This was paid them for some time, but in 1702 the amount was reduced from £4,000 to £2,600 a-year, which was settled on his family for ever. The grant had been partly commuted since that time, and now the sum paid was, he believed, something like £1,100 per annum. The present holder of the pension had received it for 20 years, and had got from the Exchequer of this country no less a sum than £42,000. Indeed, the full amount that had been paid to the heirs of the Duke of Schomberg since the battle of the Boyne had been little short of half-a-million of money. He did not wish to comment adversely either on the military or personal character of the Duke. No doubt he was an able soldier, and as far as he (Mr. Cowen) knew, a worthy man. But one or two facts should be recollected. At the time he was killed he was 82 years of age. He was not an English general, but a soldier of fortune. He had served in the Dutch, French, Portuguese, and Brandenburg Armies before he came to England. Indeed, he placed his sword and his services at the disposal of any Government in Europe that would pay for them. He was a Marshal of France, a Generalissimo of Prussia, a Grandee of Portugal, and a Duke of England. The heirs of the man who had so many claims upon the consideration of other nations ought not to have entailed upon the heavily-taxed people of this country such a large sum as that he had just mentioned. He did not dis- 757 approve of the principle of pensioning successful military or naval commanders, men who had served their country, either in the field or on the sea, they were entitled not only to recompense, but to handsome recompense. He would treat such men not only liberally, but generously. He could conceive instances when these pensions ought to descend to their wives and families for the first, and possibly the second generation; but surely there was neither justice nor fair play in saddling the revenues of this country with a payment of £500,000 during the last 200 years for the services that this Dutch partizan of our Whig King had rendered. He knew that he could not carry the House in a division against the pension, but it was incumbent on someone to make this protest before payment was actually agreed to.

§ Mr. W. H. SMITH
said, he could not discuss the justice of the payment. All he could say was, that the amount they now wished to vote was simply the commutation of an annual sum that had been paid for nearly two centuries. Some 200 years ago a sum was charged on the Post Office revenues for the heirs of the Duke of Schomberg, and the only effect of the hon. Member's Motion, if carried, would be that this pension would continue to be charged on the fund. It was a charge effected by Act of Parliament, and could only be repealed by Act of Parliament. He hardly thought Parliament would repeal an Act which gave certain persons an actual property in an income amounting to £1,080 a-year. It would be an act of confiscation, and a precedent which he believed the hon. Gentleman himself would be slow to set. The question for the House to consider was whether they should pay a round sum and be done with the pension, or they would keep on paying the annuity as heretofere.

§ DR. LUSH
quite approved of the course the hon. Member for Newcastle had taken in calling the attention of the House to the payment. He thought it a most objectionable one, and the practice of granting hereditary pensions ought to be discontinued. He understood that his hon. Friend's object in 758 calling attention to the matter was more to protest against such grants in the future than as an attempt to evade any responsibility the nation was now under.

§ LORD ELCHO
was of opinion that the proposition of the hon. Member for Newcastle would amount not only to confiscation, but to repudiation.

Mr. J. COWEN,
in reply, said, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing. As he had had an opportunity of calling attention to the subject he would withdraw his Resolution, and the payment, which they could not evade, would have to be agreed to.