CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS. (Hansard, 9 March 1883)

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, it was really surprising what the Government thought they could get at this Sitting. This Vote was in respect of arrears of fees duo to the Duke of Norfolk—for 14½ years at £60 a-year. The Prime Minister told them that nothing was put down in these Supplementary Estimates but what was absolutely necessary. The Duke of Norfolk had waited 14½ years; surely he could wait a few days more. If he (Mr. Labouchere) remembered rightly, there was a certain thing called the Statute of Limitations, under which no one could claim a debt above seven years old. He was glad to see the Law Adviser of the Crown present, because, perhaps, that hon. and learned Gentle- 2021 man would enlighten his mind as to whether the Duke of Norfolk had got a legal right to this money. Certainly, the noble Duke had not got any moral right to it. He (Mr. Labouehere) intended to take the sense of the Committee, no matter what explanation of the Tote might be given.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
expressed his surprise that the Financial Secretary had not given some explanation on this matter. Would the hon. Gentleman state whether any of these fees paid on the installation of the Kings of Saxony and of the Netherlands referred to the Garter, and what the fees were to which the Duke was entitled?

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
wished to know how it happened that this demand had been in arrear for 14 years? If the Government had had some dispute with the Duke of Norfolk as to his legal or moral right, the Committee might as well strengthen the hands of the Government and clear away this tax upon the public pocket. It was a most melancholy picture that the Committee should be engaged at this time of night in considering a matter of this kind; and he thought they would be acting the part of discreet legislators and guardians of the public purse by adjourning the Committee and re-assembling at 12 o'clock.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, there was no intention to press the next Vote, and explained that these installation fees were not involved in this Vote. These fees were given to Counts or Earls on their installation.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
begged to repeat his question as to what the creation fees were—what was created, and who was created, and why should the Duke get these fees more than anybody else?

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, the fees were not paid by any person. On succeeding to his title, the Duke became entitled to the annuity granted to his Predecessor. It represented the old Third Penny, which was given to every Earl on his taking charge of a country.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
thought there was no doubt that the Financial Secretary knew what these fees were; but he did not believe anybody else had the vaguest notion, except that the Dukes of Norfolk and the Earls of Surrey had received, since the time of Richard III., 2022 a sum of £60 a-year. He held that those families had received quite enough, and that the fact that they had received this money so long was sufficient reason for putting an end to the payments. These fees were utterly untenable in every sense, and he strongly protested against the doctrine laid down by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. He should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who was a good Radical, would have argued that if the country was not legally bound to pay these fees it should not pay them; but, on the contrary, the hon. Gentleman said—"It would be unhandsome not to pay money to the Duke; let us do it. Let us make merry Knights for the sake of the Duke of Norfolk; he has no legal right to this money; but let us give it to him." That was not his idea, and he should maintain his opposition.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, these fees had not been demanded for 14 years, and this was simply a Vote for the arrears. The fees would be demanded henceforth.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
asked the Solicitor General what remedy the Duke of Norfolk would have if this money was not paid?

§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)
replied, that he had not gone deeply into this matter; but he imagined the Duke would have a remedy by a Petition of Right, in the same way as any other person to whom a debt was due from the Crown.

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
wished to know when the demand was made for 14 years' arrears, and why the Government, when the Crown was already in negotiations with the Duke of Norfolk for the commutation of other existing annuities, did not seize the opportunity of commuting this annuity?

§ MR. COURTNEY
It is the same annuity.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
wished to know whether the Statute of Limitations applied or not?

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, it would not apply.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
thought the Committee were not in a position to refuse this Vote, as the figures were manipulated.

§ MR. COURTNEY
said, the hon. Member was apparently unaware of the power of the Committee. The Treasury 2023 could not pay this amount without the sanction of the Committee.

§ MR. ILLINGWORTH
thought the extravagant terms on which the commutation had taken place justified the Committee in not paying anything for which they were not fully and legally responsible.