THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH’S ANNUITY.

Dunstan Times, Issue 600, 17 October 1873, Page 3

THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH’S ANNUITY.

(FROM THU HOME NEWS.) 11l the House of Commons, on the 31st o: July, the second reading of the Duke of E iinburgh’s Annuity Bill being moved, Mr. P. A. Taylor moved its rejection, by nay of protest, as he sai l, against au unwa,ranted anti unprecedented proposal. He co sidered that the Crown was best able to defray the grant out of the Civil List, and asserted that there was a belief in the country that the Crown had accumulated 1 irge savings out of that fund. Mr. Auders.m seconded the motion, also considering that the grunt ought to come out of the Civil List. After remarks by Colonel North and Mr Bouverie, ard an explanati >n from Mr. Gladstone, the Bill was read a second time, and on a division, was carried by one him I red and sixty-two to eighteen. On the following day, in Committee, Sir C. Dilke re-opened the question of precedent, ami condeuded that the case of the Duke of Cambridge, relied upon by the Premier, was not applicable to the case before the House. Mr. Gladstone warmly insisted.on the contrary new, and added, in indignant tones, that when a very limited number of members thought proper to place themselves in such strong and remarkable opposition to an overwhelming m ijority of the House, without distinction of party, the proceeding had something about it that seemed indeemt. This remark evoked cries of “Oh:” from the Radical benches ; and when Mr. Gladstone had-resumed his seat, Mr. Muntz rose, and protested against the language of the Premier. The right honorable gentleman had declared that it was indecent to oppose the grant ; but he begged to remind the right hj morable gentleman that not only our forefathers, but some of the rising generation had discussed these subjects without being taunted as indecent. Why the Prime Minister himself had snpportel Colonel Sibthorp in resisting the grant of 53,000/. proposed by Lord Melbourne’s Government io the late Prince Consort, and, with Mr. Disraeli, had voted in the majority to reduce the amount to 30,000b Did the honorable gentleman consider that indecent? Surely then, members were free to differ in opinion from the Prime Minister, and were not to be silenced upon any subject which was brought before the House. Mr. Gladst me admitted that honorable members had a perfect right to give expression to their opinions, and even to refuse the vote a 1 together if they thought fit. As to the word indecent, when he used it he was vindicating the House of Commons against a small minority of the House—- (“ Oh !” from the Radicals)—and said there was a point at which opposition to au overwhelming majority became indecent He was glad, however to withdraw the ex-pres-ion. Mr. Newdegate inquired whether the contemplated marriage, of which everyb idy approved, was to be solemnised according to the rites of any other Church than those of the Church of England ; but Mr. Gladstone declined to gu beyond the statement he hid already made, that he was confident the whole arrangement would receive the approval of the House and the country. Eventually the Bill was passed through Committee.