Page images
PDF
EPUB

Whereupon Motion made, and Question put

"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her Majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund of the United ceeding the sum of eight thousand pounds, to make Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exa suitable provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge."

MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I agree with the noble Lord the First Minister that this proposition ought to be considered upon its own merits, and that we ought not to mix it up with any arrangements formerly made as to His Majesty the King of Hanover. I think the noble Lord was quite correct in stating, that when the Committee is called upon to consider a message from the Crown with regard to a subject of this character, there are, in fact, two considerations before us: first, whether any provision should be made for the illustrious individual whose name is recommended to the consideration of Parliament; and, if that question is answered in the affirmative, what would be a provision that, in the language of the Message, would be considered suitable?" There are not certainly two opinions upon the question that the illustrious individual to whom our attention is called is one for

more than 15,000l. in the whole; other- | in the resolution, instead of "12,000l.," wise, under the provisions of the Act, the and he should take the sense of the Comlast survivor would have been entitled to mittee upon it. the whole 60,000l. For many years all that was granted to the Duke of Gloucester was 8,000l. a year; but the noble Lord had omitted to state that 6,000l. was granted to the late Duke of Cambridge for the education of his son; and at the same time a similar sum was granted to the Duke of Cumberland. At that time he (Mr. Hume) moved an Amendment that the Duke of Cumberland should not receive that allowance unless his son was educated in England, which was passed. But up to the present hour the late Duke of Cambridge had been receiving 6,000l. a year on this account. He wished, then, to put it to the House whether they would not adopt the precedent of the Duke of Gloucester's case, and consent to vote only 8,000l.? It was well known that the great increase in the expenses of living had led to an increase of salaries, and that an amount had been added to the allowances of the Royal Dukes, to put them upon a supposed equality with others who were receiving large salaries. But those times had gone by; we had returned to bullion payments, and all expenses had either come down or must come down. In a time of peace, like the present, the House ought to study economy; and as this was the first opportunity that Parliament had had for some years of deal-whom some provision should be made. ing with the allowances to a Prince of the Blood, he hoped they would see that the same amount which was enjoyed by the Duke of Gloucester was large and liberal at the present moment. He wished to see the Royal Family maintained in the dignity which became their position; but he did not wish to see them in the enjoyment of such very large sums from the Consolidated Fund, whilst there was so much want and poverty in other circles. As trustees of the public purse, the House ought to consider whether, by granting the amount now proposed, they would be doing justice to their trust under all the existing pressure and difficulty. He was glad to hear that the Duke of Cambridge was following his profession as a soldier with so much merit, and that he was beloved by the Army; but 8,000l., with the emoluments of his military command, and the third of the income left by his father, would, he contended, be adequate to enable him to maintain the position to which he was born. Under these circumstances he should move, as an Amendment, that "8,000l." be inserted

The

The Committee will consider the posi-
tion in which an English Prince of the
blood is placed. It is one which gives
him very peculiar claims upon the favour-
able consideration of Parliament.
House of Commons should recollect that it
is the constitutional jealousy of Parliament
that has virtually deprived the Sovereigns
of this realm of the power of making
charges upon their estates in favour of
Princes of the blood; and, therefore,
when a Prince of the blood comes before
us, under the circumstances of the Duke
of Cambridge, we must always remember
it is the consequence in great part of
the conduct of the House of Commons.
There is another consideration which
ought never to be omitted from the con-
sideration of a proposition of this nature,
namely, that the House of Commons was
a party to the passing of an Act which
prevents any Prince of the blood in Eng-
land from assisting or increasing his for-
tune by means which are open to all other
subjects. When we consider how much
the House of Commons has been concerned,

tions in the times. I see no other reason why the reduction should be made; and I think, in consequence of the alteration in the times, the reduction should be made. I am of opinion, under all the circumstances of the case, taking every point into consideration, duly considering the state of the country, and especially of those classes with whom we are particularly connected on this side, it is a just, and fair, and by no means an immoderate proposition; and I trust, therefore, although the hon. Member for Montrose, faithful to his traditional office, has suggested an Amendment, that, upon due consideration, he will not feel it his duty to press it to a division, but will agree with the majority that the proposition is, under all the circumstances, a just and fair provision for the illustrious Prince.

MR. BRIGHT said, he had felt rather disappointed in hearing the statement of the noble Lord. In one of the proposals to which he directed the attention of the Committee, the noble Lord had, if he understood him aright, stated that the late Duke of Cambridge had divided his property equally among his three children, but had attached to the share he had left to his son certain annuities which for some time would eat up the whole of that son's share-that, in fact, those annuities amounting to 1,600l. a year, would take away the whole amount. Now, if that was the case, he thought it a very unfortunate circumstance. A daughter who had been married some years since received an allowance of 3,000l. a year from that House

first, with the settlement of the civil list, which has prevailed now for a long period of time, and, secondly, with the passing of the Royal Marriage Act, I am sure the House will remember that English Princes of the blood are in a peculiar position, which permits their claims to be urged with no little effect. But, with regard to the Duke of Cambridge, there are other considerations. The House should not forget that the marriage of the late lamented Duke was a marriage which was very much desired by the country at large. It was the general wish of the country, from a lamentable catastrophe in the Royal Family, that the sons of George III. should lose no time in forming alliances which would ensure the permanence of that Royal Family, with which the people of this country associated their best feelings. That is a consideration peculiar to the case of the present Duke of Cambridge. Nor is it possible to be insensible to the personal character and claims of His Royal Highness; and I think I am only expressing what every one feels, that his conduct has endeared him to the country. He has shown that he possesses many of those qualities which are popular and esteemed, and he leads a life which is, at the same time, spirited and decorous. I think, therefore, there can be no want of unanimity upon the first question before us. The second proposition, as to the amount, is a much more important question. It is quite impossible that any Gentleman who sits on this side of the House should not be sen--["No!"]-Yes, commencing from the sible of the great distress that prevails in the country, especially among those classes whom it is our fortune to represent; although I am rather surprised that an acknowledgment of complaint and distress should come from the other side of the House. Whatever might be my general feelings upon the subject under other circumstances, I cannot consider the present proposition without some relation to the state of our constituents. The proposition of the Government is founded upon the precedent of the case of the Duke of Gloucester; and, upon the whole, a more just and apt precedent could not be cited. But I cannot but observe that Her Majesty's Ministers, with discretion, prudence, and wisdom, have proposed an amount much reduced from that granted to His late Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. I assume that reduction to have been made in consequence of the altera

death of her father. He thought it unfortunate then, that the property of the late Duke of Cambridge should have been left in such a manner, as that the whole share left to the son should be taken away by annuities, thus in point of fact binding up that property, leaving him without provision, and throwing him entirely for support upon that House. When a provision was made for the Duchess of Mecklenburg, there was some objection taken on the ground that the provision that had been made for the Duke of Cambridge was sufficient to allow him to provide for his children; but it was argued by the Government, that it would not be fair to make any deductions from such provision, and that they were bound to pass a separate vote for the daughter. Well, if that vote for the daughter was considered sufficient, he thought it unfortunate that the bulk of the property should be left in the same

direction, leaving the whole future provi- | Minister of the day to propose any such sion for the son to a vote of that House. provision for the whole of the family. But He was not going to say a word against the the present Duke of Cambridge was the late Duke of Cambridge: he believed that first cousin of the Queen; and he doubted no man in that House would do it; but whether they were justified in proposing looking at the statement of the noble Lord, for the first cousin of the Queen 12,000l. it appeared that the late Duke's receipts a year, if they were not able to convince commenced so far back as 1778, that for themselves that Parliament and the couna long period that sum was a share of try would not consent at a future day to a 60,000l. per annum, that it afterwards larger provision for the children of the was 15,000l., afterwards 21,000l., and Queen. His opinion was, that by that for many years 27,000l. He was not time such a proposal would not be satisaware of the precise amount of his re- factory to the House or the country, and ceipts as Viceroy of Hanover; but he did he thought they might with great prothink that Parliament, considering the priety take that into consideration in fixsources which his Royal Highness's emolu- ing the present vote; and if, as he believed, ments came from, was entitled to expect 12,000l. a year for all the children of the the same care in providing for a family, reigning Sovereign would be too large a which was the duty of its head, whether in sum, then it would be an unfortunate prea cottage or a palace, and that it would cedent to vote 12,000l. for the Duke of have been much more satisfactory, if, after Cambridge, who was but the cousin of the having so great an income for so long a Queen. There might be those who attriperiod, some provision had been made in buted to himself and to others who took a this case, which would have rendered it similar view of the question, feelings as reunnecessary for Parliament to vote such garded the Sovereign different from what an income for the children as it was now they themselves entertained. He would proposed to confer. However, what was make no answer to such persons. He bepassed could not be remedied, He was not lieved it might fairly be taken for granted about to contend that some provision should that every one shared in attachment to the not be made for the children of the late Sovereign, and wished that the various Duke of Cambridge, provided the property members of Her family should preserve was as had been stated to the House; but such dignity as was necessary to the instithere was one point which, in considering tutions of the country. But he thought whether the sum should be 12,000l. or that that Minister was no friend to the 8,000l., as proposed by his hon. Friend, Sovereign, nor a friend to the monarchical should not be lost sight of. They could principle, who proposed a vote of this nanot shut their eyes to the fact that there ture, which should not by its moderation was no institution, however valuable, which and reasonableness, recommend itself to might not be bought too dear; and there the intelligent population of the united could not be a doubt but that all friends kingdom. He greatly feared that this of the monarchy-as he trusted they all large vote would make an unfavourable were, should endeavour so to arrange af- impression, and that it would be anything fairs of this nature, as that the circum- but favourable to monarchical institutions, stances connected with the Royal Family which would be infinitely better preserved should not come before the people in an in the minds of the people of this country, aspect calculated to make unpleasant im- if the necessary burdens should be made pressions as regarded monarchical institu- as small as possible, and not, as he took tions. Now, the point he wished to put this vote to be, extravagant, and such a to the Committee was this. The present one as he had not expected the noble Lord Sovereign had a numerous family, and the to propose. He did not think this a questime would come when it would be neces- tion for precedent, but still, that cited by sary to make provision for the Queen's his hon. Friend was an important one. children. He asked the House then to The Duke of Gloucester had 8,000l. a look forward to the time when such a pro- year, to which 6,000l. was added, he beposition would be made by the Prime Min- lieved, for party purposes, by the Whig ister of the day. Would the House pro- Government of the time. The noble pose to give to every son and daughter of Lord was not responsible for that-he had the Queen, when of age, a sum equal to enough to be responsible for; but if there 12,000l. a year? He very much doubted was the least truth in the assertion, he whether it would be in the power of the thought that the noble Lord should be the

the bargain with the Crown had been made for life. The bargain, however, had been made, but it was a bargain which had been disadvantageous to the Crown of England. From a return on the table of the House, it appeared that from the time the bargain was first made, namely, from the accession of George III. up to the close of the reign of William IV., the sum formerly receiv

last to bring it forward and say, that having given 14,000l. to the Duke of Gloucester, 12,000l. would be moderate now. He did not mean to say, in discussing this question, one word unpalatable either to the Court or to the masses of the people out of doors; but he believed that 8,000l. was an ample provision, and that it was the most that Parliament ought to consent to. If after a man had received many thou-able by the Sovereigns of England amountsands of pounds for thirty, forty, or fifty years, he made no provision for his sons, and that Parliament stepped in and voted the enormous income of 12,000l. a year, it would not only be holding out no example to parents in these elevated positions, but would be holding out inducements in a contrary line, in the expectation that Parliament, with a generous disregard to public interests, might step in and make up their deficiencies. For these reasons, COLONEL RAWDON said, that from his and especially considering that a provision earliest years he had had the honour of must be made for the children of the Queen, calling the Duke of Cambridge his friend, he considered that they would be prejudic- and that for several years he had been in ing their interests in future, and the mon-intimate relations with him, which afforded archy, in the estimation of the people by granting the sum proposed by the noble Lord.

ed in the aggregate to 116,000,000l. sterling, while the sum actually granted to the Crown by Parliament in the same period amounted to only 69,000,000l.—leaving a clear balance of 47,000,000l. in favour of Parliament. Now, had that sum been in the hands of the Crown, there would have been no occasion for any appeal to Parliament for aid in making provision for any member of the Royal Family.

him ample opportunities of knowing his liberal and extensive charities; and these, he believed, would account for the fact that he had left so small a sum behind him for his family.

The MARQUESS of GRANBY was sure that every Member of the House was anxious to do honour to the name of the Duke COLONEL CHATTERTON: Sir, I trust of Cambridge; and it seemed to him that I may not be thought intrusive in offering the most obvious and natural way to do a few remarks upon the proposition of the honour to that name, was to grant to his noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's son the allowance which the dignity of his Government, particularly as I do not agree position and his high station in life ren-in all that has been advanced by the noble dered necessary. He thought there was Lord. Sir, I beg to say that no person no difference of opinion in the House that is more desirous than I am for the most some provision should be granted; the only rigid enonomy in every branch of the pubdifference was, as to what should be the lic service; but there are some cases, in amount of that provision. The hon. Mem- my mind, when it should give way to a ber for Manchester had said that he under- dignified liberality; and the fault I find stood the noble Lord to state that the an- with the noble Lord is, that he seems to nuities with which the income left to the have forgotten that word. Called upon as present Duke of Cambridge was burdened, we have been by Her Most Gracious Mawould entirely counterbalance that income.jesty's Message to make competent proHe (the Marquess of Granby) believed that vision and support for his Royal Highness the total income of his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, and his illustrious would only be about 9001. a year, so that it sister the Princess Mary, caused by their would be more than counterbalanced by the melancholy bereavement, and the loss the annuities. The hon. Member for Montrose Royal Family and the country have sushad stated that the allowance to the Duke tained by the death of the illustrious Prince, of Gloucester was at first only 8,000l. a whose character needs no eulogy from me, year; but the hon. Gentleman had not we are bound to attend to such recomshown that that sum was sufficient in that mendation; and, Sir, in my opinion, no case. In fact, the reason why it was raised person has more claims upon the geneto 14,000l. was that it was found inade-rosity and kindness of this House than the quate.

SIR R. H. INGLIS said, that the hon. Member for Montrose had regretted that

illustrious Person to whose comforts we are called upon to minister. Born as his Royal Highness has been in England,

educated in England, he has lived all his Thompson, Col. life in England, and is thoroughly English

in his tastes, his habits, and ideas; and these alone should make us provide for him liberally I had almost said profusely. Actuated, no doubt, by a desire to be of service to his country, this illustrious Prince entered the honourable profession of arms at an early period of life, and has acquired so complete a knowledge of it in all its branches as to deserve to be named the Decus et tutamen of the profession. Sir, as long as we are blessed with a monarchical government, so long, in my mind, are we bound by every feeling of loyalty and honour to provide liberally for the children of that family, appointed to govern us, as children of the State. Sir, with these views and ideas I need scarcely assure the noble Lord how cordially and warmly I offer him my humble support, which I beg to say would be much more warmly and cordially given if his proposal were made on a more liberal scale; and if the noble Lord would grant me his support, I would move that the annual income of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge should be raised to a similar amount as the late Duke of Gloucester's, namely, 14,000l. per annum. As regards Her Royal Highness the Princess Mary, I should say what the noble Lord has proposed, namely, 3,000l. per annum, may be sufficient as long as she remains under the care and guardianship of her Royal Mother.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 53; Noes 206 Majority 153.

[blocks in formation]

Walmsley, Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Wawn, J. T.

Williams, J.

TELLE

Hume, J.

Bright, J.

Original Question again proposed. MR. HUME then moved that the sum should be 10,000l. a year. This was still twice the amount of the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had the whole business of the country to attend to. For many years the sons of George III. did The hon. Baronet not receive so much. the Member for the University of Oxford had alleged that the Crown would have been better with the Woods and Forests at its disposal than with the present arrangement of the civil list. He (Mr. Hume) begged to refer the hon. Baronet to the debtor and creditor side of the account of the Woods and Forests, as contained in the report of the Committee of which the noble Lord the Member for Bath was chairman, from which it appeared that, for the last twenty-five years, the country had derived little or nothing from that source. He was not so hardhearted as the hon. Baronet. He was not at all disposed to place the Royal Family on so precarious a fund.

Whereupon Motion made, and Question put

"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her Majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of ten thousand pounds, to make a suitable provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge."

SIR H. WILLOUGHBY said, that, before the noble Lord replied to the hon. Member, perhaps he would state to the Committee whether, in the event of the marriage of the Duke of Cambridge, he should propose any addition to the 12,000l.?

LORD J. RUSSELL would rather not answer the question at present; he would observe, however, that the allowance to the Duke of Gloucester, upon his marriage, was 14,000l., and he did not at present contemplate, under any circumstances, a greater allowance than 14,000l. per annum to the Duke of Cambridge. With reference to the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, he had already stated the reasons which induced him to consider that 12,000l. per annum was not more than a proper allowance to the Duke of Cambridge, and he would not detain the Committee by a repetition of his views. He would, however, take the opportunity

« PreviousContinue »