§ The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the blank be filled up with the sum of 50,000l.
§ Mr. Alderman C. Smithrose to state the reasons which induced him to object to the proposed grant. Notwithstanding the disgusting nature of the details exhibited by the evidence on the late trial of her majesty, he had felt it his duty to give his most serious attention to so very important a subject, and the result was, that he could not conscientiously agree, even if he could overlook the past, that so large a sum should be entrusted to such hands. He was persuaded the Queen had got those persons about her who would persuade her, notwithstanding her expressed determination to the contrary, to accept the proferred bounty of parliament, and he much feared, from the well-known character of those persons, that the greater part of this immense sum would be applied to increase that ferment, and perpetuate those disturbances which had so long injured the public interests. In another point of view, he was disposed to consider the sum too large. He thought ministers would not be justified in recommending, at this period of distress, so large a provision for the Queen. He could not pass over this subject, without referring to another burthensome charge on the public; he meant, the immense annuity now enjoyed by the prince of Saxe Coburg. He professed the sincerest respect for the memory of the Princess Charlotte; but he would say, that the object which the country bad in giving that enormous income to the husband of the nation's 607 hope was now at an end. The peculiar situation in which he stood to this country was now so completely altered, that he could have no possible necessity for so large an allowance.
Mr. Baringobserved, with reference to one of the clauses, that it declared the present provision to be in bar of all other claims as well as of dower. If the Queen were a consenting party to this bill, such an arrangement might be unobjectionable; but it did not appear just to deprive her of any right, where she declined receiving: what was tendered in lieu of it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the words were unnecessary. The Queen Consort had no title to dower, inasmuch as the Crown lands were not subject to it. It was considered better to make the arrangement co-extensive with her majesty's life, because she was entitled to a similar annuity by her marriage settlement.
Mr. Baringwould not have adverted to the point, had it not been for the novel circumstance of their now proceeding to grant an annuity to a person who refused to accept it. In the event of her surviving his majesty, she might no longer have the same reason for that refusal.
§ Mr. Huskissonremarked, that the last act of parliament made no distinction with regard to the Queen's surviving. By her marriage settlement she was entitled to the same annuity if she had survived as the Princess of Wales; but the letters patent for executing that settlement were never passed, and there was now no such person as the princess of Wales. The act of settlement had therefore become a nullity, and it was necessary that the provision made by it should be again secured in the event of her surviving his present majesty.
Mr. Baringwas of opinion that this ought to be done by a special act as it appeared that the Queen's rights had been affected by some omission or neglect. It might be a great hardship to render that a provision for life which she now refused, as implying a sacrifice of character, but might hereafter, under different circumstances, be disposed to receive, if granted in any other form. He could see no objection to grant the present annuity for his majesty's life, and, in the event of the Queen's surviving him, to place the provision on a different footing.
§ Mr. Huskissonobserved, that the present bill provided for the Queen Consort, in the same manner as she had been provided for in her marriage settlement as princess of Wales.
§ Mr. Tierneyconceived that the views of all parties would be best answered; by the introduction of the bills, as the Queen might otherwise be reduced to the necessity of rejecting a provision for her whole life.
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, that it was neither an omission nor a mistake in the act. There was an act enabling the Crown to-make her royal highness a certain grant in case the prince of Wales died before her in the life-time of his late majesty; but no such contingency had ever happened. There was nothing in the marriage contract to provide for her majesty as Queen-Consort.
Mr. Bernalwas at issue with the right hon. gentleman as to its being neither an omission nor a mistake in the act. If she was not considered entitled to any provision either as princess of Wales or Queen Consort, her rights as a subject must be taken into consideration; and she would then be entitled to her equity on her marriage contract. She had a right to insist on the grant or execution of the letters patent, or on some other instrument, to carry that grant or those letters patent into effect,
The Chancellor of the Exchequermaintained that her majesty could nave no claim upon the grounds suggested by the hon. gentleman. Though her majesty might have some difficulty in accepting the grant of 50,000l. under the present circumstances, there would be no difficulty in receiving it under this bill, which would recite all the settlements from the marriage settlement inclusive.
§ Mr. Tierneywas unwilling to produce at that moment any grave discussion, but he trusted his silence would not subsequently be thrown in his teeth, or that he should be considered by that silence as pledged to any admission, either that the grant was too small or too large.
§ The bill went through the committee.