HC Deb 30 June 1843 vol 70 cc515-31

On the motion that the Order of the Day for the committee of supply be read,

Mr. Hume,

in pursuance of notice, rose to move a resolution against the continuance of the Parliamentary allowance to the King of Hanover. He did not intend in any way to arraign the character of the illustrious person whose case he now brought under the attention of the House. It was impossible, however, to disguise the fact, that there were so many Members in this House connected with the aristocracy, that it was difficult to expect an expression of feeling against a person in the position occupied by his royal Highness. The only important point of objection which he had heard against the discontinuance of the allowance to his royal Highness was, that it would be a breach of public faith. If he could think so, there was no one who would more strenuously oppose such a proceeding than himself. On the contrary, he believed that the motion he was about to make would be in strict consistency with, and fulfilment of the intention of the Legislature, which originally granted this allowance; and, consequently, that all who opposed the motion which he was about to make, would be acting in direct opposition to the intentions of that Parliament. The hon. Member referred to the terms of the vote upon the message of the Crown in 1778, when 60,000l. a-year was voted for the support of the King's six sons, with benefit of survivorship, which resulted in an income of 15,000l. a-year to his royal Highness, and to the grant, in 1806, of 6,000l. additional to his royal Highness. He had said on a former occasion, what he now repeated, that he was of the opinion of Mr. Fox upon subjects of this kind. Upon the 9th of May, 1777, when some royal grants were under discussion, Mr. Fox said— It had been always the policy of this country to make a suitable provision for the different branches of the royal family; it rendered them independent of Ministers, and bound them by interest and sentiment to preserve that constitution under which they enjoyed such preeminent and solid advantages. He held, that Mr. Fox had never contemplated that the Parliament of that day had never contemplated that money should be granted to princes of the royal family when they became sovereigns of foreign countries. He held, that these grants were given to them as Members of the British royal family, sitting in the House of Lords; and when they ceased to be dependent upon the country, the grants should be discontinued. From the moment that the Duke of Cumberland became the King of Hanover, he should not have received one farthing of his pension. The question simply was, whether an annuity might not be granted for the performance of certain duties and purposes, and whether, if these should cease to be performed and accomplished, the annuity should not be discontinued also. He had seen the Duke of Cumberland leave the country with great pleasure, and had seen his return with great regret. When a pension of 3,000l. was the other night granted to the Princess Augusta, what had been the answer to his representations against it? Why it was, that the Duke of Cambridge, her father, was a good man —that he attended charity dinners—that he was a popular character. Well, then, if it was fit and proper that they should vote money to a popular man, was it not, by the same rule, fit and proper that they should withhold a vote of money to an unpopular man. He firmly and conscientiously opposed this grant, and he now asked the House to agree to certain resolutions upon the subject. There had been peculiar objections found to the form in which his two previous motions upon this subject had been couched. Nothing of the kind could be urged against the present proposition. The first two resolutions were merely expressive of facts. They were, first― That it appears that Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, received for many years under the sanction of acts of the British Parliament, a pension of 21,000l. sterling from the British Exchequer, for his maintenance and support as a prince of the royal family of England; that, in the year 1837, on the death of William 4th, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, succeeded to the throne of Hanover, and became an independent sovereign, and a member of the German confederation. And secondly, That he has been King of Hanover since 1837, and has received annually since that period the sum of 21,000l. sterling from the taxes of the United Kingdom. Then the resolution which he proposed to found on these facts, and to which he asked the assent of the House was— That the payment of a pension to an independent foreign sovereign from the taxes of the United Kingdom is a waste of public money, and unjust to the people of England; and, therefore, in the opinion of this House, the pension of 21,000l. having been granted by Parliament to Ernest Augustus for his maintenance whilst Duke of Cumberland, ought to be discontinued whilst he continues King of Hanover. If the House should affirm these resolutions, he would ask for leave to bring in a bill founded upon them. Let him not be misunderstood, however. If the King of Hanover should be from any cause deprived of the Crown and revenues of that kingdom, he should have no objection to vote money for his maintenance at home. Would any one deny, that the King of Hanover was an independent sovereign, and was it consistent with justice that an independent sovereign should receive a large annual sum paid by the taxes of the people of this country? Besides, they should not pay from the Exchequer money to any sovereign, because it might enable him to act contrary to the wishes of the people over whom he was placed; and one of the great principles of sovereignty should be to make the sovereign as much as possible dependent upon the will of the people. He wished he could say, that the money which the King of Hanover had received had been well employed. He believed the reverse had been the case. But this he would say, that he did think that it was improper that this country should pay money to a sovereign, who, by his connection with the German Confederation, might become engaged in war, and aid any enemy we might have upon the Continent. If the King of Hanover were not connected with a certain political party in this country, he would not receive the support which was now offered him. It was the Ministers of the Crown who ought to bring forward a motion of this kind, as being the guardians of the public purse. He had received that day a copy of a resolution agreed to at a meeting of artizans and tradesmen, held to consider the subject, to the effect, that the amount paid to the King of Hanover yearly would support 1,050 poor families, and should be devoted to some such purpose, rather than be sent out of the country. That was the way, he could assure the House, in which the matter was considered out of doors, and that was one of the grounds on which they should not commit themselves to the continuance of the pension. He had hoped that the King of Hanover, seeing the little support which he received in his claim from the general feelings of the country, would have given up his allowance. He had hoped that some such generous feeling as that which had actuated the King of the Belgians would produce a similar effect upon the King of Hanover. The claim of the former, too, rested upon unimpeachable grounds; very different was the claim of the latter. Here was a contrast to be drawn between the two Sovereigns; but as he saw the King of Hanover reconciling himself daily to many matters which would have given him much pain so to put up with, he could not be much surprised with his proceedings in the particular case under consideration. Now, was there anything in the King of Hanover's conduct to entitle him to this pension? If any other man had done what the Duke of Cumberland had done, he would have been arraigned for high treason. He himself had accused the Duke of Cumberland of having grossly violated military law. He had so far forgotten his duty to his Sovereign and his country, at the time when he held a Field-marshal's rank, as to take part, against the express orders of the Commander-in-chief, in promoting in the army societies calculated to give rise to disorder and disobedience. On the 4th of August, 1835, he had proposed certain resolutions to the House, which were agreed to. The hon. Member quoted some of them, for which see Hansard, vol. 30, third series, p. 58, and following pages. The last of the resolutions which he (Mr. Hume) had proposed upon the subject, was— That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to direct his royal attention to the nature and extent of Orange lodges in his Majesty's army, in contravention of the general orders of the Commander-in-chief of his Majesty's Forces, issued in the years 1822 and 1829, which strongly reprobate and forbid the holding Orange Lodges in any of his Majesty's regiments; and also, to the circumstance of his Royal Highness Ernest Duke of Cumberland, a field-marshal in his Majesty's army, having signed warrants, in his capacity of Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Deland (some of them dated so recently as April in the present year), which warrants have been afterwards issued for constituting Orange Lodges in the army. The House should observe that he bad not shrunk upon former occasions from bringing the conduct of the Duke of Cumberland before it. His resolutions were agreed to, and an address presented to his Majesty stating the circumstances. That address was carried up, and a message was returned to the following effect,— I have received your dutiful address, submitting to me certain resolutions on the subject of Orange Lodges in the army, My attention has been, and shall continue to he directed to practices contrary to the regulations and injurious to the discipline of my troops. I owe it no less to the dignity of my Crown, than to the safety of the country, and the welfare of my brave and loyal army, to discourage and prevent every attempt to introduce secret societies into its ranks, and you may rely upon my determination to adopt the most effectual means for this purpose. He contended that these were considerations which ought to be taken into account when the public money was lavished upon the King of Hanover, and he called upon the House to compare the conduct pursued towards the Duke of Cumberland with that observed towards the Dorchester labourers, who were punished for the self same offence of belonging to secret associations — associations which Mr. Justice Wightman, in his charge to the jury, had characterised as most injurious to society. No part of his royal Highness's conduct when Duke of Cumberland, and resident in England, especially in connection with these Orange lodges, could be otherwise than reprobated; I and as Grand Master of those lodges, he had violated not only military but civil law. He contended that, according to the Act of Parliament, the King of Hanover had no claim to the pension, for it had been granted for the maintenance of a Peer of the realm, which he had ceased to be, and had become an independent Sovereign, and a member of the German Confederation, which might any day be leagued against England. On public grounds he objected to the grant to the King of Hanover, for he would not even take into the argument the amount of distress that existed in the country, although, on that account, it ought to be a consideration with the King, whether he should take money from the people. On public grounds, then, he thought he had a right to call upon the House to support the motion, which he begged to place in the Speaker's hands. It was as follows:— To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words" it appears that Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, received for many years, under the sanction of Acts of the British Parliament, a pension of 21,000l. sterling from the British Exchequer for his maintenance and support as a Prince of the Royal Family of England; that in the year 1837, on the death of William the Fourth, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, succeeded to the throne of Hanover, and became an independent Sovereign, and a member of the German Confederation:—That he has been King of Hanover since 1837, and has received annually during that period the sum of 21,000l. sterling from the taxes of the United Kingdom: That the payment of a pension to an independent foreign Sovereign from the taxes of the United Kingdom is a waste of public money, and unjust to the people of England; and, therefore, in the opinion of this House, the pension of 21,000l. having been granted by Parliament to Ernest Augustus for his maintenance whilst Duke of Cumberland, ought to be discontinued whilst he continues King of Hanover.

Mr. Williams

said, if the Government had any regard to the feelings of the country, they would support the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. When the King of Hanover resided in this country, and before he ascended the throne of an independent state, the people had not grudged him the means of maintaining his rank and station; but, having ceased to stand in the same relation to this country. he ought no longer to be a pensioner upon the people. The King of Hanover was, he believed, a despotic sovereign; for he had destroyed the constitution he found in his dominions, and he had the means of exacting as much money as he pleased from his own subjects. No just and honest dealing man could stand up in that House and justify the payment to the King of Hanover out of the taxes laid upon the people of this country, He knew the motion would be rejected, because the House of Commons did not represent the feelings and wishes of the people—if it did, they would not dare to insult the people by the continuance of this impost.

Sir Robert Peel

said, he would state shortly the grounds upon which, on the part of her Majesty's Government, he felt it impossible to consent to the proposal of the hon. Member, and those grounds were briefly that he considered it would be inconsistent with the good faith of Parliament to withhold that pension or allowance which Parliament had granted, and to the continuance of which he thought he should show to the House, the faith of Parliament was pledged. The hon. Gentleman, at the commencement of his speech, had taken credit to himself for having on former occasions, when he brought this question under the consideration of the House, studiously avoided all reference to personal and party feelings; and he must express his sorrow that the hon. Member should, on the present occasion, have been betrayed into a departure from the salutary rule he had before observed. He thought it would have been infinitely better had the hon. Gentleman adhered to his own principle, for he did not think the hon. Member had acted quite fairly when he introduced the transactions connected with Orange lodges into such a debate. Parliament had taken notice of what had passed with regard to those lodges, and he thought they had a fair right to consider that it was the opinion of Parliament that the transaction was closed. But subsequently to the particular vote to which the hon. Member had alluded, the attention of Parliament was in the following year called to the subject of Orange lodges, and an address was carried with the almost unanimous consent of the House, praying the Crown to exercise all its influence for the purpose of suppressing them whether in the army or any other institution. The resolutions to which the hon. Member had this night referred, were passed in 1835, and the subject was brought generally under the consideration of the House in 1836, and a motion was made on an amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite, as the organ of the Government; and that noble Lord did not give his vote on that occasion more cordially than he did, being then in opposition. An address was passed by this House, if not with an unanimous consent, yet with a predominance of opinion, and presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to take measures for the effectual discouragement of Orange lodges, and generally of all political societies, excluding persons of a different religious faith, and using signs and symbols, and acting by means of associated branches. On both sides of the House that resolution was concurred in, it being the general understanding that every effort should be made to discountenance and discourage Orange lodges. He might refer to hon. Gentlemen on this (the Ministerial) side of the House, whether at that time there were not a sincere desire to put an end to Orange lodges. Now observe what was done upon that. The noble Lord, the then Secretary of State for the Home Department (Lord J. Russell), felt it his duty to communicate to the Duke of Cumberland the resolution of the House and the address founded upon that resolution, and also the answer which his Majesty returned to that address. On a subsequent occasion, Mr. Henry Maxwell having announced that his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland had taken steps to put an end to Orange societies, Lord J. Russell said that he was sincerely glad at the course which his Royal Highness' had taken. It was a course in perfect accordance with his Royal Highness's sense of duty, and he hoped that the House would think that he had only done his duty in transmitting to his Royal Highness a copy of the resolution of the House, and also of the answer of his Majesty to the address founded upon that resolution. To that communication his Lordship received the following reply:— St. James's Palace, Feb. 26, 1836. My Lord—I have received your Lordship's letter with the enclosed printed copies of the resolutions of the House of Commons containing an address on the subject of Orange lodges, and other similar societies, together with his Majesty's most gracious answer. Before I had received your Lordship's communication, I had already taken steps, in conjunction with several official and distinguished members of the Loyal Orange Institution in Ireland, to recommend its immediate dissolution, in conformity with the loyal principles of that institution. I have only to add, I shall take immediate steps to dissolve the Loyal Orange institution in Great Britain.—I have the honour to be, yours sincerely, ERNEST To the Right Hon. Lord J. Russell. Considering the notice which the House of Commons took of this subject, considering the intimation conveyed by the answer from the Crown, and by the communication to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland, through the noble Lord, in 1836; and, considering the manner in which that communication was received by his Royal Highness, and his declaration, that in deference to the opinion of the House of Commons, he had taken steps for dissolving all connexion with Orange lodges, he did think it was not necessary, nor was it quite fair for the hon. Member for Montrose to make allusions on this occasion to what had passed with respect to Orange lodges. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly cognizant of these facts, when, in 1838, he brought forward this question of the allowance to the king of Hanover; and he was perfectly cognizant of them also in the year 1840; and yet his own good sense and good taste dictated to him at those times to abstain from topics which he had unfortunately introduced to-night. He knew of no one single reason why the hon. Member should now have departed from his former course. The hon. Gentleman had said, that he was challenged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do so; but the hon. Gentleman must have anticipated the challenge it was quite clear, as his pockets were loaded with documents. However, he (Sir R. Peel) did not rely upon that ground, for his opposition to the motion of the hon. Gentleman. His reliance was upon the fact that the subject of the Orange lodges had been closed by the opinion expressed by the House of Commons, and by the Crown, and by the willing deference paid to that opinion by his Royal Higness the Duke of Cumberland, and very wisely paid. His (Sir R. Peel's) objection to the motion was, that he considered it to be unjust. The King of Hanover received from this country at this time 21,000l. That sum consisted of two annuities— one a sum of 6,000l. and the other a sum of 15,000l. The 6,000l. was granted in 1807 by au Act of Parliament during the lifetime of the Duke of Cumberland. [Mr. Hume: He is no longer Duke of Cumberland.] You call him so. It was an annuity granted during the lifetime of the Duke of Cumberland. The 15,000l. per annum was not granted at the first upon exactly the same terms. That sum until 1831 was payable to his Royal Highness with a distinct understanding and virtual engagement that it should be continued to him during his life, but it did not stand upon exactly the same Parliamentary footing as the 6,000l. annuity did. But in the year 1831 an act was passed which guaranteed to the Duke of Cumberland during his life the remaining sum of 15,000l. a year, thus making the whole sum of 21,000l. an annuity, not merely during the life of the Sovereign, and not chargeable upon the hereditary revenues of the Crown, but chargeable upon the consolidated fund during the lifetime of the Duke of Cumberland. In order to remove all possibility of doubt upon the subject, he would refer the House to the eleventh clause of the 1st of William 4th., being the Civil List Act, by which certain annuities to their Royal Highnesses the Dukes of Cumberland, Sussex, and Cambridge were charged during their respective lives, upon the consolidated fund. Thus the two annuities in 1831 were placed upon the same footing, and obtained the same Parliamentary guarantee. So far as Parliamentary assurance could be given, it was conferred by the act of 1831. But the hon. Member for Montrose said that these were grants to the Duke of Cumberland as' Duke of Cumberland—whereas there was no longer a Duke of Cumberland, because the Duke of Cumberland was now the King of Hanover. Now he was perfectly certain that in private life the hon. Gentleman never would resort to such a mere quibble as this. Parliament might have foreseen that the Duke of Cumberland would become King of Hanover. It might have been an oversight on the part of Parliament in not making a provision for such a contingency, but Parliament did not make that provision; and what he contended for was, that the Duke of Cumberland had a perfect right to rely upon these grants, since Parliament did not make any exception in the case of the contingency of his Royal Highness becoming King of Hanover. The country was bound by the Acts of Parliament, and the House had no right to avail itself of any supposed oversights of former Parliaments in order to deprive the Duke of Cumberland of these annuities, guaranteed to him by an Act of Parliament. But, observe, in 1831, Parliament must have calculated upon the probability that the Duke of Cumberland might be King of Hanover. It was not a remote contingency. In 1831, when the Parliamentary guarantee was given for the permanence of these annuities, the Duke of Kent was no more; the Duke of York was no more; and the Duke of Cumberland stood next in succession to the throne of Hanover, unless King William should have a son—which was a remote probability. Therefore, when in 1831 Parliament, with a full knowledge of the high probability of the Duke of Cumberland becoming King of Hanover guaranteed these annuities to him for his life, without making any exception in case of such a contingency happening, the inevitable inference must be that these matters were in the contemplation of Parliament at that time. He would put it, then, to the House whether, under these circumstances, it would be consistent with justice for Parliament now to interfere for the purpose of depriving the Duke of Cumberland of these annuities. He thought it was of infinitely more importance that Parliament should maintain its credit by an adherence to a Parliamentary engagement—that it was of much greater consequence that the credit of the Government should be upheld, and the credit of Parliament be kept entire, than that by an act which he must consider would be one of injustice, the mere pecuniary advantage of 21,000l. a year should be saved to the country. The hon. Gentleman had complained of having been deserted by some of his own friends on former occasions. He (Sir Robert Peel) hoped that in the division of to-night, there being a fuller attendance than on any of those former occasions, the hon. Gentleman would find his proposition rejected by a still larger majority. The very fact of Parliament having twice before refused to interfere gave additional force to the rejection of the proposal now. He trusted that the House would reject the proposition riot because they were the political adherents of the Duke of Cumberland, but because they considered the proposition of the hon. Gentleman to be unjust. He hoped the House would not consent to a proposition which was inconsistent with good faith, and if adopted would be derogatory to the dignity of the country.

Lord Worsley

had voted against a similar motion on a former occasion, and he saw no reason for changing his opinion. He therefore could not do otherwise than oppose the motion. He would repeat what he had observed when that subject was previously before the House,—that it would not only reflect much credit upon. his Royal Highness, but would be conducive to the interest of the country if the King of Hanover followed the example set him by his Majesty the King of the Belgians, and by Lord Camden.

Colonel Verner

said, that in the several regiments in which Orange lodges were found, the Duke of Cumberland was proved to be perfectly ignorant of their existence. The hon. Member for Montrose had not substantiated a single charge which he had made against the King of Hanover. He should vote against the motion.

Mr. Wallace

said, that having been a member of the Orange lodge committee, he could say that the most extraordinary facts came out before that committee. It might have been better not to have referred to the connexion of the Duke of Cumberland with the Orange lodges of Ireland; but the subject has been introduced already. When that Parliamentary committee was formed, the Duke of Cumberland refused to come before It to give evidence. The committee wished to examine the Duke as to the warrants—the blank warrants which had beet signed, and signed too with views inimical to the sovereign on the throne. He did not mean to say that the Orange lodges had any such intention, but the Duke of Cumberland was summoned to appear before that committee, and refused to attend. The committee had only one object to bring to light—the unconstitutional, the extraordinary, and illegal character of those societies. It was said that the Duke of Cumberland did not know of the proceedings of the Orange lodges. But did he not know that he was signing warrants, which he did, when sitting in the chair in Lord Kenyon's house? He admitted the existence of the statute to which the right hon. Baronet has referred, but the money was given to the Duke of Cumberland as a maintenance, and as he had left the country, he ought to surrender it to the public Exchequer.

Mr. Ferrand

said, that as a Member of that House, and as an Englishman, he was not ashamed to say that he respected and honored the King of Hanover. The King of Hanover had long stood up manfully against the taunts and misrepresentations of his enemiestaunts and charges which hon. Members only dared to make behind his back. The King of Hanover had met those charges boldly in the courts of law, and he had left those courts unspotted. And who was the Member who made this attack? A Member of that House who first obtained a seat within its walls by the influence and under the patronage of the King of Hanover, and who afterwards applied to him to use his influence in order to obtain for him a seat for the borough of Weymouth. He thought the hon. Member was the last person in that House who ought to have brought forward such a motion. Why had this attack upon the King of Hanover been made at the present time? Could nut our gracious Sovereign invite her own uncle to visit her? [Cheers from the Opposition.] What! did hon. Members opposite sneer at this? Would they deny to the Sovereign those privileges which even the humblest of her subjects might exercise? Her Majesty had invited her Royal uncle to visit her; and what had been the conduct of the hon. Member for Montrose? He firmly believed that if the hon. Gentleman had brought this subject forward as a substantive motion, every hon. Member would Have quitted the House in a spirit of just indignation. He believed that it' any Englishman—and the King of Hanover was an Englishman had a right to be defended from such an attack as the present, the King of Hanover had that right. The King of Hanover was charged with being an Orangeman; but of what were Orangemen guilty? Of loyalty to their Sovereign? He knew where, if any struggle took place, the Orangemen would be found when they were called upon to do their duty. They would stand by their Sovereign, and would preserve her Majesty upon the throne not only of England but of Ireland. They would not preach sedition, or court unprincipled villains in America and elsewhere,—men who styled O'Connell "President O'Connell." They would uphold the Sovereignty of her Majesty as Queen of Ireland, as well as of Great Britain; and they would not betray their countrymen to such despicable creatures as those to whom he had referred. He would tell the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Williams), that the working classes of this country did not begrudge the pension to the King of Hanover. Those classes were far more loyal than the individuals who made such strong protestations against the extravagance, as they termed it, of the Government. They knew what it was to have the protection of an act of Parliament, and if an act of Parliament was to be passed one Session and repealed the next, at the bidding of the hon. Members professing the principles of the hon. Member for Coventry, what would be the condition of the working classes? Nothing could restore them to their former position but a return to those loyal and constitutional principles which placed the House of Hanover on the throne of these realms.

Mr. C. Buller

was about to vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, and was desirous of stating that he did not pursue this course from any personal hostility to the King of Hanover. It was always his principle never to attack personally any individual who was exceedingly popular with the great body of those whom he might be addressing; and he observed that the conduct and character of the King of Hanover had secured the very enthusiastic regard of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. He conceived, that the grants made to the members of the Royal Family were not unconditional grants, to be continued during the lives of the recipients, as had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He thought j those grants stood upon this footing—that it was necessary for the nation to make honourable provision for the support of the younger branches of the Royal Family. The Crown having given up the hereditary revenues had no means of making such provision; and if they did not wish the character of the monarchy to be degraded by the situation of the younger branches of the Royal Family, it was necessary that the nation should step forward and make provision for their support. He understood that this was the ground on which these grants had always been made. The preamble of the act of 1806 recommended the granting of annuities to the Royal Dukes during pleasure. But what were the circumstances of the case now under consideration? Since the adoption of that act, the Duke of Cumberland — now King of Hanover —had been rendered independent of Parliamentary bounty. Considering the situation of the Royal family, and the inability of the Crown to provide for them from its revenues, the nation stood to the younger branches of that family in loco parentis. But, suppose the father of a family made provision for the support of his younger children, and one of them subsequently came into possession of a valuable estate which rendered him independent, would the parent continue his allowance to a child in such circumstances? On what ground, then, was the continuance of the grant now under consideration supported? Was it to maintain the dignity of the younger branches of the Royal family? He thought it was an unnecessary waste of money to apply it to a purpose for which it was no longer required. He did not wish to say anything offensive with reference to the King of Hanover, but he understood that monarch had exercised to the utmost extent those legal rights which he possessed by virtue of his sovereignty, that he had claimed every particle of plate, and jewellery, and money to which he had any title. Then, if his Majesty had thus acted upon the strict letter of the law, why should not they follow his example? He thought that the House ought not, on any light ground, to continue this grant. It could not be said that it was necessary for maintaining the dignity of the Royal family, or that the faith of Parliament was pledged to its continuance. It was, in fact, giving a sum of money which the people of England would willingly bestow for the honourable provision of the Royal family, to swell the large income of a foreign prince. He must impress on the House that it was not wise to try the patience of the people too far; that they willingly supported the cost of monarchy, because they thought monarchy was, on the whole, the best form of government and worth the cost; but that they would not willingly support profligate expenditure; and if they saw any such expenditure indulged in, they would not meet it with those feelings of confiding acquiescence with which they had been used to come forward on any occasion of a grant to the Royal family.

Sir Howard Douglas

deprecated the ungenerous feelings which led hon. Members, after two distinct decisions of this question in this House, to bring it forward again, at this particular time, to imbitter, as it would appear, the last days, and perhaps the last visit of the king of Hanover to the country of his birth, to the scenes of his youth, to pay his homage as a Peer of the realm to his sovereign, and to renew intercourse with his family and friends. It has been asked, what father of a family, who had made provision for the support of his younger children, would not withdraw his allowance from one, who should afterwards come into the possession of a valuable and independent estate. He would mention a case in point. When Greece was erected into a monarchy, and Otho selected, from among the royal families of Europe, to ascend that Throne, very considerable allowances, to be provided by the kingdom of Greece, were settled upon him, amounting to 1,000,000 of drachme a year. The king of Bavaria, his father, might have withdrawn from his son the appanage of about 10,000 sterling a year, which he enjoyed as a younger son. But the king and states of Bavaria disdained to do this, and sent Otho to Greece with his appanage untouched. This, he contended, was a case in point; it was a precedent of a kingdom, poorer than this, acting generously towards one of its princes, and it would be to the eternal disgrace of the British Parliament, and the British nation, if we, listening to the suggestions of the hon. Members opposite, make this discreditable saving, by breaking faith with the royal personage, the object of this attack.

Captain Berkeley

said, he would not have risen if it had not been for the great stress which the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had laid on the presumption that Parliament, having once given to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland a certain pension, had no right whatever to take it from him. Now when he and other officers of his standing, entered the navy, their widows, if they left widows, were entitled to a certain pension. Since then, it had pleased Parliament to take away that pension from their widows, if they were left a certain sum of money. He maintained that his Royal Highness was exactly in the same situation. One sentence which had fallen from the hon. Member for Knaresborough he was rather surprised to hear. The hon. Member told the House that Ireland was now in the hands of traitors. He had believed, till he heard it from the hon. Member, that Ireland was in the hands of her Majesty's Government.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question. Ayes 197; Noes 91: Majority 106.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Christopher, R. A.
A'Court, Capt. Chute, W. L. W.
Acton, Col. Clayton, R. R.
Adare, Visct. Clerk, Sir G.
Adderley, C. B. Clive, Visct.
Allix, J. P. Clive, hon. R. H.
Antrobus, E. Collett, W. R.
Archdall, Capt. M. Colvile, C. R.
Arkwright, G. Connolly, Col.
Bagot, hon. W. Corry, rt. hon. H.
Baillie, Col. Courtenay, Lord
Baillie, H. J. Cresswell, B.
Baring, hon. W. B. Cripps, W.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Damer, hon. Col.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Darby, G.
Beckett, W. Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Denison, E. B.
Blackburne, J. I. Dick, Q.
Blackstone, W. S. Dodd, G.
Blakemore, R. Douglas, Sir H.
Bodkin, W. H. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Boldero, H. G. Douro, Marq. of
Bothwick, P. Drummond, H. H.
Boyd, J. Duff, J.
Broadley, H. Duncombe, hon. O
Broadwood, H. Du Pre, C. G.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Eliot, Lord
Bruce, Lord E. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Fielden, W.
Burrell, Sir C. M, Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Cardwell, E. Ferrand, W. B.
Cavendish, hon. C.C. Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Chelsea, Visct. Flower, Sir J.
Cholmondeley, hn. H. Follett, Sir W. W.
Forman, T. S. Newdigate, C. N.
Fuller, A. E. Newport, Visct.
Gaskell, J. Milnes Newry, Visct.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Gladstone, Capt. Norreys, Lord
Glynne, Sir S. R. O'Brien, A. S.
Godson, R. Pakington, J. S.
Gordon, hon. Capt. Palmer, R.
Gore, W. O. Patten, J. W.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J. Peel, J.
Granby, Marq. of Pennant, hon. Col.
Greene, T. Pollock, Sir F.
Grimston, Visct. Pringle, A.
Hale, R. B. Pulsford, R.
Hamilton, J. H. Pusey, P.
Hamilton, G. A. Rashleigh, W.
Hamilton, Lord C. Reid, Sir J. R.
Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H. Repton, G. W. J.
Hardy, J. Richards, R.
Hayes, Sir E. Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Henley, J. W. Round, J.
Hepburn, Sir T. B. Rushbrooke, Col.
Hervey, Lord A. Russell, Lord J.
Hodgson, R. Russell, J. D. W.
Hope, hon. C. Scarlett, hon. R C.
Hope, A. Seymour, Sir H. B.
Hope G. W. Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Hughes, W. B. Sheppard, T.
Hussey, A. Sibthorp, Col.
Hussey, T. Smith, A.
Hutt, W. Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Ingestre, Visct. Smythe, hon. G.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Smollett, A.
Jermyn, Earl Somerset, Lord G.
Johnstone, Sir J. Stanley, Lord
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. Stewart, J.
Jones, Capt. Sturt, H. C.
Kerrison, Sir E. Sutton, hon. H. M.
Knatchhull, rt. hn. Sir E. Talbot, C. R. M.
Knight, F. W. Taylor, T. E.
Knightley, Sir C. Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Tollemache, J.
Lennox, Lord A. Trench, Sir F. W.
Leslie, C. P, Trollope, Sir J.
Leveson, Lord Turnor, C.
Lincoln, Earl of Verner, Col.
Lockhart, W. Vesey, hon. T.
Lowther, hon. Col. Vivian, J. E.
Lyall, G. Waddington, H. S.
Lygon, hon. Gen. Wall, C. B.
Mackenzie, T. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Maclean, D. Welby, G. E.
Mahon, Visct. Wellesley Lord C.
Manners, Lord C. S. Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Manners, Lord J, Williams, T. P.
Marsham, Visct. Wodehouse, E.
Martin, C. W. Wood, Col.
Masterman, J. Wood, Col. T.
Meynell, Capt. Worsley, Lord
Mildmay, H. St. J. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Miles, W. Wortley, hon. J. S.
Mundy, E. M. Young, J.
Neeld, J. TELLERS
Neeld, J. Fremantle, Sir T,
Neville, R. Baring, H.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Howard, hon. J. K.
Aldam, W. James, W.
Barnard, E. G. Langston, J. H.
Barron, Sir H. W. Mc'Taggart, Sir J.
Berkeley, hon. C. Marjoribanks, S.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Marshall, W.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Marsland, H.
Bernal, R. Martin, J.
Bernal, Capt. Mitcalfe, H.
Blewitt, R. J. Mitchell, T. A.
Bowring, Dr. Morris, D.
Brocklehurst, J. Morrison, J.
Brotherton, J. Muntz, G. F.
Buller, C. Napier, Sir C.
Byng, rt. hon. G. Norreys, Sir D. J.
Cavendish, hn. G. H. O'Connell, M. J.
Chapman, B. Plumridge, Capt.
Childers, J. W. Ponsonby, C. F. A.
Cobden, R. Ponsonby, hon. J. G.
Colborne, hn. W. N. R. Protheroe, E.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Ricardo, J. L.
Collett, J. Rice, E. R.
Collins, W. Roche, Sir D.
Craig, W. G. Roebuck, J. A.
Crawford, W. S. Russell, Lord E.
Dalrymple, Capt. Seale, Sir J. H.
Dawson, hon. T. V. Smith, B.
Denison, J. E. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Dennistoun, J. Strickland, Sir G.
Duke, Sir J. Strutt, E.
Duncan, Visct. Thorneley, T.
Duncan, G. Trelawny, J. S.
Duncombe, T. Turner, E.
Ellice, E. Vivian, hon. Capt.
Esmonde, Sir T. Wakley, T.
Evans, W. Wallace, R.
Ewart, W. Ward, H. G.
Forster, M. Watson, W. H.
Gill, T. Wawn, J. T.
Gisborne, T. Wemyss, Capt.
Hall, Sir B. Wilshere, W.
Hastie, A. Wood, B.
Hatton, Capt. V. Wyse, T.
Hawes, B. Yorke, H. R.
Heathcoat, J. TELLERS.
Horsman, E. Hume, J.
Howard, hon. C. W. G. Williams, W.

Main question agreed to. Order of the Day read.

Committee postponed.

The House adjourned at one o'clock.