§ On the question for the third reading of the Princesses Annuity Bill,
§ Mr. Tierneyrose, for the purpose of stating as shortly as he could, the objections that had determined him, however unwillingly, to resist the question just put from the chair. He acknowledged that from the very first there had been such a mystery thrown about the whole of the measures proposed to parliament for the establishment of the royal household, that he had had from the beginning no small distrust of them—that distrust, however, had not prevented him from looking at them again and again, and using all his industry to understand them—but in vain. He was as much in the dark as ever. The more he had considered the subject, the 441 more difficult he had found it. As to the mere increase of 6,000l. a year, in addition to the 30,000l. settled by the former Bill, to that he had no objection; but if the former Bill was the professed model of the present, why did the present Act depart from it in the most essential provision; the time at which the Act was to take effect? He could very well understand, how a Bill giving 30,000l. a year to the Princesses might be not essentially different from one giving but 30,000l. a year, but what he felt it difficult to comprehend, was, why the present Act was to take effect immediately, when the former was intended not to take effect till after the King's demise? Had any thing occurred since the enactment of the former Bill, that rendered an immediate provision necessary? Was there any thing in the present state of the country that made it desirable to increase its expenditure? One might suppose that the straitened state of our finances, the distresses of our manufacturers, and the calamities that marked the present times, did not particularly recommend the present as a period at which we should be more prompt to impose a charge upon the public than we were disposed to be at a former and much more favourable period. Unfortunately, however, the right hon. gentleman thought otherwise, and as he never thought without good reason, he would see why the right hon. gentleman thought so. He had given two reasons, one, the present state of the King; and the other, the present state of the Prince. The right hon. gentleman had spared himself the trouble of shewing why the indisposition of his Majesty made it necessary for the Princesses to have more money to spend, and he had been quite as satisfactory in his explanation of his second reason. For after having been urged in some measure to explain what he meant by the present state of the Prince, it turned out that the present state of the Prince meant neither more nor less than the present time of life of his Royal Highness, which was saying in other words, pretty much to this purpose, that because the ordinary revolution of twelve months had added one year to the age of the Prince Regent, parliament was bound lo give annually to his Royal Highness 36,000l. a year of the public money. But the right hon. gentleman must excuse him if he said, that he did not believe that either of these reasons had any thing to do with the business. There must have been some other—one 442 that could not be disclosed—and was, therefore, most assiduously kept back. If there was no such secret reason, he asked if the Princesses were to have a separate establishment? he believed that they were not. He was convinced that those amiable personages would not hear of abandoning their royal father in his present calamity, and the Queen in her afflictions, in order to spend 36,000l. a year under another roof. Then where was the necessity of the grant, unless so give the Princesses an opportunity of laying by so much money every year? He would, however, put the question directly to the right hon. gentleman, and ask him, were the Princesses to have an establishment independent of the Queen? He put the question so directly, that he did not think the right hon. gentleman could help answering it. If so, what was to be done with the saving that must in that case arise out of the civil list, as to the general expenditure of the Queen's household? But, then, for want of something better they were told that the Princesses had arrived at a certain age; but had not the Princes, their royal brothers, arrived at a certain age? and was not this a reason as applicable to the one as the other, if admissible in the case of either? As to what had been said of the necessity of independent establishments for those illustrious personages, he contended, that this added nothing to their independence, but made them, as far as it could, dependent on the Prince Regent, at whose pleasure the annuities were to be paid. Another strong objection to the Bill was, the fund upon which these annuities were charged:—instead of being charged upon the hereditary revenue of the crown, they were charged upon the consolidated fund. Had they been charged, as they ought to have been, on the hereditary revenue, then, in case of the demise of the crown, the charge would have fallen as it ought; but according to the present Bill, there was no chance upon any event of a relief to this pressure upon the public. But his main objection was to the thing itself as a whole. There had been throughout the entire conduct of it a struggle to disguise, to confuse and to deceive. But the simple question was, if 184,000l. a year was not enough to provide for the comforts and splendour of the Queen and her royal daughters? The different items of their joint establishment already amounted to 184,000l. a year. Why then were they called upon to give 443 the Princesses 36,000l. a year? A good reason might be very reasonably demanded in such times; and what was the reason? Why, the time of life of the Prince Regent. Did this "time of life" break out as a new light upon his Majesty's ministers? Was it altogether a sudden discovery? Did they not know last year how old his Royal Highness would be this? And why did they not then propose this provision for the Princesses? For let the right hon. gentleman argue as he might, the Prince Regent was now but one year older than he was a year ago. It had been more than insinuated at the time of asking for more money for the King's household, that his Majesty was in a state which enabled him to derive gratification from his recognition of the persons in daily attendance upon him. Here he would put another plain question to the right hon. gentleman: Did he know that his Majesty, since the passing of that Bill, had any personal intercourse with one of the lords of the bed-chamber, or the grooms or equerries then voted? It was remarkable too, that the moment that Bill past, the Bulletins were reduced from once a week to once a month. It appeared, that on a recent occasion no groom was in attendance, and that an equerry had acted in his stead. What did all this prove? Why, that the whole scheme was little other than an ingenious mode of providing for those who had the good fortune to be in favour with the minister; and was this a way of answering the petitions they had heard read that day? But why antedate the Bill? unless to give the Princesses an advance of 9,000l. Did they want this? Were they in debt or distress? If they were, in the name of truth and common sense why not say so at once, and come down with a message to the House to that effect; but according to the present mode parliament were telling the public as plainly as they could, that they did not think it necessary to explain why they voted away that money the country found it so difficult to contribute. He should propose, therefore, as an amendment, that instead of dating the Bill from the 18th of February last, it should be limited to take effect upon the King's demise. He again protested against the mode in which the whole business had been thrown upon the House, and hurried through it. He believed that there were very few of the gentlemen, then in the House, who knew the nature of the two Bills, which had 444 then been passed; there was something most suspicious in the whole transaction-there certainly was some curious secret at the bottom. He acquitted the royal Princesses of the slightest concert in the business. He had the highest personal respect for each and all of them. There had been, however, some way or other, a deal of juggling; one could see throughout the whole of the business an anxious and stirring bustle to divert people from the true scent. There certainly was a something that was to be concealed at the expence of revealing any thing else.
Before he sat down, he could not help adverting to the singular circumstauces in which her royal highness the Princess Regent was left to appear before the country. It seemed as if her fate was already sealed, abandoned as she was by her once chivalrous champion, her old friend, her faithful counsellor. But if the right hon. gentleman had found reason to change his opinion with respect to her, why had the Princess Charlotte of Wales, the future hope of England, been altogether overlooked in these arrangements? She was now bordering upon her 17th year, and not, either from her rank, prospects, or time of life, wholly exempted from the right hon. gentleman's consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied to part of the objections of the last speaker, and to part only, because he conceived that no inconsiderable portion of the arguments made use of by the right hon. gentleman were wholly inapplicable to the question immediately before the House. The greater part of the speech they had just heard was to points which had already gone by, and which the House had already decided upon. With respect to the suggestion of the propriety of creating a new fund by the abolition of the King's Household, he put it to the House, whether if the King's state of health was wholly irrecoverable, they would hear of any proposition to abolish during his life those provisions they had already made for his comfort and splendor, as far as either could be consulted. But even if the reduction did take place, he denied that the saving resulting therefrom would do more than provide for two of the Princesses. As to the fund upon which it was charged, the objection could have scarcely been meant in seriousness, because it was notorious that the hereditary revenues had merged in the consolidated fund. He certainly could not consent to the change 445 proposed, as to the time at which the Bill was to take effect. There was a great difference between the Princesses setting up a separate establishment (of which he believed they had no intention) and being compelled to confine their residence to Windsor for the remainder of their lives, under any circumstances whatever. As to their dependence on the Prince Regent, he contended that though the annuities were nominally during pleasure, they were to all intents and purposes effectually during life.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that the speech of the right hon. gentleman was much more remarkable for what it had omitted to say, than for any thing it had said. The two most important points in the speech of his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) had been passed over without the slightest allusion to either. He did not censure the right hon. gentleman for not attempting to do what he might have found it very difficult to do well—in certain cases where no ingenuity could defend, perhaps silence was at once the most prudent and the most candid extenuation. Be the motive what it might, it was certain that the right hon. gentleman did not say one word respecting either the Princess of Wales or the Princess Charlotte of Wales. Why the minister thought it prudent to say nothing upon a subject of such general importance he should not pretend to explain, but he questioned much if the country in general would be disposed to put the best construction upon a silence that was at best suspicious.—With respect to those topics upon which the right hon. gentleman was not afraid to speak out, he (Mr. Whitbread) did not think him much more successful than those upon which he had been silent. He had not explained why he did not, in the first instance, upon the memorable 18th of February, state at once the whole system of this increase of the household establishment. He had said, that the hereditary revenue merged in the consolidated fund, and that therefore it was immaterial upon which fund those annuities were charged; never was there a greater fallacy in point of argument; because, though it had so merged, was there a doubt that upon the demise of the king, the hereditary revenues only would be answerable to the claims of the annuitants, provided those annuities had been charged upon that fund? He had told them that the Princesses approved of this increase. Of that there could be no doubt; but did 446 the right hon. gentleman, when he consulted those royal personages on the propriety of enlarging their annual draughts upon the public purse, did he then submit to them a faithful representation of the present state of the civil list, and the present miseries of the manufacturing part of their royal father's subjects? If he had not done so, he had not done his duty.—With respect to the establishment of his Majesty, neither he nor any of his friends wished to detract from whatever might be necessary to the King's Comfort or splendour. But why pay four grooms of the chamber, for instance, when, of those four, there was but one could do the duty—three of them, general Legge, sir Harry Neale, and general Campbell, being now abroad on foreign service? Did not these appointments shew that ministers themselves did not think so many necessary?—For his part he thought some of those officers might well be paid out of the civil list—on the same principle that he had thougnt that the Prince Regent ought to have paid his own private secretary out of his own privy purse—"I have heard," said Mr. Whitbread, "that the Queen is about to hold a drawing-room, of course no hopes can now exist of his Majesty's recovery, because if there were any, such a step, I presume, would not be resorted to; but in case that drawing-room is held, I would wish to know, is there to be any public appearance of the Princess of Wales?—This is no private concern—the public have a right to demand why the acknowledged consort of their Regent does not appear in public as such. No affectation of delicacy can be permitted to stand in the way of a nation's anxiety upon a question of such national importance.—If any man can satisfy the public upon this topic, it is the right hon. gentleman. They know him to have been at one time the zealous adviser and devoted adherent to the Princess of Wales. They believe him to have conscientiously undertaken her defence, to have written her vindication—to have published it. That vindication is said to have involved in it an attack upon her royal consort. It is known to have been an attack upon his Royal Highness, and the Regent's first minister is known to have been the author of it, and after he had published it, after it had been read by one and by one hundred, it was bought up at an enormous expence; bought up by the private secretary of the right hon. gentleman. I ask him now, 447 does he retain his former opinions of the unexceptionable conduct of the Princess of Wales? I ask him if he did not lately in this House solemnly record his confirmation of that opinion; and if it is now what it was the the other night, I call upon him to explain, if he can, his apparent desertion of her just claims to that respect, notice, provision, and consideration due to her? These are questions, which, as he; values his own consistency, as he values the character and claims of the Princess, and as he respects the Prince his master, he is bound to answer.
§ Sir J. Newportopposed the Bill, and asked why the right hon. gentleman had deviated from the former proceeding of charging the annuity to the Princesses on the hereditary revenue, for the purpose of charging it on the consolidated fund.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that in the former Bill the grant was to take place at a future period, but that in the present Bill it was to take place immediately, and must therefore be charged on the fund immediately applicable. In 1806, when an additional grant was made to the Princes, the ministers of that day naturally proposed that it should be charged on the consolidated fund; and he believed no instance could be found of a grant which was to take place immediately having been charged on the hereditary revenue.
§ Mr. Courtenayconfirmed the statement just made by the right hon. gentleman, and supported the Bill.
§ Mr. Tierneysaid, that the present grant might be charged on that part of the consolidated fund, which was constituted by the hereditary revenue.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexplained the manner in which the hereditary revenue was merged in the consolidated fund, and which rendered it impossible to make a charge on any distinct part of it.
§ Mr. Tierneymerely wanted the grant to be charged on the hereditary revenue, so that on the demise of the crown, parliament would be enabled to ascertain what were the exact sums with which the revenue was burdened.
Mr. Roserepeated the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hereditary revenue of the crown was by no means so large as gentlemen opposite seemed to think.
§ Mr. Tierneysaid, that it was 1,400,000l. per annum.
Mr. Rosediscovered the right hon. gentleman's 448 mistake. He had confounded the hereditary revenue of the crown with the temporary revenue which had been settled on all the sovereigns of the country from the time of queen Anne, at the period of their accession. The hereditary revenue did not at present exceed 350,000l. a year.
§ Mr. W. Smithopposed the Bill. He solemnly declared that from his soul he pitied the right hon. gentleman, when he reflected upon the feelings he must have experienced before he could have made up his mind to come down at such a time with such a proposition to the House.
Mr. Secretary Ryderwas suprised that now, for the first time, the hon. gentleman should have found an opportunity of giving vent to his feelings, upon so late a stage as the third reading of the Bill.
§ Mr. W. Smithbegged pardon for interrupting the right hon. gentleman, but he had fallen into a slight mistake. Instead of this being the first time that he (Mr. Smith) had spoken against the Bill, it so happened that it was only the fourth!
Mr. Secretary Ryderbad no hesitation in acknowledging the error he had fallen into, in supposing that the speech he had just heard was the first made by the hon. gentleman; but however mistaken he might be as to him, he believed he was accurate in saying that many gentlemen at that end of the House, who had been that night so vehement against the Bill, particularly one honourable gentleman then in his eye, had not spoken against the Bill in any of its former stages.
§ Mr. Whitbreadbegged pardon of the right hon. gentleman, but if he was the person alluded to, it was another slight mistake, for he had resisted the Bill in every stage.
Mr. Secretary Rydercontended, that there had been objections thrown out in the debate of that night, which they had never before heard of. He thought the claims of the Princesses irresistible, whether in reference to themselves personally, or as the daughters of their afflicted and venerable monarch—He did not court that sort of popularity to which certain gentlemen laid exclusive claim; he was persuaded however that the measure was a popular one. As to the Princess of Wales, she already had an independent provision, which the Princesses had not. He hoped that his right hon. friend would continue true to the confidence reposed in him, and not be tempted by any threats or attacks to 449 deviate from that proper and respectful silence which he had hitherto maintained upon the subject. (Hear! hear! from the Opposition side of the House.) He was not afraid to repeat what he had said. As to the drawing-room, it was the Queen's right to hold one, if she pleased. It had been stated as extraordinary, that her Majesty was about to hold a drawing-room. He did not know what view the hon. gentleman entertained of the case, but his Majesty, notwithstanding his unfortunate affliction, was still King; of course her Majesty was still Queen of these realms, and under those circumstances he knew not who ought to hold a drawing-room unless it were her Majesty.
§ Mr. Whitbread, in explanation, denied having asserted, that it was improper for the Queen to hold a drawing-room. All that he said was, that the Princess of Wales ought to be placed in such a situation, as to enable her Royal Highness also to hold a drawing-room.
§ Lord A. Hamiltonobserved, that the additional sum granted in the early part of the present session to her Majesty, was so granted on the express representation that the Princesses were to remain with her: and now they came forward for separate establishments. The establishment of the Princess of Wales was only 5,000l. a year, and therefore he did not think any delicacy was exhibited towards her Royal Highness by those who talked so much about it.
§ The Bill was read a third time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthen introduced several new clauses. On that being proposed by which the commencement of the operation of the Bill was fixed for the 18th of February last,
§ Mr. Whitbread, adverting to what the right hon. Secretary of State had said of delicacy, expressed his surprise that the right hon. Secretary had made this observation, at the same time that he must be aware of the course and conduct pursued by the right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) who sat next him, on an occasion highly interesting to that illustrious individual. He would ask if there had not been at a former period a solemn proceeding on the case of the Princess of Wales—if that case had not been referred by his Majesty to his ministers for their advice—if on that advice, her Royal Highness had not been received at court—if the right hon. gentleman's right hon. friend had not then caused to be 450 printed, at a private press in his house, a large number of copies of a detail of the transaction, for the purpose of giving them to the world? Why the work had been suppressed, he did not know. But he knew that several copies which had got abroad were bought up at a large expence, and he believed that certain advertisements offering rewards to those who would bring copies of the work to one Lindsell, a bookseller, proceeded from the right hon. gentleman or his agents, When these facts were notorious, he knew not why members of that House were to be arraigned for asking questions; certainly in one point of view, of a private nature, but of very great national importance in another.
Mr. Secretary Rydersaid, he did not rise for the purpose of answering the questions which had been put by the hon. gentleman. When he spoke of the conduct pursued by him and his friends, on the present and on similar occasions, when he had talked of delicacy, he did not flatter himself that his observations would be attended with much effect. But he thought it his duty to state his opinion, which he did not look upon as that of a single individual; for, if he knew any thing of the feelings of the public on this subject, there was no part of the conduct of the hon. gentlemen opposite which had created more disgust and disapprobation than the manner in which they had introduced this matter to the House. Though he by no means expected that what he had before said would have any weight with them, still he was surprised that the hon. gentleman should put a question to him on a business, with all the details of which he must be aware he (Mr. Ryder) was not acquainted. But, after the opinion he had given on the subject, if he even were perfectly master of those details, he should conceive himself as acting with extreme inconsistency if he returned an answer.
§ Mr. Tierneyproposed his amendment, that instead of "the 18th February, 1812," "the demise of his Majesty" should be substituted.
§ On this amendment the House divided. Ayes 35, Noes 101, Majority 66.
§ The original clause was then agreed to and the Bill was passed.