§ On the motion that the House do resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
§ Mr. Humeobserved, that before the Speaker left the chair, he was anxious to obtain some information upon a point, with regard to which he had on a former evening felt it his duty to put a question to the noble secretary of state, to which question he had received a very unsatisfactory answer. He meant with respect to the situation of the Queen. If there was any subject which more than another interested the feelings of that House and the public, he believed it was the condition of this illustrious personage. For what was that condition? It was clear from recent occurrences, as well as from the language of the noble lord, that the Queen was not only unacknowledged, but that it was determined that she was not 1622 to be acknowledged. Every loyal man must witness such a course of proceeding with surprise and regret. He by no means intended to express any doubt of the disposition of his majesty to act with fairness and liberality upon this or any other occasion, but he must say that he was extremely surprised at the course which his ministers seemed inclined to take. Was it proposed that the dissolution should take place without making any distinct provision for the Queen? It was known, that the act by which 35,000l. a year were granted to her majesty had expired upon the demise of the king, and was it now intended to leave her unprovided for? In what situation was it meant that the queen of England should stand? Was she to be left as a beggar on the continent, or was she to depend for her subsistence upon the mere bounty of some person or persons in England? He maintained, that as queen she was peculiarly entitled to the attention of that House, and that something definite as to the means of her future provision should be immediately stated. He was quite sorry to see the manner in which the queen was treated. Why was was not an address of condolence and congratulation voted to her majesty upon the demise of the king, and upon the accession of her husband to the throne, as was the case with regard to the queen consort of George 2nd? Upon what ground was the queen passed by altogether upon this occasion, or why was her majesty's name omitted in the Liturgy? He did, he must confess, expect a different course from ministers. But her majesty was so completely slighted, that it was quite unknown to the public in what manner she was hereafter to be treated. If the queen were to land at Portsmouth tomorrow, there was no arrangement or understanding how she was to be received, or whether she was to meet the marks of recognition and respect usually evinced towards the members of the royal family, or how the public functionaries were to behave towards her majesty. These were circumstances, with regard to which some explanation should be given to the House and the country, and he called upon the noble lord to give that explanation in definite terms. He asked the noble lord, how the wedded wife of the king was to be treated, or whether as a husband in private life was bound by law to provide for the subsistence of his consort, the queen consort was to have any settled provision? 1623 It was due to the rank which her majesty held in the constitution, as well as to the character of the country and the claims of public justice, that the means of providing for the maintenance of her dignity should be definitively fixed—that she should not be left dependent upon mere bounty, and- that, as she lived separate from her husband, some distinct provision should be made for the adequate support of her exalted station.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he thought the answer which he had given the hon. gentleman on a former evening would have been deemed quite satisfactory. If the hon. gentleman had waited for the motion which the chancellor of the exchequer proposed to submit, he would have seen that no distinct provision was to be voted for the king, any more than for the high personage to whom he had alluded, but that a sum was to be voted from the consolidated fund, out of which it was intended to make provision for that high personage, as well as for the general purposes of his majesty. He expressed his regret, that any attempt should be made at present to press into discussion the very delicate question adverted to by the hon. gentleman, as such discussion was but too likely to create a ferment in the country, while it was calculated to give pain to the illustrious personages more immediately interested. The hon. gentleman might be fully assured that the high personage to whom he referred was by no means likely to experience any thing like harshness or inattention [Hear, hear!].
§ Mr. Humeobserved, that his wish was to have a distinct provision for the queen, at least equal to that which she enjoyed under the late act of parliament.
Lord Castlereaghstated, that such provision was intended to be granted out of the sum for which his right hon. friend proposed to move.
§ Mr. Tierneydeclared his unwillingness to vote any sum for the queen, until some explanation should be given or promised as to the rumours which had gone abroad with respect to her conduct upon the continent. He agreed with the noble lord in thinking this a very delicate question to be discussed in that House. But by whom was it brought into discussion? Why, by ministers themselves, who, although they deprecated this discussion at present, held out the prospect of some such discussion at a future—[here lord Castlereagh intimated his dissent] "Then,". said Mr. 1624 T. "I mistook the noble lord; and that mistake is an additional reason with me for resisting the proposed grant." So it seemed that there was to be no discussion at all upon the conduct of the queen, after all the world had heard about that conduct. Yet it would appear that her majesty was not to be recognized. He would ask the noble lord, whether any thing like recognition had taken place, or was meditated? Was the queen yet aware of the death of the king, or of the situation in which she stood in consequence of that event? Had any communication been made to her majesty upon the subject on the part of his majesty's ministers? How came it that the name of the queen was omitted in the Liturgy? These things required explanation. But from the whole of the circumstances connected with this transaction, as well with regard to his majesty as with regard to his consort, he had no hesitation in stating, that the king had been betrayed or the queen had been insulted [Hear, hear!]. As an honest member of parliament, he felt himself called upon to make this declaration. He was not actuated by any party motive or personal prejudice whatever, but he would repeat, that in this case, either the king was betrayed or the queen was insulted [Hear, hear!]. He had heard of rumours with regard to the behaviour of the queen, which, if true, could leave no doubt that she was totally unworthy to occupy the throne of England; and if so, the king was surely entitled to the same justice that the law granted to the lowest subject in relieving him from a degraded connexion. This was a discussion into which he entered with the utmost reluctance. He was fully aware of its delicacy, and he could not advert to it without pain, but he felt that he must do his duty. He had heard of a commission having been sent to the continent, in order to collect evidence as to the misconduct of the queen; and was it possible that the noble lord, with evidence in his pocket to show that misconduct, could attempt to apply to that House for any grant of public money to an unworthy person? This was really a case of such a nature, as that House was bound to sift to the bottom, and if the rumours in circulation were true, justice should be promptly done to his majesty; while, on the other hand, if these rumours were mere calumnies, no time should be lost in vindicating the character of the queen. One party or the
*1625 other must have been grossly ill treated. But when, he would ask, were the rumoured discoveries made with regard to the misconduct of the Queen? Upon the death of the queen, about twelve months ago, the liturgy was altered, and on that alteration it was directed that the princess of Wales should be distinctly prayed for. Yet, on the late alteration of the Liturgy, the name of this illustrious personage is left out. The discovery, then, of the alleged misconduct must have been made within the last twelve months, or whence the difference between these two periods? Why was she to be publicly prayed for as princess of Wales, whose name was to be altogether suppressed when she became queen of England? Now the question was brought before the House and the country, it must not be blinked, and he, for one, had no hesitation in saying, that if the queen were really guilty of the rumoured misconduct, no quibbles of law, or quirks in evidence, should prevent justice from being immediately rendered to the king, But, on the other hand, if the queen had been calumniated, he would have her character completely vindicated, and all her rights asserted and maintained. But until her character was re-established, he could not consent to vote her a penny of the public money. While the noble lord called her merely that "high personage," instead of recognizing her as the queen—while all Italy, nay, all Europe, was filled with rumours of her guilt, and of official inquiries about it—while her name was omitted in the Liturgy—while she was not acknowledged, he could not agree to vote her the means of maintaining herself, until the reasons for such extraordinary circumstances as he had recited should be satisfactorily explained. The thick cloud that covered this case must be removed—the deep mystery in which it was involved must be unravelled, before his mind could be satisfied as to the propriety of the proposed grant. He had every disposition to do justice to the queen; and no one would, perhaps, go farther to support her right when her innocence was established. He had no personal knowledge whatever of her majesty. He never received—he never expected any favour from her. His object was to have her case fully explained, from an anxiety for justice, and from a solicitude to maintain the moral dignity and high character of the monarchy of England.
§ Air Broughamobserved that if his 1626 right hon. friend felt so peculiarly the delicacy of discussing this question, he hoped the House would, for various reasons, give him credit for feeling that delicacy even more. He could not, indeed, enter into this discussion without pain, but he hoped the House would indulge him with its attention for a few moments, and the more so, as he differed very materially from the views of his right hon. friend upon the subject. He concurred fully with his right hon. friend as to the importance of the question alluded to, but he felt, he apprehended, still more than his right hon. friend, the difficulty and the delicacy which that question involved. There was no difficulty, however, in his view, in that part of the case upon which his right hon. friend had so much dwelt, because it did not appear to him a matter of any importance whether the queen were recognized or not by any of the means recited by his right hon. friend. For whether her name were inserted or omitted in the Liturgy or in any act of council, she was constitutionally and indisputably queen consort. Being indeed the wedded wife of the king, the moment he succeeded to the crown she was eo ipse queen of England. Upon the demise of his father she in fact became as lawfully and rightfully the queen as her husband became the king of this country. Her title, then, did not depend upon any words in the Liturgy, or upon any act of council, or upon any expression which a minister of the Crown thought proper to employ in that House. Such things, indeed, had no effect whatever upon the rights of the queen;—they were "trifles light as air," and could not operate in the slightest degree to impeach the title of her majesty. Nor was it in the power of that House, by any vote it thought proper to pronounce, to impeach that title So much as to the title of the queen, and now as to the proposed vote of provision for the maintenance of her dignity. That provision was, it appeared, to be made out of the general sum for which the minister was about to move, and if that sum were sufficient to afford this provision in addition to all the other objects of the grant, that must, he apprehended, serve to answer the purpose of those who were solicitous for the adequate supply of her majesty. Out of the proposed grant, the proportion which would be requisite to make good to the queen the loss of her late revenue of 35,000l. a-year, would be 1627 furnished, and that arrangement was at present to his mind quite satisfactory, for he could not rest upon mere technical objections.—Then, as to the rumours to which his right hon. friend had alluded, and which were imagined to cast a cloud of suspicion upon the character of the queen, he totally disregarded such rumours. He would, indeed, refuse his ears to every thing like rumour, suspicion, or insinuation, so long as her majesty remained queen consort. He would listen to no tales about inquiry or commission, nor would he allow the rumoured result of any rumoured inquiry to have the slightest effect upon his judgment. But if any thing in the shape of a distinct charge against the queen should be brought before that House, he hoped he should be found to act as became an honest member of parliament, by pronouncing a fair decision, not only between the parties immediately concerned, but with regard to the public interest, which the consideration of such an important question must necessarily involve. He trusted he would be found, in such a case, ready to do equal justice to the queen, to the king, and to the public, with a due regard to all the national and constitutional points naturally belonging to such an investigation. But till some specific charge should be submitted to that House, his lips should be sealed upon the subject; but he must say, that, in justice to the high personage alluded to, he thought that no opinion should be expressed upon her conduct merely on the authority of rumour. If any charge should be preferred, he begged it to be recollected that this illustrious personage was not remarkable for any slowness to meet accusation, nor for any difficulty to prove her innocence. Remembering, then, her alacrity on the subject of former charges, it was but candid to give her credit for equal alacrity to meet any charges that might hereafter be advanced, and for equal facility, too, in confounding her accusers [Hear, hear!]. But the question which his right hon. friend had thought proper to discuss was of such an important character, that he hoped gentlemen would at all times feel the propriety of considering it with calmness and temper—that bound up as that question was with the feelings of all the royal family, he trusted no appeal upon the subject would ever be made to any turbulent passions out of doors [Hear, heat!]. Such an appeal, indeed, upon 1628 such a subject could not be too forcibly deprecated at any time, because its only effect would be the radical subversion of the principles of justice. But especially under existing circumstances an appeal of that nature must serve to raise a ferment in the country, and to have the names of illustrious personages dragged through the mire of every hustings throughout the empire [Hear, hear!]. If any discussion of this important question should ever arise in parliament, its character was ample guarantee for the examination of the subject with justice, moderation, and candour; and deeply interested, as he must be in the question, from professional considerations, as well as from his duties as a member of that House, he would enter into the discussion with a full confidence of an equitable result.
Lord Castlereaghrose only for the purpose of thanking the hon. and learned gentleman for a speech which did equal honour to his head and his heart, and which must have carried conviction to all who heard it. His majesty's ministers had not lost sight of the inconvenience which might arise from a lapse of the provision which had been made for an illustrious personage, and it was their intention to submit a suitable measure to the consideration of the House.
§ The House then resolved itself into a committee of supply; and the chancellor of the exchequer proposed a vote of 200,000l. towards satisfying such annuities and pensions as would have been paid out of the consolidated fund, in case the demise of his majesty had not taken place. Also for a sum not exceeding 50,000l. to provide for such expenses of a civil nature as did not form a part of the ordinary charges.—Agreed to.