§ On the order of the day for receiving the; report of the commutes on the Duke of Clarence's Annuity bill,
Sir R. Fergussongave his decided ne- 1461 gative to the payment of the arrears. He wished to know, as the day for the coronation was fixed, whether her majesty was to be crowned or not?
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that her majesty had claimed, as a right, that she should be crowned; but, as he understood the matter, she had no such right. It was entirely in the discretion of the Crown whether or not her majesty should be crowned: and the advice of ministers was that she should not participate in the ceremony.
Sir R. Fergusson—I should be glad to know whether her majesty's counsel, or the legal advisers of the Crown, were consulted on this occasion?
The Marquis of Londonderry—I do not apprehend that I am here to answer every question the gallant officer may think proper to put to me on the subject.
§ Mr. Denmansaid the questions were put to the noble marquis as a member of parliament, and not with reference to the situation of a privy councillor; and being applied to in the former character, he ought to answer questions touching grave matters of state. In answer to an application made by the Queen on Monday last, it was stated that the law officers of the Crown would be consulted on the subject. Now, as the omission of the Queen's name in the Liturgy was declaring virtually that she should not be crowned, he was surprised that the same parties should be again consulted who had, as it were, already expressed a decided opinion. But as it appeared from the answer given by lord Sidmouth to lord Hood, that her majesty's application was now under consideration, it might be fairly inferred that there was claim enough on the part of her majesty to entitle her to be heard before the council on the subject of that claim. It did appear to him most extraordinary, that from Monday to Saturday no definite answer had been given, on a point which should have been as clear as the day, before that step was taken, which, indeed, amounted to an exclusion from the ceremony of the coronation.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he had never given any opinion whatsoever on her majesty's legal claim. What he understood was, that the legal claim was 1462 undergoing a discussion, and that in a short time a decision would be had on it; but he did distinctly state, that he considered that which was claimed as a right, to be a matter of discretion vested in the Crown. As this point was mooted in parliament two months ago, it was very singular that this legal claim was not then boldly advanced. It was curious that her majesty's legal advisers should stand still on the subject, until the very eve of the coronation, and that now her claim should be introduced for the first time. If there had been a clear and plain view of her majesty's legal claim, it should, and probably would have been brought forward much sooner, instead of making it a pretext now to bring the coronation into hatred and contempt.
§ Mr. Denmansaid, that so far from feeling that any thing like a reproach could attach to her majesty's legal advisers for the course they had pursued, it appeared to him that they would have acted improperly if they had put this claim forward until it was perfectly clear, that the coronation was about to take place. He thought her majesty's legal advisers had some right to complain of the delay which had occurred in giving an answer to her majesty's application. The ceremony was in itself a pageant, but the custom of the country gave the Queen a right to participate in it. Ministers ought to have been prepared with a speedy and decisive answer whenever the application was made; but this delay showed, at all events, that such a doubt existed, as entitled her majesty's legal advisers to be heard before the council.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, it was easy to give an answer with respect to the discretion vested in the Crown. That was only one part of the question; but when a decided claim of right was made, it was necessary that it should undergo the usual course of investigation. When the learned gentleman complained that an immediate answer was not given, he might be permitted to observe, that he saw nothing of that extraordinary degree of facility in the conduct of the learned gentleman himself, when, he suffered so many days to elapse between the notification of the period for which the coronation was fixed, arid the introduction of this claim of right.
§ Mr. Scarlettconceived it was not fair for the noble lord to speculate on the motives which caused the delay in pre- 1463 ferring that claim. The "law's delay" was proverbial; but in this case, he believed it would not be injurious to the legal rights claimed by the Queen. Of course, when her majesty suggested any point, her legal advisers furnished her with their counsel and assistance; but he supposed they were not in the habit of originating proceedings. If her majesty had claimed to be heard before the privy council, he thought the request ought to be conceded to her. He believed there were but two instances on record that bore upon it. [A member said, there was but one.] In point of fact, there was but one case of a queen-consort not having been crowned; for it was a vulgar error to suppose that the queen of Henry 7th was not crowned. He was crowned before his marriage, because he was anxious that his claim to the throne should be acknowledged as soon as possible; and she afterwards. Henrietta Maria, the queen of Charles 1st, happened to be a Roman Catholic; and though the proclamations of that day intimated that she should be crowned, the ceremony did not take place. The queen was present at the coronation, but she was not crowned. That she did not participate in the ceremony, was, however, the act of the parliament, and not of the king. If this were the only case, it became a matter of very grave consideration how far it bore on the question, whether or no, when the coronation of the king took place, a claim being made on the part of the Queen-consort, her majesty could legally be excluded? It became a question whether her majesty's right to be crowned was not a matter of custom and of law.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, that this was too grave a subject to be discussed in this incidental manner. He hoped it would not be inferred, from any thing which he had said, that her majesty would not be heard before the council.
Mr. Bernalobjected to the bill now before the House, and entered his solemn protest against granting the arrears. He really thought that there was a source of royal bounty, which ought to be open to the duke of Clarence, if he was fettered with debts. It was much more becoming that the liberality of the Crown should supply his wants, than that recourse should be had to this injudicious and unconstitutional mode.
§ Mr. R. Martindefended the grant, on the ground that the younger branches of the family of the late good old king should 1464 have sufficient means to support their rank and dignity among the English nobility.
§ Mr. Watson Taylorsaid, the duke of Clarence did not formerly refuse the grant on account of advice given to him by any individual in office, but on the suggestion of his private and personal friends. They represented to him that having required 10,000l. a year from parliament, if he afterwards accepted of 6,000l. as sufficient, it would seem as if, in the first instance, he had endeavoured to procure a sum of money under false pretences. In consequence of this representation, he declined the grant.
Colonel Daviessaid, he had given his vote for the arrears, but he protested against the grant being considered a claim of right. He thought it rather hard on his royal highness that any hasty resolve of his should be severely visited on him. He wished to uphold the credit and character of the royal family, and that consideration had influenced his vote. With respect to the coronation, he would not give one shilling towards it beyond, what had already been voted.
§ The bill was then reported.