The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose. He said, that as the House of Commons had never been found wanting in inclination to manifest its attachment to the Crown upon occasions like the present, he should not think it necessary to preface what he had to offer, with any appeal to the dispositions of the House upon that subject. In the year 1818, a message had been brought down from the throne, announcing the intention of his late royal highness the duke of Kent to marry, and recommending that the House should take into its consideration what would be requisite for the dignity of the reigning family, and the honour of the country, upon such an occasion; and the House had then proceeded to make a grant of 6,000l. a year on the marriage of, in addition to the income already enjoyed by, the royal duke; with a further provision of 6.000l. a year for the duchess, in case it should so happen that she was left a widow. Now, that provision had been sufficient under the circumstances; but it had not contemplated the possible fact of the duchess surviving her husband, and being left with children. Of course it would be obvious that, situated as the members of the royal family were, money —to use a homely phrase—would not go so far with them as it would with other people. They had a state to maintain, which did not fall upon any other class of persons; and their charities, public and private, were considerable. Now, since this provision of 6,000l. a year for the duchess of Kent had been made, the duke of Kent had died, and a daughter had been born, who was now six years old. It could not be necessary for him, therefore, to point out to the House the propriety of giving a suitable education to a young princess so situated. The position in which this princess stood with respect to the throne of the country, could not fail to make her an object of general interest to the nation. He had not himself the honour of being acquainted with the duchess of Kent, or with that young lady; but she was six 910 years old; and, as far as her education had proceeded, he believed the greatest pains had been taken with her. She had been brought up in principles of piety and morality, and to feel a proper sense —he meant by that an humble sense—of her own dignity, and the rank which, perhaps, awaited her. Perhaps it might have been fit to have brought this matter before parliament at an earlier period; but the duchess of Kent had been assisted by her royal brother, prince Leopold. That, however, was not the way in which a public question could regularly be dealt with; and, with respect to the duchess of Kent, therefore, his proposition would be—that an addition of 6,000l. a year, for the maintenance and education of her daughter, should be granted to her royal highness.—In the next place, it would be his duty to call the attention of the House to the case of his royal highness the duke of Cumberland. At the time of the royal duke's marriage, a proposition similar to that agreed to for the duke of Kent had been submitted to parliament, but had not been complied with. There had been, the fact was, some objection taken to the marriage. The duchess, from some cause, had not been received at court. These circumstances had probably influenced the conduct of the House; because, the only mode in which parliament could express its disapprobation of any royal marriage was, by withholding that provision which should be given for its support. Whatever the motive had been, the subject had been pressed a second time in tile year 1818, and had failed; but parliament had then granted, as in the case of the duke of Kent, a provision of 6,000l. to the duchess of Cumberland, in case she happened to be left a widow. Since that time, however, a prince had been born—a son of the duke of Cumberland—who was now six years old. His position was certainly one of more remote proximity to the throne than that of the daughter of the duke of Kent; but still the country was interested in his education, and a suitable one ought to be given to him. One thing, above all, was desirable, that the education of this young prince—upon every account both moral and constitutional—should be in England. His intention was, to propose, with respect to the duke of Cumberland, that 6,000l. a year should be granted to him for the education of his son-intending that education to be given in England. 911 He should sit down, therefore, by moving, as his first resolution. "That his majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding in the whole the sum of 6,000l., to her royal highness the duchess of Kent, for the purpose of making an adequate provision for the honourable support and education of her highness the princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent."
§ Mr. Brougham
said, that the right hon. gentleman, in submitting his motion, had not deviated from the strict line of usage adopted onsimilar occasions, and had done no more than justice to the feeling which actuated the House. He was ever desirous not only to uphold the maintenance of the splendor and dignity of the reigning prince, but the splendor and dignity of all the other branches of the royal family. And if, in the whole of such a consideration, there was one point that was pre-eminently desirable, it was, to provide for the suitable education of the younger branches of that family. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman, was undoubtedly, extremely liberal. Still, he was not prepared to say, that on that account he should stand out against it. He was disposed most certainly to afford the fullest provision for that young princess, who was the presumptive heiress of the British throne. With respect to the refusal of former grants to the duke of Cumberland, he begged to set the right hon. gentleman right. It was not on account of the marriage of his royal highness, that the House of Commons refused the former proposed grants. If the marriage was improper, why was it not prevented by the advisers of the Crown, by the marriage laws: or, if it was felt to be unsuitable, why was it sanctioned by any subsequent offer of a settlement? But, it was not the marriage [hear, hear!]. He believed it was a rotoed dislike, whether ill-founded or well-founded he was not called upon to say; but he believed it to be a rooted dislike which procured the rejection of those grants. There most certainly existed a prejudice against that royal duke throughout the whole country—it was felt by man, woman, and child [hear, hear!]. The duke of Cumberland, it would be recollected, bad already 18,000l. per annum, and the 15th regiment of Dragoons, which made his income 19,000l. a year. He lived abroad, not 912 because he held any office, as the duke of Cambridge did, but he lived abroad to please himself. He lived in a cheap country too; where his income of 19,000l. per annum was equal to 30,000l. in this country. When, therefore, 6,000l. additional was asked for him and his family, why did he not shew himself amongst them [hear, hear!]? The House was called upon to grant an additional sum to sustain his and his family's dignity. Why did he not, spend his income here, to maintain the dignity and splendor of the country from whence he drew his funds [hear, hear!]? How different was the conduct of his royal brother, the heir presumptive. How differently provided for, and he said so with regret, was the duke of York,—crippled as he was with debts. Yet, to liquidate those debts he has never applied to parliament [hear, hear!]. He resided in England. Why did not the duke of Cumberland follow his example? What was there to prevent his living here? How did they know, after the House had voted the money, that he would allow his son to come to England? He Was not satisfied to vote the money for the education of that young prince on the mere expectation. He must be first satisfied, before the House parted with the money. He knew that the public purse was considered in a plethoric state; and certainly the present course was no bed means of relieving the extraordinary fullness. Let, however, the money be paid here, when the young prince arrived; otherwise there was no security for its being spent in this country. He would much rather subscribe to pay the debts of another branch of that august family, whose carriages were notoriously taken in execution in the public streets [hear, hear!]. Were not such circumstances calculated to sully the splendor of the royal family? Was it not of importance to secure the royal dignity against embarrassments and debts, the effect of which were to subject the illustrious personage, even when he visited a race-course, to such accidents, as honourable members, if it happened to themselves, would consider a permanent disgrace. It was impossible for him to conclude this subject without adverting to the great loss which this country had sustained by the death of the lamented duke of Kent. No man, who duly appreciated his talents, his enlightened opinions, and his habits of business, but must 913 regret it as a great national deprivation. His private virtues survived in his illustrious widow, who was most assiduous in doing that which a mother was best fitted to do; namely, superintending the education of the infant princess.
§ Mr. Hume
said, he must enter his protest against the principle of paying the debts of any member of the royal family, who was already provided with a most liberal income from the state. He had no objection to the provision for the princess, the daughter of the duchess of Kent. He thought that, in place of the large grant now asked, an addition ought to have been made three years ago, and gradually increased from that period. But though even he stood alone, he should oppose and take the sense of the House upon the grant to even the duke of Cumberland. After the two former decisions of that House, it was monstrous to have such a proposition introduced. At all events, let the young prince be brought to this country. He would undertake for 100l. a year to get him a better education than he would get abroad for the 6,000l. [Mr. Brougham said, in a low tone, "Aye, at the new University"]. Aye, resumed Mr. Hume, at the new university; but, in England it was essential that all the members of the royal family should be educated. If left in foreign countries, it was impossible that they should not, imperceptibly get impressions not congenial with the free principles of the British constitution. But he thought the duke of Cumberland was bound to educate his own children out of his 19,000l. a-year income. Why, would it be believed that his late majesty never allowed the duke of Kent above 600l. a-year, until he reached the age of manhood, and that sum was doled out at a pound a time by his tutors. No separate allowance had been given to the duke until he was thirty-one years of age. The dukes of York and Clarence were provided for earlier. He would not consent to vote a farthing more to the duke of Cumberland, until it should be proved that the 19,000l. a-year was rot sufficient.
§ Sir I. Coffin
expressed his hope, that the chancellor of the Exchequer would soon bring down a message from his majesty, recommending to the House to make a provision for the payment of the debts of the heir presumptive. To his knowledge his royal highness owed 12,000l. to his tailor alone.
§ Mr. Monck
said, that if it were true that the heir presumptive was in such distress, and if a proposition was made for a grant for him, he would vote for it, because he wished to support the splendor of the Crown. He could not, however, agree to this grant of 6,000l. a-year to the duke of Cumberland to educate the young prince in a foreign country. He should wish to know how the monarchs of France, or Prussia, or Austria, would like to have the members of their family educated out of their own country. If he did not think that the allowance of 6,000l. to the duchess of Kent was much too small, he should consider the proposed allowance to the young princess as too large; but on that consideration he should not object to it. To the vote for the son of the duke of Cumberland, he decidedly objected.
§ Sir C. Forbes
said, he should vote for both grants; and expressed his surprise that they had not been brought forward sooner. He had always thought it most disgraceful to the country, that prince Leopold should have been allowed to take upon himself any part of the expenses of his royal sister, in consequence of the insufficiency of her allowance. With respect to the duke of Cumberland, it was certainly true that he lived abroad, but it was also true that his income was no greater than when he was a bachelor. Why did he live abroad? Because he could not live in this country on his income. He hoped that the allowance would be made to the duke which ought to have been made to him at his marriage, and that the arrears from that period would be paid to him. He could not help expressing his astonishment at the dark insinuations that had been thrown out in the House against this prince; insinuations which would have been scouted, bad they been levelled at any other individual. If any one had a charge to make against the duke of Cumberland, his royal highness was a subject of the realm, and amenable to the law. There seemed to be a disposition not only to condemn the duke unheard, but to punish him unheard.
§ Sir J. Marjoribanks
expressed a hope that a message would be brought down, recommending to the House to make provision for the payment of the debts of the heir presumptive. There was no man more beloved as the soldier's friend, as the friend of the soldier's widow, as the 915 friend of the soldier's child, than the duke of York. The skilful arrangements of the duke were the original source of those brilliant victories which had raised Great Britain to so eminent a rank among the nations of Europe; and he was convinced that such a royal message would be received with satisfaction from one end of the country to the other.
§ Mr. T. Wilson
was willing to give his assent to the first proposition; but had some doubt with respect to the second. With respect to the duke of York, no man in the country was more respected, or was more disposed to do all the good in his power. He was persuaded that such a message from his majesty as that which had been adverted to, would give universal satisfaction.
said, that nothing could be more injurious to the members of the royal family than the attempts of injudicious friends to excite a feeling which, from circumstances, could not possibly be universal. When the proposition for adding to the allowance of the duke of Cumberland was formerly brought before that House, after much discussion, the proposed grant was refused. His royal highness, however, enjoyed 19,000l. a-year; and had resided for some time in Germany, where living was considerably cheaper than in England. It was difficult, therefore, to understand why he did not possess the means of educating his own son. The chancellor of the Exchequer, however, proposed a part of 6,000l. a-year for that purpose; but accompanied that proposition with a statement, that the royal child ought to be removed from the care of its parents, and educated in this country. If any insinuation had been thrown out against the duke of Cumberland, it was surely this observation of the right hon. gentleman. There was no reason to believe that his royal highness intended to live in this country. He, for one, could not consent to the proposed grant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that what had fallen from him, respecting the young prince, involved the slightest insinuation against the duke of Cumberland. He had never declared, that it was indispensably necessary to take him from his father. What he had said was, that as the proposed grant was asked for on the ground of giving the young prince an adequate education, it was the feeling of government, and of the king himself, that 916 he ought to be educated in England. With regard to the objections, made on a former occasion, to an increase to the duke of Cumberland's allowance, they were founded in general, on disapprobation of his marriage; although he allowed that there were a few individuals who opposed the grant on personal grounds. If, however, personal dislike was really the ground for rejecting the proposed increase on the occasion to which he had alluded, it was exceedingly ungracious in those, who declared that the duke of Cumberland was the object of dislike and reprobation in the country, now to taunt him with not residing in the country. He had been asked, if he knew any thing of the state of the duke of Cumberland's pecuniary affairs? He really did not. He believed that, at one time, his royal highness was labouring under considerable embarrassment; but whether or not that was still the case he did not know. One cause of the residence of his royal highness abroad was, the delicate, state of the Duchess's health, which required that she should avail herself of the baths of the continent. There was no reason to believe that the duke would not return to England, if, in point of income, he was placed on a footing with his royal brothers. But it would be most ungracious for the opponents of the grant to say, We refused you an addition of 6,000l. a-year to your income because we disliked you; and we now refuse the proposed grant for the education of your son, because you will net come among us." As to the comparison that had been made between the expenses of the duke of Sussex and the expenses of the duke of Cumberland, it was groundless; for although the duke of Sussex was married, yet, as the marriage was contrary to the royal marriage act, his children were not princes of the blood; and besides, he lived in a state of separation from his lady, who possessed an income of 3 or 4,000l., which she enjoyed either from the royal bounty or under an act of parliament; he did not recollect which. There was, therefore, not the slightest analogy between the two cases.
§ Mr. J. Martin
said, that if he consented to add 6,000l. a-year to the 19,000l. already possessed by the duke of Cumber-land, he should think that he grossly violated his duty to his constituents, by so appropriating any part of the money which was hardly wrung from them. To 917 the other grant he had far less objection. He trusted, however, that the right hon. gentleman would not press his motion in the present thin state of the House.
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that the absence of the hon. members was a pretty satisfactory proof that they considered the proposition by no means unreasonable, otherwise they would have been in their places to oppose it. With respect to the proposed grant to the duchess of Kent, it seemed to be generally admitted that it was necessary to enable her royal highness to continue to discharge her maternal duties in the exemplary manner in which she had hitherto fulfilled them. With respect to the grant, for the education of the son of the duke of Cumberland, he really thought the House could not seriously object to it, although the hon. member for Montrose had declared that he could provide an adequate education for the young prince for 100l. a-year; and had afterwards named the college which it was proposed to institute in or about London, mainly for the education of mechanics, as the very place for the son of the duke of Cumberland. The former objection of the House to the augmentation of the duke of Cumberland's allowance, were founded upon the marriage of his royal highness, which had not met with the approbation of a certain individual. Circumstances had now materially changed. If the House had refused to vote a certain increase of income to the duke when his royal highness had no issue, was that any reason for their now refusing to provide for such issue? If objection had been made to placing the duke upon an equality, in point of income, with his royal brothers, and if his highness had, in consequence of such refusal, been obliged to reside abroad, the more incumbent was it upon the House to provide for the education of his child. Whether that child was or was not destined to rule in future over these kingdoms, it was equally necessary that he should receive a proper education. The House ought to decide the question upon its own merits.
§ Sir E. Knatchbull
said, he gave his most cordial support to the resolutions. But he was so anxious that the education of the young prince should take place in this country, that he wished to see some stipulations annexed to the resolutions by which that object would be secured. He wished also to know whether the enforce- 918 ment of such a condition would involve the necessity of the royal duke himself residing in this country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the provision now asked for had for its foundation the pledge that the young prince should be educated in this country. If the education of the young prince did not take place in this country, then he should be guilty of misleading the House. He was not authorised to state whether the duke, in consequence, of the fulfilment of the above condition with regard to his son, intended to take up his residence in this country.
§ Sir E. Knatchbull
wished to ask, whether if the young prince remained five or six years abroad, and then repaired to England to commence his education, that would be considered as a compliance with the condition which was understood to be coupled with this resolution?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had no hesitation in saying it would not; and if such was the course that would be pursued, the object of the grant would not be answered, and he should be grossly deceived.
Mr. Denman said, he was aware that there was something very gracious in making grants to persons of exalted rank, and that it was considered niggardly, or even worse, to refuse a portion of the public money to one of the royal family; but, for his part, he thought that liberality to the prince should not be carried to the extent of becoming injustice to the people. He could not agree that the expense in the present instance was of no consequence; on the contrary, he thought it of the greatest consequence, as the present grant would set the scale of many other expenses. He was the more anxious to commence his opposition now, as he perceived that there was an eagerness in some quarters to follow up the precedent set by the ministers that night, and to multiply the examples of lavish disposal of the public money. No sooner had the resolutions of that night been submitted to the committee, than one hon. member stepped forward and declared, that he would not only vote the grant, but also for all the arrears since an addition had been made to the income of the other members of the royal family. Another faithful guardian of the public suggested the propriety of paying the debts of the duke of York, whom he semed to think the most popular man in the Country; 919 and, as one item of those debts, a gallant admiral had informed the House, that the royal duke owed no less than 12,000l. to his tailor; so that, because of this gross extravagance, which would not be countenanced in a private individual, the country was to be plundered, and asked to make good debts to he knew not what amount. Every person was bound to know the extent of his own income, and could have no right to exceed that income, and then ask the public to reward his past, and encourage his future misconduct, by relieving him from his embarrassments. He, for one, could not consent to see the public thus plundered, without mercy and without shame. He thought the cases of the duke of Cumberland and the duchess of Kent totally dissimilar. In the former case, only 6,000l. a-year was granted to the duchess for the support and suitable education of the heiress presumptive to the Crown. Of the moderation of this grant, none entertained the least doubt; but then came the chancellor of the Exchequer with what he so oddly called "a more distant proximity," and was for extending the bounty of parliament to nephews, nieces, and to the third and fourth generations. Not one of these might come to the Crown, and the public, therefore, had little interest in them; nor could it be said that their education would be good in proportion to the number of thousand pounds granted for that purpose. [hear, hear, hear!] He could not see why the duke of Cumberland should now take 6,000l. a-year from the people, because he had had a son born six years ago. He already took from them 19,000l. a-year, all of which he spent abroad. His royal highness had thought proper to withdraw himself from the observations of the English public, and perhaps he had done wisely; if he thought it prudent to reside abroad, the last thing the House ought to do, would be to bring him back to reside in England. The government seemed to have taken the best possible care that the present grant should be unconditional. Now, he thought that the least the public could expect, at the hands of their representatives, was, that they should not grant away the public money for any object, without making the performance of that object the condition of the grant. The duke received a liberal allowance from this country, although it might not be so large as what was granted to his relatives, who had not been subject to public 920 animadversion. Twice had the opinions of parliament been expressed upon the public maintenance of the duke, and he trusted that the opposition to the present measure would be vigorous and firm; nor did he despair of seeing it effectual.
Mr. Secretary Canning
protested against the course adopted by members, of discussing the rights of persons hypothetically. He thought that an illustrious person had been most unfairly dealt by. His royal highness had abstained from bringing his private affairs before parliament, and it was a most unkind reward for such forbearance, to moot the point by supposititious arguments, whether if he did apply to the House, he would be deemed a fit object of relief. It was not by any person professing friendship for the duke of York that his name had been introduced; and yet the conduct of his royal highness had been discussed, as freely as if he had sued, in forma pauperis, for relief. With reference to the duchess of Kent, all parties agreed in the propriety of the grant, and if government had any thing to answer for on this point, it was for having so long delayed bringing it before the House. There could not be a greater compliment to her loyal highness than to state the quiet, unobstrusive tenor of her life, and that she had never made herself the object of public, gaze, but had devoted herself to the education of her child, whom the House was now called upon to adopt. —With respect to the other resolution, let the committee treat it as one that would give a provision, not to the duke of Cumberland, but t o his child, who was next in importance to, the object of the first vote. Two objections were taken to this grant, which appeared to him to destroy each other. It was said that the duke of Cumberland, with his son, resided abroad, and nothing, it was thought, could be more contaminating for a prince who might one day have to sway the destinies of this nation, than that he should receive his education in a foreign kingdom. It was then said, that the duke of Cumberland found it necessary to stay abroad; that he was so odious as to have been refused, in two discussions of that House, the benefit of an application made in his behalf. Now, the object of this vote was to secure the domestic education of the son, who was in a situation to become one day a successor to the Crown of England. The grant was asked for the use of this prince; not because he Was the son of the 921 duke of Cumberland, but because he stood in a relation to the Crown a little more remote, or, to use the words of his right hon. friend, because he was in a situation of proximity, but more distant proximity, than the daughter of the duchess of Kent, to the throne. The phrase had been excepted to by the learned gentleman; but he thought without foundation; for he believed the expression, "longiore proximus intervallo," was familiar to every classical mind. His right hon. friend had been asked, what security was there that the education of the young prince would take place in England He would answer, that it would be the duty of his majesty's responsible advisers, to see that not one farthing of the grant was issued, unless the condition were complied with. It was said, that the House had already twice decided on this question. They had decided on the proposition of a grant; but not on the grounds now stated. The principal objection on the first occasion was to the marriage of his royal highness; and on the second occasion, the same ground was taken. It was objected now, that the royal duke continued to reside in a foreign country, and it was at the same time said, that there was a lurking dislike to him in this. Surely, if the latter were true—which he denied—it was cruel to make his residence abroad an objection. But, he did not reside abroad from any dislike to his country, or from a consciousness of being disliked in it. One reason why the royal duke resided in the country or his wife's relations was, that he had not the means of supporting himself and his family with comfort in England. The first pride of his heart, if he could have accomplished it with any degree of comfort to himself and his royal consort, would have been to live in the country in which he drew his birth; but as he was not able to do so, it was not unnatural that he should seek in her country, among her relations, those enjoyments which his fortune would not enable him to obtain in his own. The royal duke had now a child who was six years old, and therefore of an age when his education became a matter of importance. If there were any reasons which compelled the royal duke to reside abroad, as was insinuated, it was surely fit to rescue the child, who might be the future king of England, from the sphere of their influence. He contended, that the contingency to which he had just alluded was a suffi- 922 cient reason why parliament should secure the education of the prince of Cumberland in this country. With regard to the securities which had been demanded for the child's education in England, he thought that they were to be found in sufficient strength in the responsibility of ministers, who were bound to see the grant applied as the resolution of the committee directed.
§ Sir C. Forbes
gave his assent to both the resolutions. He recollected a conversation which he had with a member of the opposition, when the former proposal to increase the income of the duke of Cumberland was under the consideration of parliament. He was asking, how it was that so many members had come up three or four hundred miles from the country to vote against the proposition, and he was told that it was because the duke had assisted in outsting the administration of all the talents. He trusted that at present no such vindictive motive operated upon the mind of any individual, and complained, that the House had shown itself at all times too niggardly in making provision for those royal individuals whom it was bound to support.
§ Mr. John Williams
wished the hon. baronet to reconcile, if he could, the empty benches of the opposition at that moment, with the unworthy motives he had assigned for their conduct. There was one objection to this resolution which he did not see how to obviate. The duchess of Kent had only 6,000l. a-year, whilst the duke of Cumberland had 19,000l. Why, then, was the same addition to be made to the income of both? He would vote for an amendment which went to reduce the sum proposed to be given to the duke of Cumberland.
The resolution was then agreed to nem. con. The chancellor of the Exchequer next moved, "That his majesty beenabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the consolidated fund, not exceeding the sum of 6,000l. to his royal highness the duke of Cumberland, for the purpose of making an adequate provision for the honourable support and education of his highness prince George Frederick Alexander Charles Ernest Augustus of Cumberland."
proposed, as an amendment, that after the word "education," the words "in Great Britain" be added.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if he felt conscious of having endeavoured to induce the committee to agree 923 to this resolution upon false pretences, he might not, perhaps, object to fetter the grant with the condition which the hon. member would add to it. After what had fallen from his right hon. colleague, and himself, he did not see how a more unequivocal pledge could be given to the committee than that it had already received. It was unnecessary to insert such a condition in the grant as the hon. member now proposed, unless it was his intention to let it go forth to the public, that the committee had been entrapped into this vote by a certain promise, without which they would not have consented to accede to it. On that account he could not acquiesce in the amendment. Besides, he wished to put it to the committee, whether the duke of Cumberland, with a knowledge of what had passed, would risk the loss of this grant by educating his son abroad. Even if the royal duke should determine to educate the young prince on the continent, parliament would at all times hold in its hand the means of recalling him to his duty. It could either address the Crown to withhold the grant, or repeal the bill by which it was placed at the Crown's disposal.
said, that in proposing the amendment, he had no intention to treat the pledge which the right hon. gentlemen had offered with any disrespect. As far as they were concerned he had no doubt that it would be religiously redeemed; but at the same time he must say, that if he were a minister of the Crown, he should be glad to have the words inserted in the resolution.
§ Mr. J. P. Grant
said, he would not support the amendment, if he thought it implied any doubt in the sincerity of the ministers; but he should like to know what security the House had, that the present administration would keep their places, or that their successors would follow in their footsteps? If some future House should be disposed to act upon this subject, where in the journals would they find any record of the assurances of the present administration? If the amendment was not carried, the pledge now given to the House would not be recorded at all, and could not in future be acted upon, if the present administration should be dissolved. He should therefore support the amendment.
§ Mr. R. Martin
said, he would vote for this grant unfetterred by any condition, on the ground, that the augmentation 924 which it made to the income of the royal duke would enable him to return and live in this country.
said, that the amendment implied a want of confidence either in the government, or in the duke of Cumberland. If it were carried, there would be no possibility of the young prince ever going out of Great Britain; and he thought no such condition should be imposed
§ Sir J. Newport
said, he placed great confidence in the pledge offered by ministers; but could not see any reason why they should refuse to accede to the amendment. He would not consent to make the slightest augmentation to the income of the duke of Cumberland, without a distinct pledge that his child should receive a perfectly British education. Ministers were able to give pledges for themselves; but what right had they to do so for the duke of Cumberland It was said, that there was no intention to sever the child from the parent; and yet they had not been told that the duke intended to return home. Combining these two circumstances together, it appeared to him that the education of the child must necessarily take place abroad. He therefore wished to have some entry on the journals descriptive of the circumstances under which this vote was given.
§ Mr. Huskisson
could not support the amendment, He contended, that as the prince of Cumberland was not far removed from the Throne, and as he might one day sit upon it, his education ought to be provided for accordingly. If the amendment were agreed to, it would become part of the law of the land, and the young prince could not he removed for any purpose from the country without the leave of parliament. If he left England, the officers of the Exchequer would be no longer justified in paying to his father any part of his allowance. Now, suppose it were thought advisable at some future period to send this prince abroad, either for his health, the benefit of his education, or for fleshing his maiden sword on the enemies of his country. That object could not be accomplished if the amendment was agreed to. Parliament had au interest in watching over the manner in which the young prince was educated; but the parents had a greater. He thought the purpose of the grant would be adhered to without the amendment; which was adding an unnecessary restriction.
said, he was prepared to give his confidence to the present chancellor of the Exchequer; but as the right hon. gentleman could not pledge himself that six-months hence a " no-popery" administration might not be in existence, and as he would never place the slightest confidence in such an administration, he must look for some stronger security than the word of a minister liable to removal, that the prince of Cumberland should be educated in England. A new minister might say, "It is for the interest of the Crown to have this boy educated abroad. I know nothing of any pledge which my predecessors have given. I go by the letter of the act." The leader of a "no-popery" administration might, out of mere gratitude to the duke of Cumberland, be anxious to take such a course, if it were true, that he had been formerly instrumental in ousting an administration favourable to the Catholics. He must, therefore, to guard against such consequences, vote for the amendment: for, a "no-popery" administration he would trust with nothing. The object of the resolution was, not to vote a sum of money to the sovereign to educate the prince, but to vote it to the sovereign to enable the duke of Cumberland to do so. He would vote that money with pleasure to the king; but on no account would he vote it to the king for the duke of Cumberland to dole it out as he chose for the education of his son. It was worthy the representatives of a great nation to see how the education of its future princes was conducted; but the present resolution would reduce the Crown into a mere conduit-pipe to supply the duke of Cumberland with money professedly for the education of his son, but really and truly for his own expenditure. He would trust to a resolution of the House; but he could not, and he would not, trust to the duke of Cumberland. That royal personage had not the confidence either of the House or of the country. He would not go back into any distant recollections of his conduct. The royal duke stood now in the same situation as he did in 1815. He had done nothing to alter the opinion parliament then entertained of him. All the ministers had abstained from saying that he had. They would not give him the money; they gave it for the education of the prince. It was intended, however, for the duke. Had it been asked in his name, ministers knew they would not 926 have obtained the sanction of parliament., To spew that it was really intended for him, he begged the House to observe, that the duke had now 19,000l. a-year; the duchess of Kent only 6,000l., and they were both to have an additional 6,000l., making the income of the duchess12,000l., and of the duke 25,000l. But was not the duke quite as well able to educate his son on the 19,000l. as the duchess of Kent her daughter on 12,000l., and this child nearer the throne than the duke's son? The duke might not return to the country where he drew his breath, and whence he draws his revenue. It was probable that he wished to remain abroad; and he (Dr. L.) would not give one shilling to bring him back. He would vote for the grant, if it secured the education of the prince in Great Britain.
§ Mr. T. Wilson
thought it ought to be fixed determinately how the money was to be spent, and where, or they would stultify their votes in 1815 and 1818. He must support the amendment.
said, he had opposed the grant in 1815, and in 1818, and as he meant to vote for the present resolution, he wished to show that there was no inconsistency in the two votes. On the former occasions it was stated that the duke had no children, and that a larger income might be necessary if he had any. He thought the House was only redeeming the pledge thus given by now voting a sum for the education of the young prince. He objected to the amendment, as not giving the House one jot more security than they now had. It was not in their power to bind down their successors. He wished to see even the education of princes conducted under the eye of their parents. It was right that the Crown should be intrusted with a power of interference in cases where the parental authority was abused; but the exercise of it on this occasion appeared to him both unwise and unnecessary. After the debate of that night, could any man doubt that the education of this child would take place in England.
Mr. Secretary Peel
suggested, that the object of securing the education of the child in England could be as well secured by inserting a declaratory sentence in the preamble of the bill, as by the proposed 927 amendment of the resolution, which would not be a respectful course to the Crown, as that resolution was an echo of the Royal message.
contended for the necessity of a clear understanding that the child should be educated in England.
Acland, sir T. Lushington, W. Allen, J. H. Maberly, W. L. Bailey, col. Macdonald, James Bent, J. Martin, John Benyon, B. Marjoribanks, S. Bernal, R. Mildmay, P. S. Bright, H. Monck, J. B. Brougham, H. Newport, sir J. Carter, John Osborne, lord F. Coke, T. W. jun. Phillips, G. Colburn, R. Phillips, G. R. Corbett, P. Price, R. Crompton, S. Rice, T. S. Denman, T. Rickford, W. Farrand, R. Robinson, sir G. Fergusson, sir R. Townshend, lord C. Fitzgerald, lord W. Tulk, G. A. Grant, J. P. Scarlett, J. Grattan, J. Shelley, sir J. Griffiths, J. W. Smith, T. A. Guise, sir W. Stanley, E. G. Heathcote, J. G. Smith, W. Heron, sir R. Wemys, J. Hobhouse, J. C. Whitbread, S. C. Ingleby, sir W. Williams, J. Knatchbull, sir E. Wood, ald. James, W. Leader, W. TELLER. Lewis, W. Hume, J.
§ The committee divided: For the amendment 64; Against it 79; Majority 15. The committee then divided on the original resolution. Ayes 105; Noes 55; Majority 50.