PRINCE ALBERT'S ANNUITY. (Hansard, 3 February 1840)

§ Colonel Sibthorp
said, that he was rejoiced to find that the motion which he had had the honour to make some days ago, on the annuity of 30.000l. a year to his Serene Highness Prince Albert, had been carried by an unprecedented majority of that House, and had given the highest satisfaction to the country at large. The duty which it was incumbent upon hint then to perform, however ungracious and painful that duty might be, was one which was founded upon principle. That Prince Albert possessed all the high, personal, and mental accomplishments which eminently qualified him to become the consort of the Queen of England he did not doubt, and he trusted that in any remarks which he was about to make, no offence would be taken, as no offence would be intentionally given, for the course which 1105 he was about to take was prompted by duty only. No less a sum of the public money than 1,134,000l. had been paid to another prince, who now occupied the throne of another country. It had been stated that 35,000l. of the annuity of King Leopold were to be paid back annually into the consolidated fund, and that 15,000l. only were to be reserved for the purpose of keeping up Claremont. But what was the information given in a return made on the 11th of February, 1834, by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why, it was in effect, that no money had been paid into the Exchequer on account of this annuity, since the accession of his Majesty to the throne of Belgium; but, then, there was a memorandum at the foot of the return, in which it was said that a communication had been received from King Leopold, stating that a considerable payment was to be made in the April following. Whether any money had been received, he, of course, was not in a situation to tell; but this he would say, that the greater part of the money had been given away, in his opinion, most unnecessarily, and without any benefit whatever to this country. The course which he had taken might, perhaps, be unpalatable to the noble Lord and hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, as an humble though sincere guardian of the public purse, he was bound to object to such an outlay of the public money as was now proposed. It would be in the recollection of the House, that when Prince Leopold married, he professed himself to be a Protestant; but, notwithstanding this, he had since married the eldest daughter of the King of the French, who was a Roman Catholic? This showed how necessary it was to insert in the present bill, such a proviso as he meant to propose. It might, perhaps, be contended, that on the same principle on which his motives were based, the annuity of the King of Hanover should be taken away; but he must deny the analogy between the two cases. There was a wide difference between taking away an annuity which had already been granted—not to speak of the right of the King of Hanover—and granting another annuity. It was unnecessary for him to say one word in vindication of his loyalty, and he would only add, that there was not a man in that House who would go farther in contributing to, not merely the comfort of the Sovereign, but the splendour of the 1106 Crown. Sense of public duty alone compelled him to adopt the course which he was now pursuing. The hon. and gallant Member, in conclusion, moved that the following clause be inserted in the bill:— Provided, nevertheless, and be it enacted that, in case his Serene Highness Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha shall survive her Majesty, such sum or sums as may be granted by Act of Parliament, by way of annuity, to his Serene Highness, during his natural life, shall altogether and wholly cease and determine, in case his Serene Highness shall reside for a less period than six months consecutively in each year, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or shall ally himself in marriage with any foreign princess or foreign person who shall not be a Protestant, or shall cease to profess and adhere to the Protestant religion as by law established within these realms.

§ Sir R. Peel
I am perfectly satisfied of the purity of the motives which have actuated my hon. and gallant Friend in bringing forward his present motion, and I think, moreover, that it is consistent with the most perfect respect and loyalty to the Sovereign to take the course which my hon. and gallant Friend has adopted, but at the same time I am bound to say, that I for one, cannot support his motion. Sir, I cordially supported the proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend for reducing the grant to Prince Albert from 50,000l. to 30,000l.; not, however, from any mistrust, or a want of confidence in Prince Albert, but because, on looking at the whole of the circumstances of the case, I thought 30,000l. the proper sum to be allowed. I stated, then, that 30,000l. was a sufficient sum to give to Prince Albert in the event of the death of her Majesty, an event which I, in common with all her Majesty's subjects, should deeply deplore—an event which I do not and will not anticipate—and I still am of the opinion that such a sum is a reasonable allowance to make in case Prince Albert should survive her Majesty. I went, however, further than this, and I said, that, in case Prince Albert should become the father of a family, then I thought 30,000l. would be an inadequate allowance, and that I had no doubt, in such a case, the House would be ready to consider the propriety of voting an addition to the 30,000l. Sir, it is infinitely better not to show any distrust, and under any circumstances, I said it was not only needful, but wise on 1107 the part of this House to evince unlimited confidence in, and a total absence of mistrust towards, Prince Albert. I could, Sir, if it were necessary, assign reasons in detail to show that that part of the proviso of my hon. and gallant Friend with respect to residence could not be defined, and, in short, that any attempt to define it, would gain no useful object. There can, I think, be little doubt that after his connexion with this country, Prince Albert would, in the event alluded to, be most likely to take up his residence here; and hence it is that I beg lo suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend, that it is perfectly impossible for me to agree with this part of the proposition which he has submitted for the consideration of the Committee. The proviso then goes on to state that the annuity shall cease and determine in case his Serene Highness "shall cease to profess and adhere to the Protestant religion as by law established within these realms." Now, Sir, it is not at all required that the consort of her Majesty should profess the religion as by law established in these realms. It is not necessary that he should be a member of the Church of England. That is not an indispensable qualification to enable a foreign Prince to become the consort of her Majesty. It would be hard of you to propose to a Prince who belonged to another form of Protestantism, that because he married her Majesty, he should become a member of the Church by law established in these realms. I do not know to what peculiar Protestant faith Prince Albert belongs, but suppose him to be a member of the Lutheran Church. That is clearly not a disqualification to his marrying her Majesty; and, if such be the case, would it not be hard to say to him, that, being a Lutheran, you may marry her Majesty, but in the event of her death, you shall not be entitled to your annuity, unless you are a member of the Church as established by law in these realms? I think, Sir, it is not necessary for me to say more on this point, and I have now only to repeat, that I gave my vote for the 30,000l. because I did not wish it to appear that we had any want of confidence in, or any mistrust of, the Illustrious Prince who is about to be so intimately connected with the destinies of this country.

§ Lord J. Russell
, after what the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth has said, I do not think it necessary to enter at length into the reasons upon which I object to the motion of the hon. and gallant officer. I agree perfectly with the right hon. Baronet that it is neither advantageous nor expedient for us to show anything like want of confidence or mistrust towards a person who is to be established so near the throne; and from his peculiar situation, there can, I think, be little doubt that he would soon become attached to the habits and character of this country, in which he has every prospect of being highly popular. The course now proposed by the hon. and gallant Member was not pursued in the case of Queen Adelaide, now on any former occasion; and Queen Adelaide, now conducts herself with the same virtue, propriety, and liberality which always distinguished her during the period she was Queen Consort. With respect to the Duchess of Kent, the proposition was made, but her Royal Highness was allowed to have her 30,000l. without any condition. It was the general opinion of the House, that it was far better to trust to the good sense of the Duchess than to encumber an Act of Parliament with such a condition, and this course has given rise to no discontent whatever. When the situation of the King of Belgium became totally altered, and when his Majesty ascended the throne of that country, did he not show a proper sense of the liberality of this country? Sir, I must say that I feel no jealousy at these Princes, who were once connected with us, having allied themselves to Roman Catholics; and with respect to the marriage of the King of the Belgians with the daughter of the King of the French, I can only say, that I am glad of any new tie between this country and France. The right hon. Baronet has clearly shown that this proviso is wholly inapplicable; and, I may add, that it would be utterly impossible for Prince Albert to comply with it. The Queen is at liberty to marry any Prince, provided he is not a Papist, but, although he must be a Protestant, it is not at all required that he should be a member of the Church of England, as established by law. The Church established by law in these realms, however, consists of two parts; the one is the Church of England, and the Episcopal establishment belonging thereto, and the other the Church of Scotland, or Presbyterian Church; so that, 1109 according to this proviso, the annuity to Prince Albert must cease and determine, unless he be not only a member of the Church of England, but also a Member of the Scotch or Presbyterian Church. It is manifestly impossible that Prince Albert could comply with the terms of this clause, and therefore the House will have no difficulty in rejecting it; but before I sit down I cannot help observing, that I think the hon. and gallant officer has obtained fame and glory enough by his majority the other night, and might have rested contented without trying to achieve another victory.

§ Sir R. Inglis
said, that, for his own part, he could see no grounds for expecting the return of any part of the annuity of King Leopold. He was as much entitled to that annuity as any individual in this country was to his hereditary possessions.

Colonel Sibthorpe
said, that in making the proposition he had merely discharged his duty, and that as the feeling of the House was against him, he would not press his motion to a division.