§ On the Order of the Day for going into supply being read,
§ Mr. Goulburnwished to take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) what course he intended to pursue when the House went into Committee of Supply in reference to the provision to be made for Prince Albert. He apprehended that that question would take precedence of all others whenever the House went into committee, and he thought it extremely desirable that the House should not come to any substantive vote upon it without a full knowledge of the circumstances which had induced the noble Lord to propose the specific sum that he deemed fit for the occasion. He presumed that the noble Lord would make a statement of the data upon which he founded his proposition, and that he would not call upon the House to give its decision upon the question until some subsequent period after that statement should have been made. He was sure that the noble Lord would give him credit for not making these observations with the view of throwing any impediment in the way of the settlement which it was necessary to make for the distinguished person who was most immediately interested in the matter. He was only anxious that any step that the House might take might be founded upon such 495 information as would entirely relieve it hereafter from the imputation of having acted in the dark. In requesting the noble Lord to pursue this course, he did not think he was doing anything that could be regarded as disrespectful to Prince Albert. It was the course which he had himself pursued when he proposed the Civil List for his late Majesty. He then submitted to the House a full statement of all the details of the measure he intended to propose. He trusted that when the House went into Committee of Supply the noble Lord would make a similar statement, and give the House eight-and-forty hours to consider the details before he called upon it to pledge itself to a vote.
§ Lord J. Russellshould be glad to comply with the right hon. Gentleman's request, if he knew of any mode by which he could satisfy him. The grounds upon which he meant to propose this vote did not appear to him to admit of any statement with regard to particular expenses. Such a course would be quite inconsistent with precedent, even if it were possible to pursue it. He found that, in submitting the Civil List of 1830, it was proposed that the sum to be voted for the privy purse of their Majesties King William and Queen Adelaide should be 110,000l. That was the sum proposed by the select committee on the Civil List, and it was in no respect altered by the House when the money came to be voted. Of that sum 60,000l. was for the privy purse of King William, and 50,000l. for the privy purse of Queen Adelaide. The select committee of 1831 stated in their report, that they had no data to govern them in fixing these sums for the privy purse of the Sovereign, except by a reference to precedents, by which it appeared, that since the year 1799, the sum voted for the privy purse of the King had been 60,000l, and that for the privy purse of the Queen, ever since the time of George 2nd., the sum had not been less than 50,000l. The latter sum at some subsequent periods, had been somewhat increased; but the committee, looking at all the circumstances under which the various sums had been voted thought that they were making a reasonable proposition to the House when they suggested that the sum for the joint privy purse of King William and Queen Adelaide should be 110,000l. At the end of their report the Committee stated that investigation into particular 496 items of expense, as related to the privy purse of the Sovereign, would not be proper. These were the statements of the committee of 1831, and agreeing so far as it appeared to him with the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He was at a loss to know what statement the right hon. Gentleman desired to be made; and unless the right hon. Gentleman stated something further, he should not think himself justified in doing otherwise than simply propose the vote on Friday next.
§ Mr. Goulburnhad been much misunderstood by the noble Lord, if he at all thought that he (Mr. Goulbourn) recommended having a committee on the present occasion. His view simply was this: that as the case of the consort of a Queen Regnant was one perfectly novel in this country, for which, therefore, there were none or few precedents to be found, and those not publicly promulgated, but only coming within the knowledge of the Government who had access to official documents, he thought it probably not unnecessary that in making a statement of the amount to be fixed for the establishment of Prince Albert, the House should have before them the fullest information that could be given, in order that they might be able to form a judgement of the reasonableness of the proposition submitted to them.
§ Colonel Sibthorpasked whether it was the intention of the noble Lord lo propose a vote for an outfit for the prince.
§ Lord John Russellhad no objection that his statement should be made on Friday, and the House might come to a vote on Monday. But he begged it not to be understood that he considered the proposal was at all reasonable, or that he could have any plan or statement to make with regard to the establishment of Prince Albert, which would make it otherwise than a question with regard to the establishment of William and Adelaide, and as the establishment had been for the last half century. Any thing further back than that would give them very imperfect imformation. The precedent of the marriage of Prince George of Denmark would not furnish any information to the House. In answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman as to whether he meant to propose any sum for what he called an outfit, he did not intend to propose any such sum. He should only move for the grant of 50,000l.to Prince Albert,—Committee postponed.