§ On the Question, that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee on the Queen's Message,
§ MR. HUME
wished to know what they would do when the Speaker had left the chair? He said he was now in a position to demand a statement of the general intentions of the noble Lord respecting the Royal grants. Probably the House was not aware that by an Act of Parliament passed many years ago 6,000l. a year had been granted to the late Duke of Cambridge in addition to the 21,000l. granted to the Royal Dukes, and he thus got 27,000l.—the 6,000l. being for his son. He was sorry to hear that he had not received it; but all he knew was, that we had paid it. Before they went into Committee, he wished to know whether the present Duke of Cambridge was to be placed on the same footing as the late Duke of Gloucester? The allowances to the Royal Family had been greatly increased, owing to the peculiar state of the currency; and he thought the time had come when these allowances should be inquired into. The King of Hanover had continued to receive during twelve years the allowance of 21,000l. granted to him when in this country as Duke of Cumberland, making a total of 252,000l. This principle he greatly objected to—that an independent Sovereign should receive a pension from this country. That payment ought to have been discontinued immediately the Duke of Cumberland became King of Hanover. The House had always been liberal in allowances to the members of the Royal Family to enable them to keep up their state; but the continuance of that grant to the King of Hanover was not to be justified. He had more than once brought the question before the House, but they had refused to entertain 14 it. Before going into Committee to grant an allowance to the Duke of Cambridge, a full explanation should be given of the principle on which it was grounded. He had prepared an Amendment, although he did not exactly know what the noble Lord was going to move. The grant was sure I to be more than it ought to be, and he must see if it was not possible to economise in this allowance to the Duke of Cambridge.
§ House in Committee; Mr. Bernal in the chair.
§ LORD J. RUSSELL
Mr. Bernal, in considering the proposition which I have In make to the Committee, in answer to Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message, I shall place the question entirely upon grounds relating to the Duke of Cambridge, and shall not at all refer to that question which the hon. Member for Montrose has alluded to—the annuity paid to the present King of Hanover. Whether that annuity is rightly or wrongly paid I under the authority of an Act of Parliament is, I conceive, a totally separate question. It has been brought under the consideration of the House separately. It I can be so again; and the repeal or maintenance of that Act of Parliament should be entirely discussed upon the arguments belonging to that subject alone. At present I intend only to deal with the situation of the affairs of the present Duke of Cambridge, and of his sister, the Princess Mary. The late Duke of Cambridge had, by an Act passed in 1788, part of an amount of 60,000l., which George III. was allowed to charge on his hereditary estate, and afterwards on the Consolidated Fund, for the purpose of an annuity to his younger sons. There was a provision that none of the younger sons should be paid a greater amount than 15,000l. a year under that Act; but, subject to that provision, the annuities which fell vacant on the death of one of the sons were to be paid to the survivors to increase their annuities. By a subsequent Act, 6,000l. a year was added to the annuity of the Duke of Cambridge, and on His marriage a further amount of 6,000l. a year was granted, with a settlement of that sum upon the Duchess of Cambridge if she should survive her husband. The whole amount, therefore, of the annuity paid to the late Duke of Cambridge was 27,000l. a year. By a subsequent Act, passed a very few years ago, there was an amount settled on the Princess Augusta of 3,000l. 15 a year; therefore the whole sum which lapses by the death of the Duke of Cambridge is 27,000l. a year; and the sums with which the country and the Consolidated Fund are now charged are 6,000l. a year as provision for the Duchess of Cambridge, and 3,000l. a year, which became payable from the death of the late Duke to the Princess Augusta, the Duchess of Mecklenburg. The next matter which I have to bring under the consideration of the Committee is the state of the affairs of the present Duke of Cambridge, late Prince George. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose seems to suppose that there is a settlement made by Parliament of 6,000l. a year upon the present Duke of Cambridge. That, however, is an error. The whole sum that was settled was at a period when Prince George was a minor, and was for the purpose of his education; and there is now no sum payable under any Act of Parliament to the present Duke of Cambridge. The further question arises, whether Prince George of Cambridge inherits from his father any considerable amount of property. I thought it my duty to inquire into that subject, because there were rumours that a very large amount of property was in the possession of the late Duke of Cambridge, which the present Duke would inherit. I find that those rumours are exceedingly exaggerated, that no very large sum was bequeathed by the late Duke to his children, and that that sum is divided into three equal portions, between the present Duke of Cambridge and his two sisters, the Duchess of Mecklenburg and the Princess Mary. Besides that, the present Duke of Cambridge is charged with the payment of annuities in the shape of legacies to the amount of 1,600l. a year during the lives of the persons to whom those annnuties are left, which will absorb, I think, the whole of the amount of the one-third of the property which has been left by the late Duke; and the only property remaining to the present Duke of Cambridge is the rent received from the property of Combe-wood, and the net income from which is not more than 1,200l. a year. The House is well aware that while it is true the late Duke of Cambridge did not exceed his income, and while at one time, when he was Viceroy of Hanover, he was enabled to make some saving, yet that it is likewise true that those savings were never to any considerable amount, and that the amounts which he bestowed in charities, to which he was always a munificent con- 16 tributor, were such as to prevent his easily amassing any considerable fortune. The House may therefore take it as the best statement that can be made of the present situation of the Duke of Cambridge, that besides that professional income which he derives from the Army, he has no other income than that of 1,200l. a year, which is derived from the small property that the late Duke of Cambridge had—I say "that professional income which he derives from his situation in the Army." But the House is likewise aware, with reference to any means derived from that source, that Prince George of Cambridge has always done his duty as a soldier. He is esteemed and regarded by those who belong to the same honourable profession, and that income which comes to him is as fairly his right as that of any other officer in Her Majesty's service. I therefore, Sir, come to the conclusion, in which I feel sure the Committee will coincide, that, in answer to Her Majesty's message, we ought to agree to make some provision for the present Duke of Cambridge. The question next arises what that provision should be; and the precedent to which the hon. Member for Montrose referred is naturally that which occurs to me, namely, that of the Parliamentary annuity which was granted to the late Duke of Gloucester. The Duke of Gloucester, the brother of George III., received an income of 24,000l. a year. By an Act passed in 1778, George III. was enabled to grant to the son of the Duke of Gloucester, the late Duke, an annuity not exceeding 8,000l. In 1806 that sum was augmented by 6,000l. a year, making an income of 14,000l. a year, which the late Duke of Gloucester enjoyed to the day of his death. I need not allude to the provision made for the Duchess of Gloucester by various Acts of Parliament, as they form an entirely separate question. But previous to the marriage of the Duke of Gloucester, he had, under the Acts of Parliament to which I have alluded, an annuity of 14,000l. a year. Having regard to that precedent, and taking into consideration the position in which the Duke of Cambridge stands, we have to determine what it would be right for the Minister of the Crown to propose that Her Majesty should ask Parliament to grant to the present Duke of Cambridge. Now, in considering this proposition, I think it ought to be taken into account that the late Duke of Gloucester, while he was one of the Royal Family—the nephew pf George III.—was at the 17 same time living with several of the sons of George III. I think there were no less than six sons of George III., who were enjoying considerable incomes, and who were of adult ago at the same time that the Duke of Gloucester was receiving that annuity. I say this because it is well known to this House and the country that a person in the situation of a Royal Duke has many claims upon his purse in the shape of charity; and while the Duke of Sussex and the Duke of Cambridge were living there were not likely to be so many calls upon the Duke of Gloucester as upon an only living adult Prince of the Royal Family. That is the position of the present Duke of Cambridge, he being the only Prince of the Royal Family who is resident in England, except the younger brandies, the sons of the Queen, who are infants according to law, and who, of course, are not appealed to on subjects of that nature. Sir, the Committee will, I am sure, consider that this must make a difference with respect to the calls that will be made on him; and the Committee will consider, too, that he cannot say, "I will live upon the income that Parliament gives me entirely, as if it were given for my private account. I will be entirely deaf to all those calls of charity to which my father was so munificent a contributor." I don't think that that is in the character of the present Duke of Cambridge, and I am sure the Committee would not wish that he should be placed in such a position. I come therefore to the conclusion, considering these things, and considering the position altogether in which he is placed, that an annuity of 12,000l. a year, being 2,000l. a year less than was granted to the Duke of Gloucester by the Act of 1806, would be a proper sum for this House to vote for the present Duke of Cambridge. I think it would be a sum which would enable him to maintain his present rank. I think that it would not be at all excessive, or beyond what can be deemed necessary to maintain the dignity of his station, and to answer the many calls that are made upon him. Then there is remaining the daughter of the Duke of Cambridge, for whom no provision has been made—I mean the Princess Mary. I have already stated to the Committee, that, by a provision made a very-few years ago, the sum of 3,000l. a year was granted to the Princess Augusta, to take effect from the death of the Duke of Cambridge. I now propose that the same gum should be granted to the Princes 18 Mary, which of course would be secured by an Act of Parliament to be passed; but, on her attaining the age of 21, or on her marriage, it would be an annuity secured for her life. 6,000l. a year is now the jointure of the Duchess of Cambridge, 3,000l. a year is paid to the Duchess of Mecklenburg, making 9,000.; 3.000l. to the Princess Mary, making 12.000l.; and 12,000l. I propose to be granted to the present Duke of Cambridge, making altogether 24,000l. a year. The sum that was paid to the late Duke of Cambridge during his lifetime was 27,000l. a year, therefore the sums that I propose, together with those sums now paid, would amount to 3,000l. a year less than the sum lately payable. I think it is unnecessary to enter into any further reasoning with respect to this subject. What the hon. Member for Montrose has said upon the question does not appear to be at all connected either with the annuity payable to the Duke of Cambridge on the one band, or to any salary or pension granted for civil services on the other. I propose that those sums should be granted to the Royal Family, to enable Prince George, who I think deserves the consideration of this House, to keep up the dignity of the position to which he has succeeded, and whilst they will enable him to do that, I do not at the same time think that they can be considered excessive.
(1.) Motion made, and Question proposed—
That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her Majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of twelve thousand pounds, to make a suitable provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
§ MR. HUME
said, he was exceeding sorry to be compelled to differ from the noble Lord as to the amount that ought to be granted to the present Duke of Cambridge. No man had given more credit than himself to the late Duke for prudence and good management; and whether his accumulations were 100,000l. or 200,000l., they would not affect the observations he had to make. The noble Lord had scarcely stated the whole of the facts with regard to what George III. was authorised to do. That monarch was allowed by Parliament 60,000l. a year, to be divided among ten sons, being 6,000l. a year each; but it was provided that upon the death of any one, the income which he received should be divided among those who remained, it being stipulated that none should receive 19 more than 15,000l. in the whole; otherwise, under the provisions of the Act, the last survivor would have been entitled to the whole 60,000l. For many years all that was granted to the Duke of Gloucester was 8,000l. a year; but the noble Lord had omitted to state that 6,000l. was granted to the late Duke of Cambridge for the education of his son; and at the same time a similar sum was granted to the Duke of Cumberland. At that time he (Mr. Hume) moved an Amendment that the Duke of Cumberland should not receive that allowance unless his son was educated in England, which was passed. But up to the present hour the late Duke of Cambridge had been receiving 6,000l. a year on this account. He wished, then, to put it to the House whether they would not adopt the precedent of the Duke of Gloucester's case, and consent to vote only 8,000l. It was well known that the great increase in the expenses of living had led to an increase of salaries, and that an amount had been added to the allowances of the Royal Dukes, to put them upon a supposed equality with others who were receiving large salaries. But those times had gone by; we had returned to bullion payments, and all expenses had either come down or must come down. In a time of peace, like the present, the House ought to study economy; and as this was the first opportunity that Parliament had had for some years of dealing with the allowances to a Prince of the Blood, he hoped they would see that the same amount which was enjoyed by the Duke of Gloucester was large and liberal at the present moment. He wished to see the Royal Family maintained in the dignity which became their position; but he did not wish to see them in the enjoyment of such very large sums from the Consolidated Fund, whilst there was so much want and poverty in other circles. As trustees of the public purse, the House ought to consider whether, by granting the amount now proposed, they would be doing justice to their trust under all the existing pressure and difficulty. He was glad to hear that the Duke of Cambridge was following his profession as a soldier with so much merit, and that he was beloved by the Army; but 8,000l., with the emoluments of his military command, and the third of the income left by his father, would, he contended, be adequate to enable him to maintain the position to which he was born. Under these circumstances he should move, as an Amendment, that "8,000l." be inserted 20 in the resolution, instead of "12.000Zl.," and he should take the sense of the Committee upon it.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put—
That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her 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 the sum of eight thousand pounds, to make a suitable provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
§ MR. DISRAELI
Sir, I agree with the noble Lord the First Minister that this proposition ought to be considered upon its own merits, and that we ought not to mix it up with any arrangements formerly made as to His Majesty the King of Hanover. I think the noble Lord was quite correct in stating, that when the Committee is called upon to consider a message from the Crown with regard to a subject of this character, there are, in fact, two considerations before us: first, whether any provision should be made for the illustrious individual whose name is recommended to the consideration of Parliament; and, if that question is answered in the affirmative, what would be a provision that, in the language of the Message, would be considered "suitable?" There are not certainly two opinions upon the question that the illustrious individual to whom our attention is called is one for whom some provision should be made. The Committee will consider the position in which an English Prince of the blood is placed. It is one which gives him very peculiar claims upon the favourable consideration of Parliament. The House of Commons should recollect that it is the constitutional jealousy of Parliament that has virtually deprived the Sovereigns of this realm of the power of making charges upon their estates in favour of Princes of the blood; and, therefore, when a Prince of the blood comes before us, under the circumstances of the Duke of Cambridge, we must always remember it is the consequence in great part of the conduct of the House of Commons. There is another consideration which ought never to be omitted from the consideration of a proposition of this nature, namely, that the House of Commons was a party to the passing of an Act which prevents any Prince of the blood in England from assisting or increasing his fortune by means which are open to all other subjects. When we consider how much the House of Commons has been concerned, 21 first, with the settlement of the civil list, which has prevailed now for a long period of time, and, secondly, with the passing of the Royal Marriage Act, I am sure the House will remember that English Princes of the blood are in a peculiar position, which permits their claims to be urged with no little effect. But, with regard to the Duke of Cambridge, there are other considerations. The House should not forget that the marriage of the late lamented Duke was a marriage which was very much desired by the country at large. It was the general wish of the country, from a lamentable catastrophe in the Royal Family, that the sons of George 111. should lose no time in forming alliances which would ensure the permanence of that Royal Family, with which the pen pie of this country associated their best feelings. That is a consideration peculiar to the case of the present Duke of Cambridge. Nor is it possible to be insensible to the personal character and claims of His Royal Highness; and I think I am only expressing what every one feels, that his conduct has endeared him to the country. He has shown that he possesses many of those qualities which are popular and esteemed, and he leads a life which is, at the same time, spirited and decorous. I think, therefore, there can be no want of unanimity upon the first question before us. The sec and proposition, as to the amount, is a much more important question. It is quite impossible that any Gentleman who sits on this side of the House should not be sensible of the great distress that prevails in the country, especially among those classes whom it is our fortune to represent; although I am rather surprised that an acknowledgment of complaint and distress should come from the other side of the House. Whatever might be my general feelings upon the subject under other circumstances, I cannot consider the pre-sent proposition without some relation to I the state of our constituents. The proposition of the Government is founded upon the precedent of the case of the Duke of Gloucester; and, upon the whole, a more just and apt precedent could not be cited, But I cannot but observe that Her Majesty's Ministers, with discretion, prudence, and wisdom, have proposed an amount much reduced from that granted to His late Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester. I assume that reduction to have been made in consequence of the altera- 22 tions in the times. I see no other reason why the reduction should be made; and I think, in consequence of the alteration in the times, the reduction should be made. I am of opinion, under all the circumstances of the case, taking every point into consideration, duly considering the state of the country, and especially of those classes with whom we are particularly connected on this side, it is a just, and fair, and by no means an immoderate proposition; and I trust, therefore, although the hon. Member for Montrose, faithful to his traditional office, has suggested an Amendment, that, upon due consideration, he will not feel it his duty to press it to a division, but will agree with the majority that the proposition is, under all the circumstances, a just and fair provision for the illustrious Prince.
§ MR. BRIGHT
said, he had felt rather disappointed in hearing the statement of the noble Lord. In one of the proposals to which he directed the attention of the Committee, the noble Lord had, if he understood him aright, stated that the late Duke of Cambridge had divided his property equally among his three children, but had attached to the share he had left to his son certain annuities which for some time would eat up the whole of that son's share—that, in fact, those annuities amounting to 1,600l. a year, would take away the whole amount. Now, if that was the case, he thought it a very unfortunate circumstance. A daughter who had been married some years since received an allowance of 3,000l. a year from that House—["No!"]—Yes, commencing from the death of her father. He thought it unfortunate then, that the property of the late Duke of Cambridge should have been left in such a manner, as that the whole share left to the son should be taken away by annuities, thus in point of fact binding up that property, leaving him without provision, and throwing him entirely for support upon that House. When a provision was made for the Duchess of Mecklenburg, there was some objection taken on the ground that the provision that had been made for the Duke of Cambridge was sufficient to allow him to provide for his children; but it was argued by the Government, that it would not be fair to make any deductions from such provision, and that they were bound to pass a separate vote for the daughter. Well, if that vote for the daughter was considered sufficient, he thought it unfortunate that the bulk of the property should be left in the same 23 direction, leaving the whole future provision for the son to a vote of that House. He was not going to say a word against the late Duke of Cambridge: he believed that no man in that House would do it; but looking at the statement of the noble Lord, it appeared that the late Duke's receipts commenced so far back as 1778, that for a long period that sum was a share of 60,000l. per annum, that it afterwards was 15,000l., afterwards 21,000l., and for many years 27,000l. He was not aware of the precise amount of his receipts as Viceroy of Hanover; but he did think that Parliament, considering the sources which his Royal Highness's emoluments came from, was entitled to expect the same care in providing for a family, which was the duty of its head, whether in a cottage or a palace, and that it would have been much more satisfactory, if, after having so great an income for so long a period, some provision had been made in this case, which would have rendered it unnecessary for Parliament to vote such an income for the children as it was now proposed to confer. However, what was passed could not be remedied, He was not about to contend that some provision should not be made for the children of the late Duke of Cambridge, provided the property was as had been stated to the House; but there was one point which, in considering whether the sum should be 12,000l. or 8,000l., as proposed by his hon. Friend, should not be lost sight of. They could not shut their eyes to the fact that there was no institution, however valuable, which might not be bought too dear; and there could not be a doubt but that all friends of the monarchy—as he trusted they all were, should endeavour so to arrange affairs of this nature, as that the circumstances connected with the Royal Family should not come before the people in an aspect calculated to make unpleasant impressions as regarded monarchical institutions. Now, the point he wished to put to the Committee was this. The present Sovereign had a numerous family, and the time would come when it would be necessary to make provision for the Queen's children. He asked the House then to look forward to the time when such a proposition would be made by the Prime Minister of the day. Would the House propose to give to every son and daughter of the Queen, when of age, a sum equal to 12,000l. a year? He very much doubted whether it would be in the power of the 24 Minister of the day to propose any such provision for the whole of the family. But the present Duke of Cambridge was the first cousin of the Queen; and he doubted whether they were justified in proposing for the first cousin of the Queen 12,000l. a year, if they were not able to convince themselves that Parliament and the country would not consent at a future day to a larger provision for the children of the Queen. His opinion was, that by that time such a proposal would not be satisfactory to the House or the country, and he thought they might with great propriety take that into consideration in fixing the present vote; and if, as he believed, 12,000l. a year for all the children of the reigning Sovereign would be too large a sum, then it would be an unfortunate precedent to vote 12,000l. for the Duke of Cambridge, who was but the cousin of the Queen. There might be those who attributed to himself and to others who took a similar view of the question, feelings as regarded the Sovereign different from what they themselves entertained. He would make no answer to such persons. He believed it might fairly be taken for granted that every one shared in attachment to the Sovereign, and wished that the various members of Her family should preserve such dignity as was necessary to the institutions of the country. But he thought that that Minister was no friend to the Sovereign, nor a friend to the monarchical principle, who proposed a vote of this nature, which should not by its moderation and reasonableness, recommend itself to the intelligent population of the united kingdom. He greatly feared that this large vote would make an unfavourable impression, and that it would be anything but favourable to monarchical institutions, which would be infinitely better preserved in the minds of the people of this country, if the necessary burdens should be made as small as possible, and not, as he took this vote to be, extravagant, and such a one as he had not expected the noble Lord to propose. He did not think this a question for precedent, but still, that cited by his hon. Friend was an important one. The Duke of Gloucester had 8,000l. a year, to which 6,000l. was added, he believed, for party purposes, by the Whig Government of the time. The noble Lord was not responsible for that—he had enough to be responsible for; but if there was the least truth in the assertion, he thought that the noble Lord should be the 25 last to bring it forward and say, that having given 14,000l. to the Duke of Gloucester, 12,000l. would be moderate now. He did not mean to say, in discussing this question, one word unpalatable either to the Court or to the masses of the people out of doors; but he believed that 8,000l. was an ample provision, and that it was the most that Parliament ought to consent to. If after a man had received many thousands of pounds for thirty, forty, or fifty years, he made no provision for his sons, and that Parliament stepped in and voted the enormous income of 12,000l. a year, it would not only be holding out no example to parents in these elevated positions, but would be holding out inducements in a contrary line, in the expectation that Parliament, with a generous disregard to public interests, might step in and make up their deficiencies. For these reasons, and especially considering that a provision must be made for the children of the Queen, he considered that they would be prejudicing their interests in future, and the monarchy, in the estimation of the people by granting the sum proposed by the noble Lord.
The MARQUESS of GRANBY
was sure that every Member of the House was anxious to do honour to the name of the Duke of Cambridge; and it seemed to him that the most obvious and natural way to do honour to that name, was to grant to his son the allowance which the dignity of his position and his high station in life rendered necessary. He thought there was no difference of opinion in the House that some provision should be granted; the only difference was, as to what should be the amount of that provision. The hem. Member for Manchester had said that he understood the noble Lord to state that the annuities with which the income left to the present Duke of Cambridge was burdened, would entirely counterbalance that income. He (the Marquess of Granby) believed that the total income of his Royal Highness would only be about 900l. a year, so that it would be more than counterbalanced by the annuities. The hon. Member for Montrose had stated that the allowance to the Duke of Gloucester was at first only 8,000l. a year; but the hon. Gentleman had not shown that that sum was sufficient in that case. In fact, the reason why it was raised to 14,000l. was that it was found inadequate.
§ SIR R. H. INGLIS
said, that the hon. Member for Montrose had regretted that 26 the bargain with the Crown had been made for life. The bargain, however, had been made, but it was a bargain which had been disadvantageous to the Crown of England. Prom a return on the table of the House, it appeared that from the time the bargain was first made, namely, from the accession of George III. up to the close of the reign of William IV., the sum formerly receivable by the Sovereigns of England amounted in the aggregate to 116,000,000l. sterling, while the sum actually granted to the Crown by Parliament in the same period amounted to only 69,000,000l.—leaving a clear balance of 47,000,000l. in favour of Parliament. Now, had that sum been in the hands of the Crown, there would have been no occasion for any appeal to Parliament for aid in making provision for any member of the Royal Family.
§ COLONEL RAWDON
said, that from his earliest years he had had the honour of calling the Duke of Cambridge his friend, and that for several years he bad been in intimate relations with him, which afforded him ample opportunities of knowing his liberal and extensive charities; and these, he believed, would account for the fact that he had left so small a sum behind him for his family.
§ COLONEL CHATTERTON
Sir, I trust I may not be thought intrusive in offering a few remarks upon the proposition of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, particularly as I do not agree in all that has been advanced by the noble Lord. Sir, I beg to say that no person is more desirous than I am for the most rigid enonomy in every branch of the public service; but there are some cases, in my mind, when it should give way to a dignified liberality; and the fault I find with the noble Lord is, that he seems to have forgotten that word. Called upon as we have been by Her Most Gracious Majesty's 'Message to make competent provision and support for his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge, and his illustrious sister the Princess Mary, caused by their melancholy bereavement, and the loss the Royal Family and the country have sustained by the death of the illustrious Prince, whose character needs no eulogy from me, we are bound to attend to such recommendation; and, Sir, in my opinion, no person has more claims upon the generosity and kindness of this House than the illustrious Person to whoso comforts we are called upon to minister. Born as his Royal Highness has been in England, 27 educated in England, he has lived all his life in England, and is thoroughly English in his tastes, his habits, and ideas; and these alone should make us provide for him liberally—I had almost said profusely. Actuated, no doubt, by a desire to be of service to his country, this illustrious Prince entered the honourable profession of arms at an early period of life, and has acquired so complete a knowledge of it in all its branches as to deserve to be named the Decus et tutamen of the profession. Sir, as long as we are blessed with a monarchical government, so long, in my mind, are we bound by every feeling of loyalty and honour to provide liberally for the children of that family, appointed to govern us, as children of the State. Sir, with these views and ideas I need scarcely assure the noble Lord how cordially and warmly I offer him my humble support, which I beg to say would be much more warmly and cordially given if his proposal were made on a more liberal scale; and if the noble Lord would grant me his support, I would move that the annual income of His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge should be raised to a similar amount as the late Duke of Gloucester's, namely, 14,000l. per annum. As regards Her Royal Highness the Princess Mary, I should say what the noble Lord has proposed, namely, 3,000l. per annum, May be sufficient as long as she remains under the care and guardianship of her Royal Mother.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 206: Majority 153.
|List of the AYES.|
|Aglionby, H. A.||Hutchins, E. J.|
|Alcock, T.||Jackson, W.|
|Anderson, A.||Keating, R.|
|Blewitt, R. J.||Kershaw, J.|
|Brocklehurst, J.||Lacy, H, C.|
|Brown, W.||Locke, J.|
|Carter, J. B.||Lushington, C.|
|Clay, J.||M'Taggart, Sir J.|
|Cobden, R.||Meagher, T.|
|Collins, W.||Martin, J.|
|Crawford, W. S.||Mitchell, T. A.|
|Duncan, G.||Molesworth, Sir W.|
|Duncuft, J.||Morris, D.|
|Forster, M.||Mowatt, F.|
|Fox, W. J.||Muntz, G. F.|
|Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.||Ogle, S. C. H.|
|Glyn, G. C,||Pechell, Sir G. B.|
|Greene, J.||Pilkington, J.|
|Hall, Sir B.||Ricardo, O.|
|Harris, R.||Salwey, Col.|
|Hastie, A.||Scholefield, W.|
|Headlam, T. E.||Smith, rt. hon. R. V.|
|Henry, A.||Smith, J. B.|
|Heyworth, L.||Thicknesse, R. A.|
|Thompson, Col.||Williams, J.|
|Walmsley, Sir J.||Hume, J.|
|Wawn, J. T.||Bright, J.|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. HUME
then moved that the sum should be 10,000l. a year. This was still twice the amount of the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury, who had the whole business of the country to attend to. For many years the sons of George III. did not receive so much. The hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford had alleged that the Crown would have been better with the Woods and Forests at its disposal than with the present arrangement of the civil list. He (Mr. Hume) begged to refer the hon. Baronet to the debtor and creditor side of the account of the Woods and Forests, as contained in the report of the Committee of which the noble Lord the Member for Bath was chairman, from which it appeared that, for the last twenty-five years, the country had derived little or nothing from that source. He was not so hardhearted as the hon. Baronet. He was not at all disposed to place the Royal Family on so precarious a fund.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put—
That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her Majesty he enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of ten thousand pounds, to make a suitable provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge.
§ SIR H. WILLOUGHBY
said, that, before the noble Lord replied to the hon. Member, perhaps he would state to the Committee whether, in the event of the marriage of the Duke of Cambridge, he should propose any addition to the 12,000l.?
§ LORD J. RUSSELL
would rather not answer (he question at present; he would observe, however, that the allowance to the Duke of Gloucester, upon his marriage, was 14,000l., and he did not at present contemplate, under any circumstances, a greater allowance than 14,000l. per annum to the Duke of Cambridge. With reference to the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, he had already stated the reasons which induced him to consider that 12,000l. per annum was not more than a proper allowance to the Duke of Cambridge, and he would not detain the Committee by a repetition of his views. He would, however, take the opportunity 29 of expressing his appreciation of the temper and moderation with which his hon. Friend had put forward the views which he entertained on this subject.
MR. V. SMITH
thought it would he highly satisfactory to the country if the noble Lord would insert a clause in the Act granting the 12,000l. per annum to the Duke of Cambridge, providing that, in the event of the Illustrious Duke acceding at any time to the Crown of Hanover, the allowance should cease. The large sum which the present King of Hanover drew every year from the public revenue of England was a source of much dissatisfaction to the country.
§ MR. HEYWOOD
If hon. Gentlemen were dealing with their own funds, of course they might make the allowance as high as they please; but, remembering that this money would come out of the pockets of the labouring classes, he could not support the larger amount.
said, that if the Royal Family had not consented to an arrangement by which Parliament had robbed them of their estates—if Parliament had not taken possession of the Woods and Forests, which had been badly managed because they had been in their hands—and if those estates had been as well managed as any private estate would be, there would have been no reason for this application, for the Royal Duke would have been in 'possession of an enormous fortune.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 177: Majority 122.
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.
§ "Resolved—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that Her Majesty he enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of three thousand pounds, to make a suitable provision for Her Royal Highness the Princess Mary of Cambridge."
§ Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.