HC Deb 03 August 1871 vol 208 cc783-91

Order for Second Reading read.

COLONEL BARTTELOT

said, he was the last man to make any objection to the very moderate annuity to be given to His Royal Highness Prince Arthur. The Bill was not in the hands of Members, but he should take no objection on that point, because he supposed it would follow the precedent established in the case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. He only ventured to state that he thought the modest provision that was about to be made for His Royal Highness was quite in accordance with the wishes of the majority of the people of this country. He believed him to be a Prince who would do honour to the country in the high position in which he was placed, and therefore it was that he thought the people would most ungrudgingly grant this annuity. He rose to call attention to the rather significant Vote which was taken the other night. That Vote, in his humble judgment, did not express in its actual terms the views of hon. Gentlemen who sat below the gangway, or of the masses whom they claimed to represent; but that Vote did, he believed, embody the sentiment of many who, Englishmen as they were, loyal as they were, most anxious in every way to support the Sovereign of this country in that high position in which she was placed, were yet particularly anxious that the Sovereign should come more among her people than she had done for some considerable time past. He believed he was only expressing the views and opinions of large masses of his fellow-countrymen when he stated that, having granted to Her Majesty, as they believed, a very liberal provision for the high position which she occupied, they were anxious that she should, in that high position, spend the money in the way in which it had been granted—namely, for her benefit and that of the nation. He would only add, upon his own part, the expression of a hope that the right hon. Gentleman who could make use of the Royal Prerogative, stating that the exercise of that Prerogative was asked for because it was in accordance with the view of the majority of the House of Commons, supported by the view of the majority in the country, would, in like manner, be able to state his full belief and his earnest hope and conviction that effect would be given to the desire of the vast majority in that House and in the country that Her Majesty would return and come among them as she had done heretofore. He ventured to assert—and proof of this would be found, if necessary, in what was going on in Dublin at the present moment—that if such a course were taken, the Queen would gather again to her the hearts of the whole of her people, and she would be, as she had been heretofore, the most popular Sovereign in the world.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, his hon. and gallant Friend had spoken his mind courageously, as he always did, on this subject, and he thanked him for the opportunity thus afforded of saying a few words in justification of the unpopular vote which he gave the other evening at an hour when he was unwilling to detain the House with a personal explanation. He was additionally anxious to make the statement, as it was quite possible that the same reasons which influenced his conduct might also have influenced the action of some of the small minority who accompanied him into the lobby. He was not one of those who wished to find fault with the Government, or to speak harshly of them for bringing the Vote before the House, because he did not conceive it possible for any Ministry placed as they were to have done otherwise than they did, or to have broken through all the rules of routine, and gone contrary to the action of all former Ministries. But when the Vote was once proposed, it became a matter to be dealt with by the House, and it was in that light that he, as an humble representative of the people, wished to view the matter. The only question which they, the Members of the House of Commons, ought to ask themselves was this—would the granting of this money conduce to the contentment and welfare of the country at large? There was no contract, no agreement, no bargain that this Vote should be given, that had been clearly laid down by the great authorities upon the Treasury bench. It was suggested, however, that there was an honourable understanding, and that, as far as he could understand, was the view taken by the majority of hon. Members. But if there was an understanding, there must be something understood upon both sides, and here he was partly, inclined to agree with his hon. and gallant Friend opposite. When, at the beginning of her reign, a large sum of money was settled upon Her Majesty, the object was to keep up what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had very properly described as the pageantry of the Crown. He was not in a position himself to say whether that pageantry had been kept up to the satisfaction of the country or not; he did not know enough about these things. But he believed that there was an opinion abroad—he had no wish to put the matter coarsely, but simply to render his meaning clear—that the country did not get its money's worth for what it had given. There being an opinion of that sort in existence—whether rightly or wrongly he would not say—when a Vote of this description was brought forward, it would have been well if the Prime Minister had been prepared to state the exact position which both parties occupied, and whether the Crown was not now in a different position from that which it occupied 30 years ago, in being able to make provision, without a special grant, for the person for whom the House was called upon to give this Vote. The right hon. Gentleman rested the grant more upon the ground of precedent than of agreement. That, how-over, was a dangerous ground, for if they went back to precedents, there was no saying how many Princes and Princesses they might not have to subsidize—down even to the grandchildren of the Queen; for the House would remember that an annuity of £12,000 a-year was granted to the Duke of Cambridge, which he now enjoyed. The painful and unfortunate part of the matter was, that those who thought it right on public grounds to vote against this grant were supposed to be doing something harsh towards the young Prince for whom the Vote was asked. No doubt, it might be hard; but it very seldom happened that persons could take action in public matters without hurting the feelings or injuring the prospects of somebody or other. He himself felt most reluctant to say those few words in vindication of his own vote, lest it might seem as if he was casting some slur upon the young Prince, of whom, as far as he knew, nothing but good had ever been reported. But, as he said, it was necessary to begin somewhere, if this system, which seemed to have for its object to subsidize as many as possible of the branches of the Royal Family, were ever to stop. He believed this was the right time to interfere, and he did not think the feeling of this country would for many years longer willingly sanction the granting of these large sums of money. All the grace, all the charm, all the value of these grants to Royalty, it seemed to him, must depend upon the unanimity with which they were given. No doubt the House had been nearly unanimous in support of this Vote; only 11 Members divided against it. But let them look the facts in the face. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) had stated—and he had since heard the statement confirmed in conversation by many Members representing large constituencies—that there was growing up in the minds of the people in large towns an increasing feeling in favour of Republicanism. Now, there was nothing so foolish as to hide, or pretend to ignore the facts—nothing so foolish as the ostrich policy of hiding one's head and thinking there was no danger. Such a feeling existed in the country. [An hon. MEMBER: Question.] Well, he believed he was speaking directly to the question. He was very far, indeed, from saying one word in justification of the feeling of which he had spoken; but undoubtedly it existed, and the only possible way in which legislation could add to that feeling was by making the people of this country believe that the expenses connected with Royalty were enormous, extravagant, and unnecessary. He did not believe that even among those who called themselves Republicans in the large towns, any one of them could get up and say one word against the way in which Her Majesty had performed all her political and constitutional duties, and if that were so, it was clear that the feeling which actuated these men in crying out against Royalty was the feeling that they were paying far more for it than was necessary, or than they thought it to be worth. He would quote one sentence from a nobleman who, in political sagacity and forethought, was certainly equal to any Gentleman in that or the other House of Parliament—Lord Derby. Any institution," he said, "which is successfully to be defended must carry its justification upon its face, or else it is quite certain to go down in the first gale of popular opinion. There was a question which hon. Gentlemen opposite often talked about; they cried out loudly against the reductions in the dockyards which had been made by Her Majesty's present Government. He had supported the Government in those reductions, for he objected to public money being spent upon useless work; but he would ask his hon. Friends upon the Liberal benches, when they went down into the country and justified the votes which they had given by urging that objection, how were they at the same time to account for having paid over the money which was thus saved out of the wages of labour to a Royal Prince who did no work at all. He objected to the Vote on the ground that no proof had been given that this additional sum was required to keep up the pageantry of the Crown, at a time when our public expenditure in other matters was so enormous, and especially he objected to it because by voting these large sums of money for this purpose they were doing the only thing that could tend to make unpopular the best Monarch that ever ruled over this country. He thanked the House for listening so kindly to these remarks, which he had felt it his duty to offer; and he would only add that, having made this protest, hon. Members who objected to the Vote would not put the House to any further trouble upon it.

COLONEL BERESFORD

expressed his regret that the right hon. Gentleman, in proposing the annuity for His Royal Highness Prince Arthur, had omitted to make the very important statement which he made this year in the case of the Vote for Princess Louise—that if the Crown Lands had remained in the hands of the Crown to the present time they would be realizing an income of nearly £1,000,000 a-year, while the Civil List amounted only to £385,000. That omission he knew had been much commented on.

MR. GLADSTONE

I was not aware that the Bill for granting this annuity had not been circulated amongst hon. Members; but if that is an objection to the second reading of the Bill, I will not press the Motion. I can assure the House that the Bill has been framed entirely on the basis of that agreed to for the Duke of Edinburgh's annuity. The words will, I think, be the same, with the necessary change of name. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Colonel Beresford) has alluded to a former statement I made when making a similar proposal to the House. On this occasion I referred to the lengthened statement I formerly made, and in order not to repeat it I stated that I entirely adhered to it. I am glad to correct a certain amount of misapprehension which appears to prevail with regard to it. I never stated that the Queen, if upon her accession she had not surrendered the Crown Lands, would now be deriving from them a revenue of £1,000,000 a-year; but I stated—and it is strictly true—that if during a series of reigns it had not been the case that a most valuable part of the Crown Lands—much of the most valuable part of the Crown Lands—had been used for the benefit of the Metropolis, and not for the benefit of the Royal Family, that in that case the revenue of the Crown Lands would have increased. ["No!"] I am perfectly ready to maintain it; but I am desirous of removing misapprehensions it was certainly well should not be entertained. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) has treated this subject, with one or two exceptions, in the most gentle and courteous manner which it admits of from his point of view, and he discusses them—as he always does others—in the true spirit of an English gentleman. Though I am not particularly certain that I understood the meaning of the expressions he used, I will endeavour to give them the explanation they seem to require. I understood the hon. Baronet to say there is no proof that the revenues of the Crown, as they are now administered, would not fairly admit of an adequate provision being made out of them for the younger branches of the Royal Family, without making special application to Parliament. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: The savings out of the Crown revenues.] That is to say, the hon. Baronet assumes that the economies practised have been so large as to enable the Queen to dispense with the necessity of applying to Parliament. It is with reference to that that I wish to state there is not that difference beteen the past and present expenditure of Her Majesty and the Court as might be naturally supposed. My hon. Friend has gone back to a state of things before the death of the late lamented Prince Consort, and imagined the possibility of saving a sufficient sum out of the Royal income to dispense with the necessity of coming to Parliament for provision for the younger branches of the Royal Family. Since that period Her Majesty has not been able to reside in London to the degree which we all desire, and which she would herself have desired; yet many entertainments have been given at Buckingham Palace which have required proportionately a much larger expense in the removal of the establishment than would have been incurred if the Court had been more stationary in London. In point of fact, the difference in Court expenditure, between what it is now and what it was before the death of the Prince Consort, is but a very small difference relatively to so large a sum, and would not at all admit of that change which my hon. Friend appears to suppose. Well, Sir, the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Barttelot), who has also adverted to this subject, has expressed a feeling which he entertains, and which in truth springs up spontaneously in the minds of everyone of us; but he has used an expression on which I would venture to comment. He says that if Her Majesty were to appeal more in the view of the community he is quite certain that she would gather again to her the hearts of all her people. I do not in the slightest degree quarrel with the spirit which I am sure prompts that expression; but I venture to say that Her Majesty, in the exemplary discharge of her public duty, has never lost that confidence and that respectful loyalty which has been founded upon a long experience of the personal qualities of the Queen in every function of Royalty. Those sentiments have undergone no change, and the feeling of regret to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given expression—and in which I have no doubt he carried with him the sympathy of many Members of the House—is not merely a feeling proving that the Queen has lost the hearts of her people, but is a feeling growing out of the very fact that she possesses those affections, and that the truth and strength of those affections make the people desirous of seeing the Queen among them. I have only to say upon that subject that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will, I feel certain, have observed with some satisfaction that during the present year Her Majesty has found herself able to undertake a great number of public duties, placing her in the view of the people, than has been the case for some years past. I venture also to express my conviction that, while I am sure no one would wish the Queen to go beyond the performance of her duties which health and strength will permit, it will be the earnest desire of Her Majesty to comply at all times with the wishes of her people by undertaking to discharge every function of a public character which she shall be advised or find herself able to perform.

MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCE

said, he could not omit to notice one expression of the Prime Minister's, because he was afraid that from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman an impression would go abroad to the effect that the improvements in the Metropolis had diminished the value of the revenue derived from the Crown lands. Now, he did not think that the Votes for the Crown should depend on what the Crown Lands produced. He was confident that the people of this country would always provide the amount that was necessary to maintain the honour and dignity of the Crown without regard to whether the revenue of the Crown Lands increased or diminished. If this question were discussed, he could prove that the largest portion of the increase of that revenue was entirely due to the improvements that had been effected in the Metropolis, and to the great increase in the value of rents therein, and it was an illusion to say that if Hyde Park had been let on building leases a larger income would now be derived from the Crown lands.

Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow at Two of the clock.