§ Message from Her Majesty [23rd July], Order for Committee thereupon read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKE
rose to move, as an Amendment—That the consideration of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message be deferred until there he laid before this House a Return showing in tabular form (1) the Princes; (2) the Princesses of the Blood Royal, being Members of the Royal Family of England (excluding the Sovereign for the time being and Queens Consort or Dowager), from the accession of His Most Gracious Majesty King William the Third to the present time; specifying, with regard to such of them as succeeded to the throne, the date of such accession, and, with regard to such of them as contracted marriages with the con- 232 sent of the Sovereign for the time being, the date of each such marriage; and also showing separately, with regard to every Prince or Princess, the several applications (if any) made to Parliament for grants, or confirmations of grants, out of the public revenues, and the results of such applications, adding in each case a Copy of the Royal Message by which such application to Parliament was made.The hon. Baronet said, he had expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have made his statement on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. He believed that in the case of the Royal Message with reference to the Duke of Edinburgh the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was made on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: It is not usual.] The applications to Parliament to make provision for the younger children of our Kings were so largely motived upon precedent that, believing, as he did, that there were no precedents earlier than those of the present Reign which would apply to the present case, he had ventured to place upon the Paper a Notice which called for the production of documents which would show whether there were precedents or whether there were not. In the absence of these Papers, he would do his best to prove that the applications in the cases of the Dukes of Edinburgh and Connaught were wholly without precedent. He might briefly dispose of the cases before the accession of the Hanoverian line by saying that in those times there were no precedents to be found. Coming to the Hanoverian line, George I. had only one son. Here, then, there was no precedent. George II. had two sons— namely, Frederick Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cumberland. The Duke of Cumberland died unmarried, and hence in this reign, too, there was no precedent to be found. Frederick Prince of Wales had four sons, of whom the eldest succeeded to the Throne. One of the remaining three died unmarried, and two married without application to Parliament. One of these latter left no issue; the other, the Duke of Gloucester, left an only son, who married his first cousin, the daughter of George III., no application to Parliament for money being made. The King informed Parliament of the marriage in 1816, and in 1817 a congratulatory Address 233 was voted, but the House was not asked to go into Committee of Supply. He came now to the sons of George III., and in their cases his contention was that it could be proved that no application was made in connection with the marriage of any younger son, except with the direct view of providing for the succession to the Crown. The first of the sons of George III. who married was Frederick, Duke of York, in 1791. No provision was made for him in the year of his marriage; but in the year after the marriage an application to Parliament was made. The Duke of York was the second son of George III. It was distinctly stated in the House of his older brother, the Prince of Wales, by Sir Matthew White Ridley, the great grandfather of his hon. Friend now sitting on the other side of the House, that he "entertained no idea of marrying;" and, as a fact, it was well known to every Member of the House of Commons that, on account of a morganatic alliance which he had contracted, this was true. None of the other sons of George III. were married, and the provision made for the Duke of York in the year after his marriage was, therefore, a direct provision for the succession to the Crown. There was every human probability at that time that the Throne would be occupied by the issue of that marriage of the Duke of York. But, luckily, he was not left to draw inferences from the facts, but he had the direct admission of the responsible Minister of the day. Mr. Pitt, when proposing the Vote, had made use of words which entirely confirmed his view. Mr. Pitt distinctly said—He did not think the present Motion would establish a principle or precedent… In his mind it was necessary that the House should take into consideration the degree of probability that the succession to the Grown might be involved in the transaction.So much for the so-called precedent of the Duke of York. The view of Mr. Pitt had been confirmed by the events of 1815. On the marriage of a younger son of George III., the Duke of Cumberland, Lord Castlereagh proposed an allowance because there was only the life of the Princess Charlotte between his future children and the Throne. A very hot debate ensued. Sir Matthew White Ridley said there was no precedent. Mr. Wynn said— 234The noble Lord had talked of precedents; what precedent was there of such a vote to a Prince of the blood on his marriage, except the single instance of the Duke of York? Were the cases in the slightest degree parallel?"— [1 Hansard, xxxi. 1031.]The result of the debate upon the Resolution had been a majority of 17 for the Government and for the grant. On the Report, Mr. Gordon had asked what special reason there existed for this grant? He declared that the Duke of York's case "had been proved unanswerably to be no precedent," and said that it did not follow that any King's son should on marriage obtain an augmentation of the allowance which Parliament had granted when he became of age. He moved that the Resolution be reported on that day three months, and the Government beat him only by a reduced majority. On the second reading of the Bill on the 3rd of July, 1815, it was rejected by the House. Three years afterwards the project was revived, and on the 15th of April, 1818, that Bill was rejected by the House. He might point out that in both the cases to which he had made allusion the treaty of marriage had been laid upon the Table of the House before the money was applied for, and in both the cases the money was only asked for after the marriage had been solemnized. On the 28th of June, 1815, Lord Castlereagh distinctly said that—It had never been the custom, and he hoped it never would, to submit such a question to Parliament before the marriage was solemnized, for obvious reasons of delicacy and propriety." —[Ibid. 1029.]He came now to the last of the so-called precedents. He referred to the marriages of the Dukes of Clarence, Kent, and Cambridge, in 1818. The fact that the three marriages were solemnized at once was the best evidence that what was in view was the pre-eminent State necessity for establishing the succession to the Crown. George III. had not a single grandchild living, and on the sudden death of his only grandchild, his sons, who were then men past the middle age, had been requested by the Ministry to marry for the highest reasons of State. Before the grant was made, absolutely different as it was in principle from that now before them, and far less indefensible, a detailed account of the income from all sources of the Royal Dukes for 235 whom increased allowances were asked was laid upon the Table of the House. As the 1818 case had been quoted by the right hon. Member for Greenwich as a precedent, it was at least worthy of careful investigation by the House. On the 13th of April a Royal Message had been sent to the House, which stated that—After the afflicting calamity which the nation have sustained in the loss of his Royal Highness's beloved and only child, the Princess Charlotte, his Royal Highness is fully persuaded that the House of Commons will feel how essential it is to the best interests of the country that his Royal Highness should be able to make a suitable provision for such of his Royal Highness's brothers as shall have contracted marriage with the consent of the Crown.He then asked their aid—To enable him to make the necessary arrangements for this important purpose."— [1 Hansard, xxxvii. 1296.]Was it necessary to go beyond the Message to show what the "precedent" was worth? On the receipt of the Royal Message by the House, a Motion was made and carried forA Return of all incomes received by the Royal Dukes from military, naval, or civil appointments pensions, or other emoluments," &c.This Return was laid upon the Table on the 20th of April, 1818. In support of the Motion, Lord Brougham had said—The House was bound to consider the means which each possessed to answer that purpose, before any additional grant was acceded to."—[1 Hansard, xxxviii. 12.]In the House of Lords, Lord Liverpool, the Prime Minister, had used, in order to show that the case was no precedent, words still more clear and emphatic than were even those of the Royal Message. Lord Liverpool's words were these—In considering the question which would hereafter arise, their Lordships would have to look at the nature of the case to be provided for. They all recollected the great and deep calamity in November last, in the death of her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte … and the general question which everyone asked himself and asked his neighbour was—how will this event operate on the succession to the Crown? This was a question which naturally arose from the state of the Royal Family. His Majesty, they all knew, had been blessed with a numerous issue; but it was singular that, of the 12 living descendants of his Majesty, seven Princes and five Princesses, the youngest Prince was now 44 years of age, and there was not one of the Princesses under 40. When he stated this circumstance, and that there was at present no 236 descendant from any of the married branches of the family, he thought their Lordships would not think it unadvisable to take measures to guard against any unfortunate contingency which might arise with regard to the succession. The situation in which the Royal Family stood with respect to issue must surely be regarded as an object to which it was the duty of the executive government to pay attention."— [Ibid., 53.]In the present case these words did not apply. They were words which Lord Liverpool distinctly used of all three cases, and, as they did not apply, the so-called precedent was worthless. In the debate which followed Lord King repeated that Mr. Pitt in 1792 had over and over again declared that it was not intended that the Duke of York's case should be considered a warrant for a similar step at any future time—"he had distinctly guarded it from being drawn into a precedent." Lord Lansdowne also contended that these succession cases formed no precedent, and added—The marriage of any member of the royal family ought always to be a subject of joy and congratulation with the whole nation; but it would cease to be so, if upon all occasions such an event was to be attended with new and grievous impositions."—[Ibid., 64.]Lord Holland, Lord Althorp, and many others of great authority, denied that Parliament ought ever to be called upon to make fresh provision for the younger sons of Kings upon their marriage. Mr. Plunkett made a magnificent speech in the same sense. The contention of the Tories in 1818 was that cases where the succession was in view were no precedent. The contention of the Whigs was that in no case whatever ought additional provision to be made for younger sons upon their marriage, and the Whigs voted against the provision even for the popular Whig Duke of Kent. Both sides agreed that no additional provision should be made on marriage in such a case as the present, where the succession was not in view. Lord Castlereagh, in defending the grant, declared that the Royal Dukes stood out for the provision, and would not otherwise marry. He then went on—It would be felt how desirable it was that the succession should be continued by a line of British princes. … Though the hopes of securing a regular succession were not closed, all the Members of the Royal Family were so advanced in life, that he was sure that neither the Legislature nor the country would wish any unneces- 237 sary delay to take place in the adoption of measures calculated to secure so desirable an object. … To excite some of the Members of the Royal Family to marriage was now an object of much importance to the country. … A single marriage would not satisfy the anxiety of the people on the subject of the succession—though, if those illustrious persons were less advanced in life, the case would be different. The Prince Regent had, in consequence, offered to such as should enter upon marriages with the consent of the Crown, to propose to Parliament to make such provision for them as would be consistent with public economy."—[1 Hansard, xxxviii. 79–80.]Mr. Canning went so far as to assure the House that—With respect to his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence, he could assure the House that his Royal Highness would not have thought of contracting this marriage, it would never have entered into his contemplation to engage in this alliance, if it had not been pressed upon him as an act of public duty … for the purpose of providing for the succession to the Throne."—[Ibid. 107–8.]Lord Castlereagh was beaten on the amount. He had proposed the same sum as was now proposed—namely, £10,000 per year additional to the Duke of Clarence, and £6,000 a-year each to the other Dukes. The Duke of Cumberland having been married three years before, and there being, therefore, no question of tempting him to marry in order to provide for the succession of the Crown, the provision proposed for him was rejected by the House. The £10,000 a-year for the Duke of Clarence was reduced by the House to £6,000, and the Whig Party voted against any provision at all in the cases of the Dukes of Cambridge, Clarence, and Kent. He thought he had shown that there existed no precedent for this grant earlier than that of 1873; and as to that he and his Friends were clear, for they had voted against that grant. He considered that he had already made an amply sufficient case for resisting the proposed grant. But there was another case behind. In 1873 there were debates in the House upon the Crown Private Estates Bill, which became an Act; upon that Bill two important Amendments had been moved— one providing that as the Crown, which had been formerly debarred from holding private property in land, had now by a succession of Acts, of which the last were those of 1862 and 1873, been allowed to hold it, it was desirable that the analogy of the Duchy of Lancaster 238 case should be followed, and accounts of receipts and disbursements should be laid before Parliament. The other provided that, in view of the altered circumstances created by these Acts, the secrecy at present attaching exclusively to Royal wills and testaments should be put an end to. On that occasion Mr. Bouverie made a most important speech, and he voted with the Radicals against the Bill and for all the Amendments that were moved. Mr. Bouverie pointed out on that occasion that in future all applications to Parliament during the continuance of a Reign would be met, if not by the statement that the Crown possessed sufficient property to make it unnecessary that it should come to Parliament, at all events by the contention that it was possible that the Crown possessed such property, and by a demand for information. That demand for information he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) over and over again had made, just as Lord Brougham had made it in 1850. That demand for information had been refused in 1850 to Lord Brougham, as it had been refused to himself in 1872 and 1873. Now, this fact bore upon the present application in several different ways. In all the older Royal Messages the King used to be made to say that his application was based upon the consideration "that he was restrained by the laws now in being from making provision for his younger children." These laws were so strictly observed, that when the Hanoverian Kings made provisions for their younger children out of their own Civil List, they always came to Parliament for confirmation of the grant, which explained the words alluding to confirmations in the Return for which ha moved. His second case, then, was that the form of the Royal Message was necessarily different in the present case from the form of the Royal Message in the case of the applications which had been made to Parliament in the last century. By the passing of the three Acts relating to the private estates of the Crown, without any provision for the publication of accounts, and with the retention of the secrecy of the Royal will and testament, the position of matters had been so greatly changed that it was impossible for Parliament to know whether the Crown was or was not in a position to make provision for the younger children of the King for the 239 time being. He had, he thought, shown in the first part of his speech that there was no precedent; in the second place, he had shown that if there had been it would not apply. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving his Amendment.
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the consideration of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Message be deferred until there he laid before this House a Return showing in tabular form (1) the Princes; (2) the Princesses of the Blood Royal, being Members of the Royal Family of England (excluding the Sovereign for the time being and Queens Consort or Dowager), from the accession of His Most Gracious Majesty King William the Third to the present time; specifying, with regard to such of them as succeeded to the throne, the date of such accession, and, with regard to such of them as contracted marriages with the consent of the Sovereign for the time being, the date of each such marriage; and also showing separately, with regard to every Prince or Princess, the several applications (if any) made to Parliament for grants, or confirmations of grants, out of the public revenues, and the results of such applications, adding in each case a Copy of the Royal Message by which such application to Parliament was made,"—(Sir Charles W. Dilke,)
§ Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Sir, the hon. Baronet in the first observations which he made expressed some surprise that I did not begin by making a statement as to the proposals which it is my intention to submit to the House when it has gone into Committee, and he intimated an opinion that it would have been more in accordance with precedent if I had done so. I wish to correct him on that point. I think it is in accordance with almost invariable precedent that these statements have been made to the House in Committee; and, so much so, that I observe, looking to some former precedents, that on one occasion, when Lord Londonderry, I think it was, made a Motion of this kind, with the Speaker in the Chair, he was interrupted, and he apologized to the House for having brought forward in the Whole House what ought to have been brought forward in Committee. It will be seen, therefore, that it was more strictly in accordance with precedent and my duty that I should move that you, Sir, do leave the Chair, and then make 240 my proposals when the House was in Committee. I shall still so far adhere to that principle that I will not attempt now to make any distinct proposal to the House; but I will so far clear the ground as to intimate that the proposals I shall have to make will be of the same character and to the same extent as were made in the case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Now, with reference to these proposals the hon. Baronet has stated that when last the question was mooted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, he rested his argument entirely, or almost entirely, on precedent. The hon. Baronet, in taking up that point, has endeavoured to show that precedents of preceding Reigns are against the course which was followed on that occasion, and which he presumed, and rightly presumed, would be followed on this occasion. But I would venture to demur to that description of the argument which was used at the time when the Vote for the Duke of Edinburgh was proposed. I do not think that the argument did rest entirely upon precedent; and, so far as it did rest on precedent, I think it rested on precedent of a character to which the argument of the hon. Baronet is not altogether properly applicable. The argument which was then put forward, and the argument which I should principally rely upon on the present occasion, rests not upon ancient precedent, but rather upon the reason of the case as we now in these days have it before us. It is very difficult, indeed, in the situation of the Crown and its financial relations to the people, to compare the cases of application for grants to younger sons or other children of Sovereigns in former times with the circumstances under which we find ourselves at present placed. Because, if you are to compare the position of the Crown in the Reign of George II. or George III., or even of George IV., with that of the Crown at the present time, it will be necessary to take into account the circumstances of the Crown, the amount of the hereditary revenues, the amount of the Crown property, and the amount of the Civil List itself; and it will be obvious that the change which has been gradually taking place since the Revolution, and which was really only completed at the time of the accession of her present Majesty, has completely revolutionized the conditions 241 of these grants. It is not sufficient to say that there are differences between the circumstances under which the grants were asked for in former years and those which at present exist without taking those changes into consideration. We know, as a matter of history, that in former times the Crown might almost be said to have contracted with Parliament for carrying on the civil government of the country, and large grants were made to the Crown with that view, and large services were then charged to the Civil List which are not so charged now. Of late years, from time to time, one or other of those services has been removed from the Civil List, and the Civil List itself has been proportionately reduced. For instance, the salaries of the Judges used to be charged to the Civil List, and there were several other charges which have now been removed from it. Now, what is the net result of these changes as regards the personal income of the Sovereign? I will compare, as was done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich on a former occasion, the personal income of the Sovereign now with that of George IV. The total Civil List of George IV. was £845,000. There were certain public charges then laid upon that List which are now removed, these amounting to £315,000. Therefore, King George IV. had, for the purposes for which Her Majesty's Civil List is now settled, an income of £530,000; whereas Her Majesty has for precisely the same purposes £385,000, or about £150,000 less than George IV. had. Therefore, we must bear in mind what the circumstances of Her Majesty are in that particular. Then there is another matter on which I may just say one or two words. The House will bear in mind that in all these matters, as has been frequently stated, there has been something in the nature of a bargain between the Crown and Parliament, by which the Crown, surrendering the various hereditary revenues and Crown Lands to the public service, has in exchange received fixed sums which have been granted; and, undoubtedly, upon a comparison of what the Sovereign might have received with the amount which the Sovereign did receive out of that transaction, it is not the Crown but the nation which has been largely the gainer. This is shown by an interesting 242 Return which was moved for at the commencement of the present Reign. Sir Robert Inglis moved for a Return showing what was the net result of these transactions between the years 1762 and 1837, and it was there found that the amount of the hereditary revenues which the Crown might have enjoyed was £116,000,000, whereas the amount of the Civil List was £69,000,000, showing a balance of £47,000,000 to the nation as against the Crown at that time. Since that time the public revenues from the Crown Lands have largely increased. They now amount to more than a total of the Civil List, or to about £410,000 a-year, while the Civil List is under £400,000; so that the position of the Sovereign is relatively less favourable now than in the last Reign, because the Civil List has diminished, while the hereditary revenues have increased. But then the hon. Baronet speaks about these allowances or grants made to the younger children of the Sovereign, and says there is no precedent whatever for any grant being asked for on the marriage of a younger son of the Sovereign except with direct reference to the succession to the Crown. I am not prepared to discuss that point with him, and I am not prepared to deny that in most, if not all, of the cases to which he has referred some reference was made to that point; but I am prepared to deny that the arguments turned, as he says, entirely upon that question. Certainly, in one of the cases—a case in which the grant was refused—that was not the point on which the argument took place. But, Sir, I do not wish to go into matters of that kind. I wish to point this out—that, at all events, the principle of making grants to Members of the Royal Family is one that has been long in existence. The first grant was made earlier, I think, than the hon. Baronet said—I refer to the grant to the Duke of Cumberland, son of George II.—
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
No, not on his marriage; but that I do not dwell so much upon. According to the hon. Baronet's argument, it might be possible to contend that no grants ought to be made to the sons of the Sovereign; and if we adopted that 243 principle, of course we should stand in a very different position. But I maintain that from the days of George II. downwards there have always been grants made of a certain amount and of a considerable amount to younger branches of the Royal Family irrespective of their prospects of succession to the Throne, and these have varied very much in amount. I think, in the case to which reference has just been made, the grant at the time when the addition was asked for was considerably greater than the grant now given to the younger sons of the Sovereign before their marriage. The Duke of Cumberland was in receipt of £18,000 a-year at the time when the proposal for an additional grant was refused. Certainly there were cases in which as much as £18,000 a-year had been granted, and in which this provision had been made while the Princes remained unmarried. If you admit the principle that any grant of that kind is to be made, then on what ground is it to be made? It is with the view of enabling a Member of the Royal Family to support a proper state and dignity, and to defray the various expenses necessarily connected with his position. It seems to stand to reason if that is the case, and if it is right to make such a grant, you must in fairness and reason take into consideration whether you have to deal with one who is single or with one who is married. I could undertake to point out to the hon. Baronet in the debates to which he has referred many passages in which it is said that if it was thought that so much should be given to a Prince when single it was right that he should get so much more when married; for otherwise either the grant given to him as a single person was too large, or else he would be unable to marry, unless he was to marry for the purpose of obtaining a large addition to his income, which I do not think, with a view to the happiness and character of the Royal Family, is an argument which anyone would like to urge. Well, the position which was taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich was this—that there was an understanding—an unwritten understanding, undoubtedly, but still an understanding, founded on reason, and which had been entirely justified by the course pursued throughout Her Majesty's Reign—that some provision should be made for Her Ma- 244 jesty's children as they attained to years when they went out into the world and became their own masters. When proposals were made for giving certain annuities to those Princes who had attained their majority, it was either distinctly or by inference proposed that these grants should be made during the time when a Prince remained single, and that a further sum should be given when he married. That was distinctly done, and said in so many words, on the occasion of the coming of age of the Duke of Edinburgh. When the grant of £15,000 a-year was asked for, it was distinctly stated that whenever His Royal Highness contracted marriage a further sum would be asked for; and the reason given was that if the sum asked for would suffice for married life it would be too much and could not reasonably be asked for. When the original grant for Prince Arthur was asked for I forget whether the same notice was so distinctly given. ["No!"] Well, it might not have been so distinctly given; but it was asked for with this distinct observation—that there was no reason whatever why Prince Arthur should not receive the same grant from Parliament as had been accorded to the Duke of Edinburgh. I remember perfectly well that these words were used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time; and, of course, when it was said that Prince Arthur should receive the same amount of grant as Prince Alfred had received, it was understood that the reservation made in the one case should apply also to the other. I think that, under all the circumstances, it would be difficult indeed to show that that was an unreasonable arrangement. The arguments put forward so well by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone), as to the relations which it was desirable to encourage between Her Majesty and her people, the reasons which rendered it desirable that some provision should be made, and that that provision should be made at the time when the sons attained their majority and when they contracted marriages, and that they should not be made prematurely independent of the Sovereign—all these reasons must be fresh in the recollection of the House, and I think all these reasons are in. full force to-day, when we are asking Parliament for a grant in a case where there are no circumstances whatever to dis- 245 tinguish it unfavourably from those in which similar grants were given before. When those recent applications were made it was no question of successions to the Throne that was involved. It was no question of immediate succession to the Throne, happily, which induced Parliament to make the grant on the occasion of the marriage of the Duke of Edinburgh. And similarly it is in no immediate reference, happily, to the succession to the Throne that a proposal will be made to the House to-day. The grant will be asked for now on behalf of the Duke of Connaught because he stands on the same footing as his brother —because the same reasons exist in the one case as existed in the other; and I am sure this is a case in which His Royal Highness has endeared himself to all with whom he has come into communication. He has been brought into communication with the people, not only within the limits of these Islands, but also in other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, where his presence was received with the kindliest feeling, and where it contributed not a little to improve the good relations between the Mother Country and the Colonies; because, too, His Royal Highness is about to contract a marriage which is distinctly, and above all things, a marriage of affection. It is entirely a marriage of affection, and not one dictated by political reasons such as those which the hon. Gentleman has quoted and referred to; and I think that, under these circumstances, it can hardly be expected that this House would so far depart from what has been done on former occasions, or set itself so much against what I am convinced are the feelings of the people of the whole nation, as now to set a new example in the direction to which the hon. Baronet points. This is a proposal which, having reference either to the pecuniary and national relations of the Crown to the people, or to the domestic relations of which I have spoken, will, I am sure, command the general assent of the country; and although I do not at all dispute the right of the hon. Baronet to call attention to these matters and challenge, as strongly as he pleases, the relations between the Crown and Parliament, I am convinced that we shall not now be prevented from accomplishing the act which the House is about to be invited to perform.
§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, that a fallacy ran through the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not wholly free. It was true that Parliament now dealt with the hereditary revenues of the Crown — namely, the Customs and Excise, the Post Office, and so on; and why? Because Her Majesty of her own free will chose to exchange those revenues for a Civil List. But Her Majesty only did so for her own life—it was the act of the Sovereign, not of the Crown—and when another Sovereign ascended the Throne, which he hoped would not be in his life-time, then the Crown Lands and the other hereditary revenues would revert to the Crown. But the sons and daughters of the Sovereign must have bread to eat; and if Parliament denied them the means, then another Sovereign on coming to the Throne might refuse to enter into such an agreement as that which subsisted between Parliament and the present Sovereign, and would provide those means out of the hereditary revenues. Now, up to 1688—["Oh, oh!"] A Conservative Member interrupted; but the interruption showed that he had neither Conservative feeling nor Tory knowledge. If he had, he would know that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea began his precedents exactly where they told in his favour, and did not touch those which told eminently against him. He spoke of the Act of this Reign, which enabled the Queen to hold landed property of her own; and, on this ground, he said no precedents could be found in former Reigns; but he did not go back to 40 Geo. III. c. 88, nor did he refer to the Act of the 1st of Queen Anne. If he had, he would have reasoned on it, and found that until the Revolution of 1688 the Crown enjoyed all its Crown Lands and hereditary revenues subject to certain charges of administration. When William III. came to the Throne he cared nothing for England, and told Parliament to manage the Crown Lands and take some of the hereditary revenues into its hands, only giving him a Civil List and enough to carry on his foreign war. That was the origin of the Civil List, and William III. got £315,000 a-year. He then came to the year 1777, when the Civil List amounted to £900,000, though in those days the King paid 247 some such items as those for the Judges and the Ambassadors, the latter costing £10,000 a-year. During that Reign, however, no matter what the precise outgoings might be, the Civil List was £900,000. In the time of William IV. the Civil List was relieved of all expenses of administration, and amounted to £510,000. Now, with reference to the Roign of Her present Majesty, there was a Return made in the year 1837, on the Motion of Sir Robert Inglis, and laid on the Table of the House, which was very curious reading. In his mention of that Return the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made a mistake, and a mistake against his own argument. The Return excluded the Crown Lands, and took in only the hereditary revenues of the Sovereign—such as Customs, Excise, the Post Office, certain Fees, &c. He found on inspection that the total amount of hereditary revenues alone between the years 1760 and 1837 was, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, £116,784,816; while the total of the Civil List, according to the Return, was £69,385,031; so that on the hereditary revenues alone the Crown had lost, in round numbers, £47,400,000. But there was also the income from Crown Lands to be added. He had made a search, and had been unable to discover the total revenues of the Crown Lands; but he had found out the net revenue from that source during a few years, and he could state that, after all expenses had been paid, the sum actually paid into the Exchequer in 1853 was £250,000, and in 1877, £410,000. Now, if only they knew the sum for all the years from 1760 to 1837, it would have to be added to the £47,400,000 of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Her present Majesty came to the Throne in 1837; and was persuaded into resigning her hereditary revenues and Crown Lands, during her life, in exchange for a Civil List of £385,000, of which £60,000 was for her private purse, and the rest for her household. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said—"The Crown contracted with Parliament;" and he spoke of" a bargain between the Crown and Parliament." It was no such thing. It was a contract between the person of the Sovereign and the Parliament, and bound no future King. Obviously, if the Queen had not made the agreement for her lifetime, and—he must repeat 248 it again and again—it was not for any longer period, she would not have been under the necessity of applying to Parliament for her children. She might have provided for them out of her ample revenues. It was true that she might hold private property; but that was by an Act of Parliament, passed for the very reason that the Crown Lands were alienated during the lifetime of the Crown. It was to be remembered, also, that the Crown had not descended in a direct line, so that she derived no benefit from any accumulation of private property by previous Sovereigns. [ Cries of "Divide!"] He felt sure that the interruption did not come from the Irish Members, although it came from below the Gangway, and that they would not chose for their opposition a question so eminently Irish. [Laughter.] Well, the Duke of Connaught had an Irish title, and had passed much time in Ireland, and had "won golden opinions from all kinds of men." [A laugh.] Let the noble Lord the Member for Clare (Lord Francis Conyngham) go to his constituents and ask them whether the Duke of Connaught had not won golden opinions from the people of Ireland during his residence in that country? Did the Irish people not remember him with enthusiasm? Moreover, that Royal Duke was called Arthur, after Ireland's great hero—the Duke of Wellington. Was not the Duke of Wellington himself godfather to Prince Arthur? That Prince now bore an Irish title—an Irish Dukedom. Let Irish Members go back to their constituents and ask them whether they did not regard the Duke of Con-naught as an Irish Prince? just as the Duke of Edinburgh was looked upon by the Scotch as a Scotch Prince. He could not believe, then, that any opposition would come from the hon. Members from Ireland.
§ MR. ANDERSON
said, that the arguments they had just heard, if they amounted to anything, amounted to this —that the Sovereign, at the beginning of the next Reign, would have the right to take from us all those properties which were called Crown estates, but which were really national estates, and he thought that hardly required answering. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had done well not to rest his case on old precedents; because, as the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke)had shown, 249 there were none. He (Mr. Anderson) admitted there was one precedent for this grant created by the right hon. Member for Greenwich in 1873, and which he remembered he voted against. The right hon. Gentleman on that occasion justified the proposed Vote on the ground that when the first grant was made to the Duke of Edinburgh it was stated that, in the event of his marriage, a further sum would be asked for him; but no such statement was made when the first grant was given to Prince Arthur. The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended that all the sons of the Queen ought to be treated alike; but it seemed to him that was wrong, and proximity and possible succession to the Throne ought to make a difference: and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich proposed the grant to the Duke of Edinburgh, no doubt he had had in his mind the subject of the succession to the Throne, as the Prince in question was the second son. Indeed, he had spoken of the propriety of the grant for the second son in his speech on that occasion, intending, evidently, to draw a distinction between the second son and his younger brothers. He had himself that day presented to the House a Petition against the proposed grant, and the wording of that Petition was somewhat remarkable. It prayed the House to refuse the grant, not entirely, but until such time as necessity for it was shown. That was the point—proof was wanted of its necessity. The common belief was that the money which was voted under the Civil List, and which was given to support the dignity of the Crown, and to extend hospitality to foreign Princes and other distinguished personages when they came to visit this country, had not been employed in the full and generous way in which it was intended to be used, and that large accumulations had been made from it. The House had been refused information as to what was done with the money. The Civil List was not given for accumulation—the House had apportioned it in classes—and it was believed that there was a surplus on several items, and that this surplus was made over to the Queen, and was not used in the way Parliament intended. He had only one complaint to make against the Royal Princes, and his complaint was, not of their personal cha- 250 racters, but of the circumstance that they did not do certain work. Whenever there was an occasion on which a thing might be clone more gracefully by one of them than by any other of the Queen's subjects—as when some compliment had to be paid to a foreign Prince or people —they were not found ready to do that work. For example, the other day our Ally, the King of Italy, died; why was a Royal Prince not sent to represent this country at the funeral? Other nations sent their Royal Princes, and our sending only a lord in waiting had given great offence to a friendly nation. The other day the Queen of Spain died; and again a Royal Prince was not sent to attend the obsequies. The Crown of England would have been more gracefully represented in that way; friendly nations would have been propitiated instead of being slighted: but he supposed the Princes were so immersed in their own pleasures, that they could not find time—or, at all events, were not sent—to do that work which they might perform for the service of the nation.
§ MR. GOLDNEY
remarked that the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea, while he enumerated his precedents, ought to have mentioned that the Royal Dukes of George III. were in the possession not of £15,000, but of £38,000, and yet they came to Parliament for further grants. Her present Majesty, when she gave up the whole of the hereditary revenues of the Crown at the beginning of her Reign, had relied for the support of her Throne and dignity upon the generosity of Parliament.
Sir, if we had now been in Committee, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his proposal to be submitted to the House, I should have left my noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition to deliver his sentiments upon that subject. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has most properly said that the proposal ought not to be made in the House; that it ought to be made in Committee, on the principle that all grants of money should be proposed where they could be most freely and largely discussed without the limitation that attaches to debates in this House. Having heard the frequent references of the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to myself, and having been on so many former occasions engaged in submitting to the 251 House similar proposals, I feel it to be my duty absolutely to express my opinion upon the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea has now moved. If I were to consider the Amendment with respect to what it contains as a distinct and independent proposition, the principle on which it rests is one to which I can take no objection whatever. It is that full and ample information should be given to the House to enable it to discharge its duty on a question of this kind, when it arises, with the largest possible knowledge of the facts. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea says, for example, that if there are separate sources of income and public emoluments these ought to be made known. My hon. Friend is anxious that the income of Her Majesty, as a landed proprietor, should be made known to this House. I at once agree in the principle that if these separate emoluments were matters of serious consequence, and such as ought to weigh with the House, it would be most rational that they should be made known to us before we were called on to impose any further charge upon the people. If Her Majesty were in her personal capacity among the great proprietors of the Kingdom, I should say the House ought to be made acquainted with that before adding to the burdens of the people for the support of the Royal Family. But although we have no distinct or formal information on the subject, we know perfectly well that neither of these things is the case. Whatever ground you may take on this measure, I defy anyone to say that any adequate provision is made for Members of the Royal Family by means of any separate emolument attaching to them, professionally or otherwise, or to say that it is possible for Her Majesty to make even the meanest, the most limited, provision for them out of the means at her command. Therefore, however good this information may be, it does not bear on the question before the House. The House has to perform one of the most delicate, and in a sense one of the most difficult, of its duties. There is always something invidious in the view of a portion of the people in voting very large incomes to anybody. This is one of the subjects on which, I think, some people complain with even morbid sensitiveness when they hear of 252 a figure involving a considerable sum of money. Therefore it is our duty, who have the responsibility in these matters —and especially of one like myself, who has been accustomed to complain, as I often do, of the small attention paid to public economy in the present day, compared to what used to be the case 30 or 40 years ago—it is our duty, it is my duty, to take full share of the responsibility of supporting Her Majesty's Government in the proposal they are about to make, in strict conformity with precedents, which I fully admit are only precedents of the present Reign. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea complains that there are no precedents before the present Reign; but my answer to him is this—there could be no precedents, and it was not in the nature of the case that there should be precedents. The circumstances have been radically and fundamentally altered during the present Reign. I should include the Reign of William IV., which, however, did not produce any facts having any bearing on the question. The great epoch in the history of the Civil List arrangement I take to be in 1830, on the accession of William IV. When he came to the Throne a principle, which I may call entirely new, was adopted, and, I think, with great wisdom and with great advantage to the public, for the regulation of the Royal expenditure. Before that time, though there had been large sums of money placed in the hands of the Sovereign without a too minute investigation of the purposes to which they were applied, and many public charges were included in the Civil List, yet, as it has been shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after deducting those public charges, a much larger sum remained available for the Sovereign than was granted on the accession of William IV., and still greater than the sum which was granted on the accession of her present Majesty. I must point out one fact not included in the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer which ought not to be forgotten by the House when it has to deal with this class of questions. I will not enter into the argument as to the £49,000,000, or the much larger number of millions, which my noble Friend (Lord Robert Montagu) would add to the loss of the Crown by this arrangement; but this it is fair to point out—that during the time 253 when larger amounts than the Civil List were given by Parliament, they did not dispose of the whole case, but from time to time applications were made to Parliament that greatly offended and scandalized the country, and weakened the foundation of Royalty itself, for the purpose of discharging those debts which from time to time were allowed to accumulate on the Civil List, and which the Sovereign himself was not able, without Parliamentary aid, to discharge. The great object, then, was to get rid of all applications of that kind. It was not a matter of great consequence to the people of England to know whether £20,000 or £50,000 a-year more or less were to be expended in maintaining the dignity of the Monarchy. What was important was that they should know what was to be paid, and that the Sovereign should not be put in the undignified and humiliating position of accumulating debts which he could not discharge, and then coming in formâ pauperis, and almost as a mendicant, to the doors of the House of Commons to ask for its aid to discharge those obligations. That great object has been completely attained. We started on the principle of administering to the wants of the Court and the Sovereign on a fair and liberal scale, adequate as it was then to the grandeur of this Monarchy, but, at the same time, with the strictest reference to the actual circumstances of the Royal Family at the time. It is quite plain that, from some source or other, we all require our wants to be supplied. From what source are the wants of the younger Members of the Royal Family to be supplied? They are not in a condition of life, however assiduously they may apply themselves to public duties, to earn a living for themselves—and I much more commonly hear acknowledgments of their performance of public duties than lamentations to the contrary effect. Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) must see that even if a Member of the Royal Family had attended the obsequies of the King of Italy or of the Queen of Spain, whose death took place under circumstances so touching, that these were not cases in which pecuniary grants from this House could have been made—the Princes were not in a position in which they could be self-supporting members of the community. Neither their position, nor 254 their traditions, nor the opinion of the country, would allow them to become what are called self-supporting members of the community. The allowances which have been granted to Her Majesty are not on such a scale as to permit Her Majesty, either with facility or with propriety, so to reduce her own expenditure as to make becoming and adequate provision for the wants of the younger Members of the Royal Family. From whence, then, is that provision to come? What I think can be clearly shown—I will not say from records or covenants, but from the common sense of the case and the facts of the case—is that the intention of Parliament was, on Constitutional grounds, which I think to be sound, to administer to the wants, not only of the occupant of the Throne, but of the Members of the Royal Family, according to the circumstances of the case, and to leave to itself the right of granting further means according to the exigencies that might arise. The Civil List of William IV. was £435,000; the Civil List of Queen Victoria was £385,000, and was subject for the first time to the payment of Income Tax at whatever rate the Income Tax might be enacted by this House. Why was the Civil List of Queen Victoria less by £50,000 a-year than that of William IV.? Not because we were more economical in 1837 than we were in 1830. On the contrary, the basis of the arrangement as regarded Court expenditure was the same; but it was less on this account— that, in the case of William IV., there was the fully-developed expenditure of a Court, because there was a Queen Consort; whereas on the occasion of the Queen's accession there was no Prince Consort, and there was only one Royal personage of supreme state to maintain. When, happily, the Queen married, an immediate application was made to Parliament to enlarge the means for the Court. Can there be a more distinct proof of the main proposition which lies at the root of all the demands made from time to time, that Parliament kept in its hands the means of judging of all those occasions, and of course bound itself morally to provide for them when they arose? Therefore, really, the question is whether the arrangements that have been made are, or are not, reasonable arrangements? My hon. Friend, I am quite sure, will not stand on so 255 small a point in a case of this kind as a demand for information, however reasonable in principle that demand may be. There can be no doubt that from no source, except from the proceedings of Parliament, can this provision be obtained. Is it a proper, is it a reasonable provision? I may say it has had the approval of a number of successive Governments, and of a number of successive Parliaments. The first of these provisions was the one made during the Ministry of Lord Palmerston, on the occasion of the marriage of the Crown Princess. From that time onwards it has been necessary, from time to time, to make application for one or other Member of the Royal Family. On every occasion these applications have been met and answered in the most loyal and becoming spirit. I hold that the basis of the present system is essentially a popular basis, because it reserves to Parliament the power of judgment upon each case as it arises, and strengthens the control of Her Majesty over the Members of her family, and it strengthens the Constitutional control which Parliament ought in every case to exercise. Sir, taking this particular question before us, as I understand the complaint of my hon. Friend, it is a complaint, not that a provision is made, but that an additional provision is made for marriage. That is the point that he complains of. Well, that is the very thing I am most anxious to defend, and to own myself responsible for, as the original adviser of the arrangement that was made about the year 1862, and of which it was an essential part. It is infinitely better upon every ground, as I hold that a provision should be made for single— bachelor life, adapted to the condition of a young Prince living a single life, and that a new provision should be made for married life to meet the new circumstances which arise. Therefore, Sir, I give my full and entire adhesion to the proposal of Her Majesty's Government. The sum of £25,000 a-year may, to some people, appear a large income for anyone to enjoy. But let any man fairly and candidly compare that with the general scale of expenditure in this country, with the vast amount and number of private incomes, not only of great families, but of men who have made their own way in the world, with the calls of every description that are 256 made upon Royalty, with the extreme jealousy with which the people of England look upon retrenchment, or the supposed retrenchment, of people in a high station, and then let him say candidly whether it is reasonable or unreasonable. For my part, I believe it to be thoroughly reasonable. I do not believe it is an unpopular Vote; but if it is we ought to meet that unpopularity, standing as we do upon the equity and justice of the case.
§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR
said, he did not propose to continue the debate at present; but it might be convenient to know that on the second reading of the Bill— which would, doubtless, be introduced to meet the Government propositions— he should meet it with a direct negative.
§ LORD FRANCIS CONYNGHAM
said, the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) had accused him of laughing in the course of the debate, and also that he could not give a vote on the question for fear of his constituents. He wished to say that he was not present in the House when he was accused of having laughed, and fear of his constituents would in no way operate on him in giving his vote.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: — Ayes 320; Noes 33: Majority 287.—(Div. List, No. 235.)
§ Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
§ Her Majesty's Message considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
Mr. Raikes, after the discussion which has taken place before the Speaker left the Chair, I think it will be unnecessary for me to say more than a single sentence in placing this Resolution in your hands. The Resolution which I shall propose is that the same grants be made to His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and his bride-elect as were made in the case of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. There are two Resolutions. The first is—That the animal sum of Ten Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the 257 Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, towards providing for the Establishment of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne and Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes of Prussia, the said annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the day of the Marriage of their Royal Highnesses, such annuity to be in addition to the annuity now enjoyed by His Royal Highness under the Act of the thirty-fifth, year of Her present Majesty.The second Resolution is—That Her Majesty be enabled to secure to Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes, in case she shall survive His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne, an annual sum not exceeding Six Thousand Pounds during her life, to support her Royal dignity.These are proposals precisely similar to those made and accepted in the case of the marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh; and, although from the discussion and the division which has taken place, it is evident that there are a certain number of Members of this House who demur to the principle of grants of this character, I think I may assume that I am speaking on behalf not only of a majority, but of the whole Committee, when I say that if such grants are to be made in such cases, there can be but one feeling that it would be only consonant with the wishes of us all that this grant should be made to one so justly beloved and so popular as His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. The circumstances of this marriage, which, as I have before said, is purely a marriage of affection, are such as to induce us to make this grant cheerfully and with generous approval. Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret is scarcely known in this country; she has been here but a short time; but the few who have had the opportunity of meeting her Royal Highness know that she is graceful, amiable, and accomplished, and that she is one well calculated to win the affections of those among whom her home may be. We have, therefore, every hope that the marriage may be blessed with domestic happiness, and that Her Royal Highness may set a bright example and do good in the station in which she may be placed. I beg to place this Resolution in your hands.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the annual sum of Ten Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, towards providing for the Establishment of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne and Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes of Prussia, the said annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the day of the marriage of their Royal Highnesses, such annuity to be in addition to the annuity now enjoyed by His Royal Highness under the Act of the thirty-fifth year of Her present Majesty."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON
Sir, I so entirely concur in all that fell from my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich while the Speaker was in the Chair, upon the general policy of these grants, that it is quite unnecessary I should do more on this occasion than say one or two words to express, on behalf of those who sit near me, our entire concurrence in the proposal which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has been observed, on similar occasions to the present, that the time has passed when great political importance can be attached to alliances between Royal Families; but I believe it will be gratifying to a great number of Her Majesty's subjects that an alliance of this kind should be formed between the Royal Family of this country and the great House which is ruled over by the greatest Protestant Sovereign of Europe. The happy event will be regarded chiefly as affecting the happiness of Her Majesty and Her Family, and I am sure the House may refer with satisfaction to what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the circumstances in which this marriage is to take place. In regard to His Royal Highness, although I cannot go so far as the noble Lord the Member for Westmeath (Lord Robert Montagu) as to his claims upon the Irish people, still, there is no doubt that His Royal Highness has succeeded in making himself popular and beloved in all those parts of Her Majesty's Dominions which he has visited, and not the least has he succeeded in that respect during his residence, on military duty, in Ireland. I am sure that in no part of Her Majesty's Dominions will this marriage be more heartily welcomed, or this grant be more cheerfully acceded to, than in that part of Her 259 Majesty's Dominions to which I have just referred. I have great satisfaction, Sir, in supporting the Resolution which has been placed in your hands by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. MURPHY
Perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words. It was my lot to become acquainted with His Royal Highness in that part of Ireland in which I resided, and I can fully endorse everything that the noble Marquess has said as to the well-earned popularity of His Royal Highness in that part of the country among all classes. Having been a witness of the way in which he performed his duties, I think I should be wanting in my duty if I did not express the feeling I entertain.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
As I represent a county in which His Royal Highness has spent the best part of his time in Ireland, perhaps I may be permitted to endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for the city of Cork. I was present on an occasion on which His Royal Highness was complimented by certain public bodies in Ireland. I believe that no Member of the Royal Family ever visited Ireland who has won the feeling of affection and loyalty from the Irish people more than the Duke of Connaught. With reference to an observation which fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), I can assure him from all that I have heard or seen that there is no person who has filled the position which he has filled who has been more attentive to his duties.
§ MR. ANDERSON
I beg the hon. Member's pardon; I said nothing whatever against the personal character of the Duke of Connaught.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
I understood the hon. Member to charge the Royal Family with indolence and with not attending to their duty.
The hon. Member for Cork is not in Order in adverting to any matters of controversy that took place before the Speaker left the Chair.
§ MR. M'CARTHY DOWNING
I am glad that I have given the hon. Member for Glasgow an opportunity of setting himself right with the House. The majority in the division which has just taken place will prove, at all events, that the Irish people will receive the grant with the greatest pleasure.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
I can endorse everything that has been said as to the golden opinions won by his Royal Highness during his residence in the South of Ireland. I was also doing duty at Fermoy at the same time, and I know that the admirable manner in which he discharged his duties was the topic of conversation among every class of the people of Ireland; and very deservedly so, because his subscriptions were most munificent. [Laughter] I can only repeat that his subscriptions have been most liberal and munificent. What has been stated by the hon. Member for Glasgow—["Order!"]—
I have already pointed out that it is not in Order to remind the Committee of any observations made before the Speaker left the Chair.
§ MAJOR O'BEIRNE
It ought to be borne in mind that His Royal Highness will very shortly become Commander-in-Chief. The present Commander-in-Chief of the Forces will in a short time retire; because the Royal Warrant, as I understand it, limits all Staff commands to officers who are not over 60 years of age.
§ MR. ANDERSON
I wish to be allowed to disclaim, in the most pointed manner, the allegation which has been made against me by the hon. Member for Cork—that I have said anything against the personal character of the Duke of Connaught. Nothing was further from my mind. All I intended to convey was, that there were certain occasions on which certain duties might be done more gracefully by Members of the Royal Family—
The Committee will, no doubt, indulge the hon. Member in offering any observations he may choose to make by way of personal explanation; but I would point out to him that it is not in Order to refer to any debate which has already taken place.
§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
Allow me to ask whether my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow may not be allowed to make the same speech in Committee which he made on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair?
The hon. Baronet appears to have misconceived the Rules of the Committee. There is no Rule, and I am sure I have not attempted to state anything approaching a Rule, that would preclude the hon. Member for 261 Glasgow from making any observations he may think fit; but it is a Rule of the Committee that a reference to previous debates is not in Order.
§ MR. ANDERSON
I merely wish to make a personal explanation in reply to the attack made upon me by the hon. Member for Cork, and I was merely desirous of saying, in Committee, what I have said before, not only on one, but on two different occasions, in this House, that there are public occasions on which a Member of the Royal Family, such as a Royal Prince, might do good service to the country by propitiating foreign nations, and by doing graceful acts towards the Royal Families of other countries. But I said that Royal Princes are never found to do these things. If they were, there would be a much greater excuse for such demands as those which are now made.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ (1.) Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That the annual sum of Ten Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, towards providing for the Establishment of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne and Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes of Prussia, the said annuity to be settled on His Royal Highness for his life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the day of the Marriage of their Royal Highnesses, such annuity to be in addition to the annuity now enjoyed by His Royal Highness under the Act of the thirty-fifth year of Her present Majesty.
§ (2.) Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That Her Majesty be enabled to secure to Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Margaret Alexandra Victoria Agnes, in case she shall survive His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught and of Strathearne, an annual sum not exceeding Six Thousand Pounds during her life, to support her Royal dignity.
§ Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.