HC Deb 31 July 1878 vol 242 cc778-804

(Mr. Raikes, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Cross, Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)

[BILL 277.] THIRD READING.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. Raikes.)

MR. PLIMSOLL

, in moving that the Bill be read a third time that day three months, said, he wished to explain his reason for doing so, and for the vote he had given in favour of the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) the other day. The present was not the first time by several that a measure of this kind had been brought before the House to make provision for a younger Member of the Royal Family. On all previous occasions since he had obtained a seat in that House he had gladly voted with the majority for acceding to Her Majesty's wish; but more than once he had had to defend his vote before a portion of his constituents, who preferred, in the abstract, a Republican form of Government to any other. On those occasions he had contended that, so long as we had a Monarchical Government existing in England, it was fitting the dignity of the nation, as well as the Sovereign, that the Royal State should be maintained in suitable splendour. He had also pointed to Her Majesty's personal character, Her quick and ready sympathy with suffering at all times, as was manifested years ago in the case of the Hartley catastrophe, when she sent a telegram to ascertain the extent of the calamity, and more recently in the case of the Pontypridd minors. But the instances of Her Majesty's great kindness of heart, which he felt deeply and gratefully, were too numerous to refer to in detail. He further said that, Tinder a Constitutional Monarchy like that in this country, in his humble opinion, their property and their lives were more safe than they would be under a Republican form of Government—that, at all events, they were saved by it from long turmoils, the interruptions to industry, the stagnation of trade, and the great and immoral expenditure, which the people of the United States, for example, were subjected to on the expiration of every Presidential term of office. In short, he said that the Monarchical form of Government had all the advantages of a Republican form without any of its disadvantages, and with these reasons he had hitherto succeeded in satisfying at least a majority of his constituents. But the latter and the essential point of his contention was all changed. They were now told on high authority that it was within the Prerogative of the Crown, and not inconsistent with the Constitution, for the Monarch to pledge the resources and the lives of the people to an unlimited extent, not only without the consent of the nation, but even without its knowledge—as in the case of the recent Convention with Turkey. If these portentous claims were Constitutional and within the Prerogative, they were not living under the Constitution which three short months ago he supposed they were; and, in his humble opinion, the Constitution would have to be altered, and the Prerogative curtailed, and that right speedily, as he felt quite sure that the nation would not suffer their substance and their lives to be bargained away by any individual, however illustrious, good, or great. He would never give a vote of any kind in support, directly or indirectly, of the Monarchy until these portentous claims were authoritatively and finally swept away, and the people's consent, by a vote of their Representatives in Parliament, was made an essential condition and precedent to the ratification of all important Treaties. To vote for the third reading of this Bill would undoubtedly tend to support an institution for which those perilous claims were made—claims which, compared with those of Charles I., were trivial; and he should consider himself as betraying his constituents and the people were he to give his vote for the Bill. Her Majesty had no more warmly-attached and loyal subject than himself, or a more enthusiastic admirer of Her many good and gracious acts of kindness. The vote which he gave on Thursday last, and the course which he felt it his duty to take that day, cost him a great effort and gave him great pain. The claims put forward under the name of Prerogative had compelled him to chose between seeming loyalty to the Queen and fidelity to the people, and feeling, in his case, gave way to principle. Salus populi suprema lex. He could give no more sincere proof of his attachment to Her person and Throne than the step he had taken; for he believed that these amazing and portentous claims were fraught with danger alike to Her Majesty, to Her successors, and to the people.

MR. BURT

, in seconding the Motion, said, he fully agreed in much that had fallen from his ton. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll). There was nothing which had struck him more forcibly in connection with this Bill than the great haste with which it had been pushed through its various stages. It was introduced at a very late period of the Session, and scarcely any time had been lost in pressing it forward, as though the fate of the Empire depended upon its speedy passage through Parliament. He made no complaint against the Government on this ground. It was true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated on the occasion of the introduction of the Bill, that he had strictly followed precedent in this matter; but the precedent he (Mr. Burt) regarded as a very bad one; because, whatever the intentions of the Government in making so much haste might be, the result was to prevent due expression of opinion by means of Petitions, or by means of public meetings outside that House. He could not see why the Bill should be pressed forward with such extraordinary speed. He did not think it one of the kind of measures that was likely to meet with great obstruction in the other House of Parliament. There was a very large section of the community among whom there was a growing feeling and objection against these repeated appeals for allowances to Members of the Royal Family. Already a considerable number of Petitions had been presented to the House of Commons against this particular grant. About two years ago, he presented an enormous Petition against any further grants to Members of the Royal Family until full information was afforded on the subject. It bore no less than 103,000 signatures, and he had to call upon the assistance of his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) to bring it up to the Table of the House. It asked, as nearly all those Petitions did, for fuller information. It did not positively object to grants of this kind; but it asserted that before they were made, a clear case ought to be made out and the fullest possible information given. Now, he wished to know why this information was not given? Speaking for himself only, he might say there were many pertinent questions put to him on this subject which he could not exactly answer, and he did not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would answer them or not. He had been asked whether such a grant was absolutely necessary? Whether, with the present income of the Duke of Connaught, which was somewhere about £15,000 a-year, he could not afford to marry without the addition asked; and, whether, if this additional sum was necessary, Her Majesty the Queen could not afford to help him? Now, these were, in his opinion, very plain and very proper questions; they might be deemed blunt and un courtier-like, but he did not think they were altogether without pertinence to the subject under the consideration of the House. He, for his own part, should like to have fuller information on the matter. He had listened very attentively to what had been said on the subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in moving the original Resolution upon it, and, so far as he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he had not even attempted to make out a case of necessity for the grant. It had been admitted that there were no precedents for it until the present reign. There was a precedent in the case of the Duke of Edinburgh; but those who objected to that grant were perfectly justified in still persisting in their opposition to all grants of the kind. Now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dwelt on the amiability and accomplishments of the Royal personages who were about to be united in wedlock, and these compliments he (Mr. Burt) was sure were sincere. He had no reason to doubt that they were well-merited; but he did not see that, beyond being very satisfactory as information to the House and to the country, they had a very direct bearing on the question. If the Royal Duke and his intended bride had been loss accomplished and less amiable than they were, he presumed that this demand would still have been made; and even in these degenerate days, and with all the vices that abounded, he should incline to think there was a very large number of amiable and accomplished people who would like very well to be married and have £10,000 a-year added to their incomes; and, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to provide all these persons with that amount, he would find a very heavy strain on his resources, great as they were. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, indeed, contended that a sort of bargain had been made, or, at least, that an understanding had been come to, at the commencement of the present Reign, to the effect that grants of the kind should be made when Members of the Royal Family attained their majority, or were about to be married. Now, if this could be clearly proved, it would at once remove many of his objections. He should still think the system objectionable; but he should not think it becoming or honourable, if such an agreement really had been come to at the commencement of the present Reign, to throw obstacles in the way, and to speak on a delicate question of that sort as he was now doing. But he asserted that there was not a particle of proof brought forward to show that there had ever been any such understanding. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) had put the matter on another ground. In the eloquent speech he had delivered upon the subject a few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman had said if they looked at the scale of expenditure which prevailed among the wealthier classes of society and at the large incomes enjoyed, not only by the members of the aristocracy, but by others who had made their way in the world by their own efforts, they would regard what was proposed in this case as a reasonable provision. He (Mr. Burt) would not say that these were considerations which should have no weight; but he thought it was placing the matter on very questionable ground. If a man had made a fortune, and he spent that fortune in show and splendour, they might consider it very foolish, but beyond a mild criticism, no one else had anything to do with the matter; but if an appeal were made to that House and to the country on the ground of that expenditure, they had a right to inquire whether it was worth while to pay the money in that way. But he would not go further in this direction. He would only say that, while it was quite true they had very wealthy people in this country, and from the cheers with which the remark of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had been received, he was glad to find that there were many Members of that House to whom £15,000 or £25,000 a-year seemed a very moderate sum—apart from all this, while we had undoubtedly a great deal of wealth in the country, they should remember that in many respects the country was a very poor one; while there were many who had large incomes, there was a great number who could scarcely get a bare subsistence, and many others who were now appealing to the Boards of Guardians for relief. But those who were poor had no jealousy or envy of the rich; there was not that passion among them for social equality that was to be found in most other parts of the world; but they must not be surprised if a man who worked hard for 15s. or £1 a-week should look at a subject of this sort from a somewhat different standpoint from that of the man who enjoyed an income of £15,000 to £25,000 a-year. He was obliged to the House for listening to him so attentively, because he could not but feel that he had uttered sentiments that were somewhat distasteful to a considerable number of Members on both sides of the House.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Mr. Plimsoll.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

MR. EARP

said, he desired to state the reasons which compelled him reluctantly to give his vote against the Bill. He shared the opinion of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) that one was bound on such an occasion as the present to throw sentiment aside. He looked upon the question entirely from an economical point of view, and he should vote against the Bill because he desired to save the people of this country from every penny of unnecessary taxation. If it could be shown that the financial condition of the country was such as to warrant those minute items of expenditure, he, for one, would not hesitate to vote for the Bill. When they considered the altered state of things in this country, as compared with 10 years ago, the House would agree with him that it was their duty, as Representatives of the people, to consider carefully every item of expenditure, however small. During the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone), they had an annual increase of expenditure, which rose during the latter part of his tenure of Office to about £l, 000,000 per annum. But during that period there was almost boundless prosperty in the country; no classes were suffering, all industries were flourishing, and people were not too minute in their criticisms of expenditure. Since, however, the accession of the present Government an entirely different state of things had obtained, and the expenditure had risen, not at the rate of £1,000,000, but at the rate of £2,000,000, £3,000,000, and £4,000,000 per annum; and at the present moment it had reached the high total of £80,000,000 per year. He could understand that if the income of the people was commensurate with so large an expenditure, the House would not hesitate to vote freely the amount which was now asked for. But it was contrary to all true principles of government and finance to go on increasing expenditure at a time when the resources and the income of the people were gradually diminishing, and that they were diminishing no one would deny. Hon. Members opposite knew that the agricultural interest was suffering; that the farmers were continually appealing to them to save them from some of their burdens; that farm after farm was being placed in the hands of the landowners; and that many of the poor, overburdened farmers were unable to pay their rents. Further, no one could deny that the classes more immediately affected by trade were suffering to a great extent all through the community. For some years past it had been hoped that the number of paupers was diminishing, and that the cost of each individual pauper was also declining; but in the last two years it had become evident that the tide was turning in the contrary direction, and the country had to face a prospect of increased and increasing pauperism. The struggling middle classes were also suffering severely; and, although it might sound strange, the wealthy classes had been the poorest in the community, because they had not been able to find a means for using their money. For a long time past nothing had been so cheap as money; and, therefore, it was the duty of every Member of that House to look carefully at every item of the expenditure, with a view to putting a check upon it. It could not fee denied that if the expenditure went on at its present rate, without corre- sponding prosperity to meet it, national bankruptcy would become inevitable. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No, no.] The receipts obtained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were no criterion of the real value of the income of the community at large, because the right hon. Gentleman had only to issue his mandate and the money was forthcoming; but if they dug down deep enough, an extensive substratum of poverty would be found to exist in the country. He should, therefore, feel it his bounden duty, until the wide gap between the resources and the expenditure of the country was bridged over, to oppose every item of extra expenditure that was brought before the House.

MR. NEWDEGATE

reminded hon. Members opposite that it was not likely that he, who largely shared the opinions of his old Friend, the late Colonel Sibthorpe, should be inclined to vote for anything that he deemed unduly extravagant, even in support of the Royal Family; because, at the time when the marriage of Her Majesty was contemplated, there was no Radical, no Liberal, no Minister found with the courage to express the opinion that the income intended for His late Royal Highness was too large by half. That task was performed by his late Friend, Colonel Sibthorpe, and he (Mr. Newdegate) assented to the proposal. He was far from blaming hon. Members opposite, who spoke for the working classes, for taking this opportunity to represent to Her Majesty the distress which prevailed in the country. He reminded them, however, that the State Expenditure of the American Government exceeded, in many respects, that of the United Kingdom. He had himself, for many years, represented the feelings of a large body of the working population; for, although he was a county Member, he was senior Member for Birmingham, and he had striven to represent the working classes in the House, and claimed to have some knowledge of their feelings. He believed that the working classes were too reasonable to suppose that it would be possible to graduate allowances to the Royal Family according to the commercial condition of the country. They knew it would be impossible for Her Majesty to discharge her duties if She had a fluctuating income; and the same reasoning applied to Members of the Royal Family. While he was no exaggerated Royalist, perhaps, no man was more determined in his defence of Parliamentary and Constitutional elements of the Government of this country. He believed that the working classes made allowances for the necessity of maintaining the high position of the Royal Family. He did not think they were the least jealous of that position; but, on the contrary, that they took a pride in it. The feelings which at times had arisen against the aristocracy were not directed against the Crown, because if was fortunate that for more than 200 years the Head of the Royal Family, seated on the Throne by the choice of the people and by law, had identified himself with the people in their anxiety, labours, successes, and prosperity. Instead of being idlers, the Members of the Royal Family filled the position of Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and other positions of great responsibility; and when a connection was formed between the aristocracy and the Royal Family, it was formed with a nobleman who, at that moment, was about to resume the responsibility of the government of one of our greatest Colonies. The Duke of Connaught himself, for whose provision, on his marriage, this grant was intended, was believed to have rendered himself one of the most efficient officers in Her Majesty's Service; so much so that it was hoped that, at some future day, he might fill the position of Commander-in-Chief. He believed the working classes felt that the Royal Family worked with them—that they did not shrink from labour, but accepted every post of labour consistent with their position; and, therefore, the working classes considered them fellows in their labours, and desired, by every means, to maintain them in the position which, as being connected with the Sovereign, they deemed to be so important to the country at large.

MR. MACDONALD

, while professing loyalty to the Crown, and high respect for its Wearer, opposed this grant, because he believed Her Majesty had, in the Civil List and otherwise, a sufficient sum to maintain Her Family, without coming to Parliament time after time for grants in order to enable them to live. In his opinion, it was degrading to the Royal Family to be obliged to come there and solicit sums of money from the taxpayers of the country on the marriage or majority of one of their number. His experience of the working classes might not be equal to that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate); but, so far as he knew the feelings of the working classes, they were totally different from that which had been represented by the hon. Member, There was no question which was so freely and thoroughly discussed by the working classes as that of the continual demands which were made upon the country to maintain Members of the Royal Family apart from the heavy Civil List of Her Majesty. He hoped this would be the last grant of the kind, for he believed they were sapping the foundations of the Throne. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that there was a compact between the Crown and Parliament at the beginning of this Reign. He should like to know, when, where, and by whom this compact was made? They ought also to be told the value of the Crown Lands given up at the time—all the items to boot. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) said the other day that it was much better to come time after time for these grants than to have to ask for Votes to pay debts. No one in that House could have a higher respect for the right hon. Gentleman, yet it seemed to him (Mr. Macdonald) that there was not a whit of difference between coming to get money to pay debts before they were contracted and coming to get money after the debts were contracted. He ventured to say that if application were made to Parliament to pay the debts of any Member of the Royal Family, it would cause a tumult in the country which they would not cease to hear of for a long time. In a gush of Irish loyalty—coming as it did from the Home Rule Members from that country—that quite delighted him, they were told the other night by an hon. Member from Ireland that they ought to agree to the grant because the Duke of Connaught gave freely whenever he was applied to for any object. He expected next to hear a claim made on his behalf because he was a good joker, or a prince of smokers, or an enemy to the Sunday Closing Bill, or a drinker of potheen. All these arguments were frivolous—it was the principle of it that was wrong. The time for proposing this grant was inopportune in the highest degree, as the condition of the working classes was, in many parts of the country, very bad. He ventured to say that thousands and tens of thousands were struggling to eke out a subsistence on less than 2d. a-day per head for each member of their families, and in such circumstances to ask for £10,000 a-year for a Member of the Royal Family was out of place. America had been mentioned. He knew something of America, and he did not believe that the Civil servants there were paid such high salaries as were paid in this country. It was simply nonsense to say so.

COLONEL NORTH

said, he had been long enough a Member of that House to have been present on every occasion when Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to ask that House to enable Her to provide for her Royal children, either when they came of age or on entering upon matrimonial life, and he recollected that on all these occasions there were some half-dozen Members who considered it their duty to oppose the Vote, and thus prevent their brother Members doing that which would have been most grateful to their feelings—namely, to return an unanimous Address to the Gracious Message of Her Majesty. On the present occasion the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had thought it his duty not only to oppose the Vote, but to move an Amendment which, in his humble opinion, was very little short of an affront to the Queen. The object of the Amendment was simply to adjourn the consideration of the Bill sine die.

MR. PLIMSOLL

said, he knew of no other means to oppose the Bill than that which he had adopted, and he certainly meant no offence to the Queen.

COLONEL NORTH

said, that he entirely dissented from the opinions of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald). He certainly might have some acquaintance with the working classes of the country; but he (Colonel North) believed there was no class, from the highest to the lowest, from the richest to the poorest, who were not delighted to avail themselves of opportunities like the present, to evince to Her Majesty and the Royal Family the love and affection in which they were held by the whole country. He hoped this might not be made an exception to the rule; but that the House would return an almost unanimous response to the Gracious Message in which Her Majesty had asked the House to provide for one of her sons, who was most deserving the respect and confidence of the country.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

said, that it could not be denied that the Queen had at the commencement of Her Reign made over to the State a much greater income than that bestowed in Parliament, including therewith the present claim. The fact of the compact made between the Sovereign and Parliament at the beginning of the Reign was clear. An Act was passed which vested all the hereditary estates of the Crown in Parliament. That Act was the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 2, and the Preamble covered the entire case, on which this application was justified. By the Act Her Majesty unreservedly placed all the Crown property in trust for the nation, in return for grants by Parliament to support the honour and dignity of the Crown, accepting only what was needful for the time. He was not in the habit of dilating upon a case which must be taken to be proved; and, therefore, he would ask hon. Members, after what he had shown them, to withdraw all opposition to this Bill.

MR. E. JENKINS

said, he should not have advised this opposition to the third reading if he had been consulted on the matter, and he complained that the Amendment had been brought forward in the manner in which it had been done. He wished to explain why he thought it was his duty to vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on Thursday last. There was some misunderstanding on the subject, and he thought the motives which had been imputed to them by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North)—such as a desire to insult the Sovereign—were little calculated to enhance the character of Parliamentary discussions. On former occasions, Leaders on both sides notorious for their loyalty had, in the most open and candid manner, discussed these Votes. Why, then, should hostility to the Crown be imputed to those Members who did the same thing now? He heard the other day of a Tory, and a man of position, saying that all those who opposed this Vote were Republicans, and ought to be hung. When one found such notions entertained at the present day by the Tory Party, who were straining the Prerogatives of the Crown to the utmost extreme, one almost felt that he was wearing his head at the will of the Chief Adviser of the Crown. Coming to the serious question before the House, he hoped neither it nor the Government would overlook the real significance of this debate. He did not think anything had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) to afford the Crown the least justification for a feeling of resentment. The question before them was, whether grants of public money were not being repeatedly asked without a due and clear statement of the necessity for them? The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Royal Family had a less revenue now than in King William IV.'s Reign; but that was incorrect. There was some excitement in the country, and they could not ignore the fact, and those who knew the working classes could say that it was deeply and largely entertained. They must discuss the question as a matter of business between the Crown and the people, and the feeling abroad was this—that the amount granted for the expenditure of the Crown was not wholly expended, and that it would be quite possible for the Crown, out of the revenues that were at this moment being saved and put away, to provide sufficient for the Royal Family. He did not say this was his opinion; but he only pointed out that the manner in which these grants were asked for, without presenting the state of accounts between the Crown and the people, led to these suspicions outside. The Government maintained silence, and the Crown refused information, and so they were placed in the unfortunate position of having to oppose what, otherwise, they would cheerfully and unanimously grant. He would be glad if it were shown that the grant to the Prince of Wales, who had so much of the burdens of the State thrown upon his shoulders, ought to be enhanced to maintain the dignity of his position. He could conceive nothing more injurious or destructive of the true dignity of the Crown than the argument which had been put forward, that it was necessary that the Royal Princes should be placed in a position to hold their own alongside of wealthy Peers. In this country, we looked to the Crown to set an example of simplicity of life, and it was not for the House of Commons to give to Royal Princes a means of maintaining an unhealthy magnificence. The hon. Member for Derby had spoken of the exercise of the Prerogative, and he said he would not be a party to any more of these Votes for the Royal Family, so long as the Prerogative was exercised as it had been lately. That statement was illogical, but a significant one, and it was not unimportant to be considered by the Government. It could not be surprising that the people should discuss these matters. The Government had found worthy occupation for Members of the Royal Family, and nothing would be more popular than the appointment lately made to the Governorship of the Dominion of Canada. If these appointments could be more frequently made, there would be less necessity for resorting to Parliament for these grants of money.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would not detain the House for more than a few minutes. He regretted that his hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) had thought it necessary to move this Amendment, and he also regretted the way in which the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) had spoken of the Amendment. There could be no doubt that any hon. Gentleman who had an objection to this grant was perfectly at liberty to raise it, and past Parliamentary history showed that similar objections had often been raised by Gentlemen whose good taste and loyalty could not be questioned. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had spoken of his knowledge of the feelings of the working classes on this subject, and the hon. Members for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) and Morpeth (Mr. Burt) had also spoken of their knowledge of those feelings. He thought it was possible to have too much of hon. Members speaking of their knowledge of the feelings of the working classes. Those classes were undoubtedly the great mass of the people; but it had always struck him— without endeavouring to cast any reflection upon any hon. Member on either side—that there could scarcely be any greater presumption than in a man getting up and saying that he spoke on behalf of the working classes. Representing, as he did, a constituency num- bering some 20,000 or 30,000 electors, an enormous majority of whom were working men, he did not pretend for a moment to speak as the exponent of the feelings of the working classes on this question; but, as it was quite possible that this question might be raised at his next meeting with his constituents, he would not allow the subject to pass without expressing his views with regard to it, which he believed would meet with the approval of his constituents. His experience went to show that there was a strong feeling in the country among all classes—and quite as much among the working classes as any other—that, upon the whole, our ancient Monarchy was an institution which should be kept up— that there was no desire to change it for Republicanism—or for what he believed to be a far greater danger—Imperialism. With that feeling there was also another feeling which naturally belonged to a generous and sensible people—namely, that if we were to have a Monarch, that Monarch should be maintained in a position suitable to his rank. It would not be at all difficult to convince his constituents, although they might have heard something to the contrary, that the Civil List, or the allowance to the Queen and the Members of the Royal Family was small, as regarded its weight upon the people, compared with that which was allowed to the Monarchs of other great countries; that it was small as compared with that of former Kings and Queens of this country, with the exception of the particular case of William IV.; and that it was small in comparison with the wealth of, and the scale of living, in this country. The present distress that existed had been alluded to. The House was quite aware of it, and of the necessity of economy; but surely his hon. Friend could not suppose that this sum which they were voting could have the most infinitesimal effect upon the means of individual taxpayers? It would be playing with words and facts to say that the present commercial depression was a reason why the sum now asked for should not be granted, if there were other reasons for granting it. With regard to the arrangement that had been come to when Her Most Gracious Majesty came to the Throne, some 40 years ago, he was not sure whether he should give it his assent if it were now to be proposed for the first time; for he doubted whether the best thing to do was to be constantly coming to Parliament for grants for the younger children of the Royal Family, and he was not perfectly sure whether he should agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich upon the point. At the same time, the agreement had been entered into, and in upholding it he believed that hon. Members would have the support of their constituents. Judging from the analogy of past Reigns, he thought that if it were not intended that an additional grant should be made when the members of the Royal Family married, the original grant to them should be larger. It, therefore, appeared to him, that as honest men they were bound to fulfil the contract that had been entered into with Her Majesty at the commencement of Her Reign; and, therefore, he should support the third reading of the Bill.

MR. SERJEANT SPINKS

, speaking as the Representative of a very large working-class constituency, which had as much love for economy as any constituency of the Kingdom, and would deprecate most strongly any improper or extravagant expenditure, asserted with confidence; that during the many years he had been acquainted with them he had never heard from any of the Conservative working men of Oldham a single objection to these grants being made for the support of the Royal Family. Though these might be times of some distress to many of them, he was satisfied that they would most cheerfully contribute their mite to the support of the Royal Family, for which they entertained the most loyal and affectionate feelings; and therefore he should vote for the third reading of the Bill, believing that in doing so he should be best representing their feelings and his own.

MR. RATHBONE

desired to state why he voted most cordially for the Bill. The hon. Member for Dundee had said that he looked to the Queen and Her Family for examples of careful and frugal life, and it was because they had not looked in vain to the Queen for that example that he was quite prepared to support this grant. He thought it was mainly due to the admirable example of a correct and virtuous life and of a frugal household which the Queen and Prince Consort had set, that this country owed its exemption from a great amount of demoralization and excess of luxury, and all those other evils that arose from an exuberant prosperity. Beyond that, the nation owed a deep debt of gratitude to the Queen for the Constitutional way in which she had carried on Her Government.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON

said, he understood that the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll), and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), repudiated having spoken as especially representing working men. They considered that they represented the opinions of the general community as much as other hon. Members, and this question concerned the whole community. For himself, he should have been satisfied to let the matter rest where it stood after the able speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke); but as it had seemed good to the hon. Member for Derby again to raise the question, it would be cowardly in him not to give a vote upon it, and he should, therefore, support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. These were not pleasant subjects for the House to deal with; but public duty must be paramount, and personal feelings put aside, when questions of this kind came up. It was admitted that there were no precedents for these grants until the present Reign—therefore, the question was entirely one of expediency. Was it well for the public that these grants of public money should be made? he was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North) should get up and say that when a Member of that House deemed it his duty to object to a grant of public money, he was offering an affront to the Queen. Those who would vote for the Amendment were just as loyal as the hon. and gallant Member himself. Loyalty did not consist in voting large sums of money whenever the Crown asked for them. Loyalty consisted in voting money in a wise manner, and in passing legislation which would make the people happy and contented; for it was upon the contentment and happiness of the people that the real security of the Crown depended. He objected to this Vote on the very simple ground that no public money should be voted except for public services. He did not know what public services the Duke of Connaught had yet rendered, although he might yet do many in the career that lay before him. Some seven years ago, Parliament had been called upon to vote him £15,000 per annum for his maintenance because he had been good enough to come of age; and they were now asked to vote him £10,000 a-year in addition, because he was going to be good enough to marry. It must not be supposed that those who objected to this Vote objected to the splendour of the Crown being maintained. The right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was fighting the air when he made that enthusiastic speech just now in favour of voting £10,000 a-year for this Royal Prince. Nobody was attacking the Monarchy; all that they said was that they believed enough money had been voted to maintain the splendour of the Crown, and they believed it the more because the Government refused to give the House information about it when it was asked for by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke). He did not wish it to be supposed that he opposed the Vote on exactly the same ground as the hon. Member for Derby. He did not believe that the working men were in a ferment on this question. They were not sufficiently good politicians to work themselves up into a ferment on this subject. In fact, he had been astonished and grieved at the manner in which they had sat quiet in the face of the mad and mischievous expenditure of the present Government, and he should be glad to see the extra turn of the screw given that would bring about a radical re-action, and cause this senseless waste of money to be put a stop to. He had no sympathy with hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who went about the country to Liberal meetings—it might be at Bradford—and talked very largely about retrenchment of the Revenue, and then came to that House and made enthusiastic speeches in favour of voting £10,000 a-year to a young man because he was going to get married. This system might extend to the children and grandchildren of the Sovereign, and their children and their children's children would have to vote enormous sums for this purpose. Why could not the opponents of the grant have one or two Tories to vote with them on this occasion? The hon. Mem- ber for Ashton (Mr. Mellor) was, he believed, the only economical Tory in the Kingdom. There was a time when the Tories could look at this matter in a different light from that in which they now viewed it. Did the House remember how, when a Vote was proposed by a Liberal Government for the late Prince Albert, the whole Tory Party came down almost to a man and voted to cut down the sum voted to that Prince? There was nothing said then about it being an affront to the Throne. He thought that the argument of which the right hon. Member for Bradford thought so little—namely, the distressed state of trade and commerce in this country —had something to do with the question, and he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) would not be a party at such a period to voting such a grant as was now asked for.

MR. MUNTZ

said, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give the House some precedent besides the Vote for the Duke of Edinburgh. Up to that time the rule had been only to make provision for the Heir Apparent. If the House was to make provision for, and encourage, the marriage of all the younger children of Royalty, it would be bound to provide for the children of those marriages; and that was the difficulty pointed out nearly a century ago, when the discussion took place as to the marriage of a younger son of the Monarch. If this grant were made, they would have to make another for the next son of Her Majesty, and so they would go on ad infinitum, and it was impossible to see where it would end. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some precedent to justify this Vote.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Sir, I have been unwilling to interpose earlier in this debate, because I feel most entirely that this is a question upon which it is perfectly right and legitimate that the House should freely express its opinion; and I would go further, and say that I think it is desirable that the House should do so, and that it should not be allowed to go forth to the people that we have made a proposal of this sort, and, as it were, huddled it through without any consideration or discussion, and that we voted away the money of the people without fairly considering what the grounds were upon which the proposal is made. Now, we had, the other day, a full discussion on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and the general grounds upon which we made this proposal were then explained. Today, we have had the matter raised again, and several objections have been raised to the proposal which has been made. Objections were taken to it on grounds which were not in the mind of the hon. Member for Chelsea, and on grounds on which, I venture to think, this House would hardly be disposed to proceed. I hardly think that the House will be disposed to act on the ground which was taken by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) when he moved the rejection of the Bill—namely, that he considered that the Prerogative of the Crown was being advanced further than formerly. I do not think the House would consider that a ground to justify opposition to such a proposal as this; and I observe that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), while sharing the jealousy of what he regarded as a stretch of the Prerogative of the Crown, fairly stated that that was no cogent reason for objecting to this Vote. Then the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Earp) introduced a new topic into the consideration of the question—namely, the general financial condition of the country, and the supposed extravagance of the present Government. That, of course, is a very important question, and it is one which might, at the proper time, be made the subject of discussion; but I hardly think that counts as a matter which can be relied upon as a reason for objecting to this Vote. The truth is that, in considering this subject, we ought really to look to the nature of the contract which has been made with the Crown, and to the reasonableness and suitability of this proposal in connection with that contract. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) asked— "What is this contract of which we hear, and where is the evidence? When, where, and by whom was it made, and where is it recorded?" The hon. Member's questions were answered by the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna), who stated that the contract was to be found in the Preamble of the Act passed at the commencement of the Reign of Her present Majesty, in which it was recorded that Her Majesty, being entitled to certain hereditary estates and revenues, had placed them unreservedly at the disposal of the public; and that, in return for that surrender, She was granted an annual sum of £385,000, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, for the support of the Royal Household. But the question was, what was the nature of the bargain which was made when that sum of £385,000 per annum was allotted to Her Majesty? Was it intended that the sum should cover all future expenses with regard to the Royal Family, and that after that time no further allowance should be made for their support? In former times, the Civil List was based on a different arrangement from that which now prevails. In the early days of the Civil List there were large hereditary revenues declared to be in possession of the Crown, and Votes were made to support the Civil List, and out of that Civil List the Sovereign made certain payments. The Judges and Ambassadors were paid, and other charges met out of it, which have since been taken off the hands of the Sovereign and placed upon the Votes of Parliament. Under these circumstances, the annuities and pensions which were granted, either to the Royal Family or to other persons, fell upon the Civil List; and, from time to time, the Parliament made grants in aid of the Civil List, in order to enable the Crown to keep up those pensions and annuities. Under that system, certain grants were made which it is unnecessary for us to go into, because matters are now on a different footing, and we had much better fix our attention on what has taken place during the present Reign. It was, as we were reminded the other day, under the Reign of William IV. that the old system was revised, and the revision was complete at the beginning of the Reign of Her present Majesty. Did that exclude further applications for grants? Why, within two or three years after the settlement, the first application was made for a grant of an annuity to the Prince Consort. According to the theory of the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and others, that was altogether a wrong application. ["No!"] Either the original £385,000 given to the Queen in exchange for the hereditary revenues at the beginning of the Reign was intended to support the household, dignity, and state of Her Majesty under all the circumstances of Her Reign, or it was not. If it was a bargain, once and for all, and was never to be altered, there was no justification for an application for a grant on Her Majesty's marriage; but if it was otherwise, the circumstances changing, the grant was proposed in accordance with what was understood to be a reasonable arrangement. I think, if the hon. Baronet will look back to the circumstances under which the Queen's Civil List was settled, he will find that references being made to the fact that a lower establishment was proposed for Her Majesty lower than Her Predecessor, notice was taken that She was in a different position, because She was at that time unmarried. When the marriage took place, the proposal was made by the Government of the day to settle an annuity of £50,000 a-year on the Queen's husband. The principle was not challenged. It was admitted that there ought to be some addition, but the question arose whether the addition proposed was or was not excessive. On that there were differences of opinion, and some statesmen of great note, and amongst others Sir Robert Peel, took a leading part in recommending a smaller grant. I will merely call the attention of the House to a passage in Sir Robert Peel's speech at the time, which is as follows:— He thought that £30,000 during the life of Her Majesty, by way of a privy purse, would be a just and a liberal grant. He thought, also, that £30,000 to Prince Albert, in case of his surviving Her Majesty, and there being no issue, would be a just and liberal provision. But he thought, that if Prince Albert survived Her Majesty, and that there were heirs to the Crown, the grant ought to be £50,000; but then he also said, that if Prince Albert were the father of a numerous family, and expenses thus fell upon the Prince, he for one would vote that which would be becoming to the father of the Royal family."—[3 Hansard, li. 627.] And, in a subsequent speech, Sir Robert Peel said— I cordially supported the proposition of my hon. and gallant Friend for reducing the grant to Prince Albert from £50,000 to £30,000; not, however, from any mistrust, or a want of confidence in Prince Albert, but because, on looking at the whole of the circumstances of the case, I thought £30,000 the proper sum to be allowed. I stated, then, that £30,000 was a sufficient sum to give to Prince Albert in the event of the death of Her Majesty, an event which I, in common with all Her Majesty's subjects, should deeply deplore—an event which I do not and will not anticipate—and I still am of the opinion that such a sum is a reasonable allowance to make in case Prince Albert should survive Her Majesty. I went, however, further than this, and I said, that, in case Prince Albert should become the father of a family, then I thought £30,000 would be an inadequate allowance, and that I had no doubt, in such a case, the House would be ready to consider the propriety of voting an addition to the £30,000."— [Ibid., 1106.] Nothing can be clearer from that passage, and from the general tone of the debate that then took place, than that the House, at the time it arrived at the settlement at the beginning of Her Majesty's Reign, took into consideration the whole state of the case, and that the £385,000 per annum they granted was not intended to cover the whole expenses of the Royal Family, and that it thought that it was reasonable that additional grants, rendered necessary by the changes in that Family, should be made from time to time. If that is once admitted, it cannot be said that the grant now asked for is of an extravagant or of an unreasonable character. The present case is one precisely similar to that of the grant to the Duke of Edinburgh, and the reasons which prevailed then apply equally now. It is unnecessary to argue over and over again these points. I simply wish to point out that the arrangement made in the beginning of the Reign was one much in favour of the public, because the sum granted to Her Majesty was a fixed sum, and the revenues which she surrendered were increasing revenues. The Crown Lands now alone produce more than £385,000, and other branches of the hereditary revenue would have also increased considerably if they had not in some cases, for the advantage of the public, been surrendered and done away with. In these circumstances, I think we are asking what is fair and reasonable; and it is, I am sure, inconsistent with and contrary to the feelings of the large majority of the country that it should be objected to. I quite admit to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) that to persons who live on a very small income any of these sums appear to be large; but when you take into consideration the circumstances of those for whom they are granted—the society in which they live, the position they are expected to maintain, and the duties they are expected to perform—I do not think the sums asked for are unreasonable. I must take exception to the very extraordinary doctrine which has been laid down by the hon. Member (Mr. Macdonald), that there is no difference between asking for money for debts which have been contracted, and asking for money in order to make reasonable allowances which will render it unnecessary for these persons to contract debts. There is all the difference in the world; and if no better reason than that could be offered, there would be no difficulty in disposing of the matter. I trust that the House will consent to read the Bill a third time.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, he should not have taken part in the debate had it not been for the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had given no direct answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), who had asked him, with reference to a statement made by him the other day, that the provision made for the Queen was less than that made for the late Sovereign William IV., the grounds upon which he had made that statement? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had, however, alluded to the matter in passing, and had said that the provision was less. Now, Mr. Goulburn, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, had, in the debate with regard to the Prince Consort's grant, compared the two Civil Lists, and he pointed out that from the Civil List of William IV. there must be deducted pensions amounting to £75,000, and £10,000 secret service money. If to the present Civil List of £385,000 were added the £50,000 then proposed, it would increase the Queen's Civil List £10,000 beyond that of the late King and Queen. But Mr. Goulburn further said there was another £10,000 which the Queen gained by a diminution of charges on the Civil List, and that made the Queen's Civil List £20,000 in excess, which was exactly the amount by which it was proposed to reduce the grant asked for for Princ6 Albert. There were revenues in the present Reign which did not exist in the late Reign, in addition to the Crown Lands. The Duchy of Lancaster, which was hardly worth anything at the commencement of Her Majesty's Reign, had reached the annual value of £73,000 two years ago. That one fact alone disposed of all the arguments which had been founded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) upon the doctrine that the present Civil List was less than that of the late Reign. It was impossible to go into the matter of savings in the Civil List without being misunderstood; and he should, therefore, only say that Lord Brougham called attention to the matter in 1850, in the House of Lords, and he would recommend hon. Members to read the protest which that noble Lord then placed upon record. Every request for information with regard to those savings had been refused; and, whatever might be the proper interpretation of the Civil List Act, as to those savings going to the public or to the Crown, it seemed to be provided by that Act that they should not go to the Crown without the knowledge of Parliament. What he asked was, that not only should the House have placed before it an account of the increase of the Duchy of Lancaster revenues, but that it should have Returns, year by year, of the savings by which the privy purse was increased. Not only had the Crown thus largely increased income, hut, by Acts passed in the present Reign, it was empowered to invest its savings in landed property; and here again secrecy had been maintained, and Parliament was not enabled to obtain any account of the amount of these estates. There was an absolute refusal of any information on these subjects. A few years ago these applications for grants always rested upon the question of precedents. The application in the case of the Duke of Edinburgh was based mainly upon the ground of precedent; but in the present instance the right hon. Member for Greenwich had thrown over that ground, and he now relied upon the precedent that he had himself created upon that occasion. It, therefore, became necessary to discuss this grant as a matter of expediency or necessity, and not of pure precedent; and thus it was more than ever important that the House should have laid before it the present position of the relations of the Crown and the public the state of the Civil List, and Returns showing what the expenditure was. The contract which it was said was made at the beginning of the present Reign was not worth very much; for the words used in the Civil List Act, as to the surrender of the Crown Lands, had been constantly used from the time of Queen Anne downwards. Everyone knew that the Crown Lands were State Lands. They had been confiscated over and over again; and if the Crown resumed possession of them to-morrow, it could not deal with them as it could with its private estates at Osborne or Balmoral. They were practically Parliamentary and national estates. If the Civil List Act were looked upon as a contract, it would seem to exclude these applications for grants; but he thought it was fair to assume that in the minds of those who made the arrangement there was the intention of coming to Parliament at a future time for further grants. But there was no intention of coming for such a grant as this, because, there being no precedent for it, if such an intention had existed, it would have been stated; and upon that ground he felt bound to oppose this grant. There was certain to be opposition to any future grant which might be proposed; because the House had been, over and over again, refused, and was still denied, the information which was absolutely necessary in order to enable it to form its opinion upon the character of the grant.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

said, the gifts made for educational and charitable purposes in Ireland by the Duke of Connaught contrasted most favourably with those of the absentee proprietors, amounting, in some cases, to five times as much.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 151; Noes 13: Majority 138.—(Div. List, No. 248.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the third time, and passed.