HC Deb 14 May 1885 vol 298 cc492-511

Message from Her Majesty [12th May],—considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Message from Her Majesty read.

MR. GLADSTONE

The duty, Sir, which I am now about to perform is one the discharge of which has more than once fallen to my lot; and I have always found that although I cannot absolutely say that no difference of opinion has, on any of these occasions, prevailed, yet I can truly say that a vast majority of the House have always met any call of this kind, not only with willingness, but with warmth, and, I might almost say, with enthusiasm. At any rate, Sir, this case corresponds so closely with all former precedents, that I think even those hon. Gentlemen who, in the exercise of their private judgment, have found it necessary to make objections in order to satisfy the demands of their own consciences, may be, on the whole, of opinion that after a considerable course of precedents which has so distinctly laid down a line of action, it will be unnecessary for them, on the one side, to renew their opposition; or, at any rate, it will be unnecessary either for them, on the one side, or for me, on the other, to enter at any length into a discussion of the various important matters which may suggest themselves. For I must remind the Committee, first, that Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice is the youngest, and in that sense the last, of the children of the Queen—the last for whom a demand of this nature can be made; and, in the second place, no fewer than three of Her Royal sisters, senior to herself, have had a provision made for them by Parliament precisely the same in every particular as that which I am now about to ask. So, Sir, the case is a simple one, and, in truth, it is not only a case of form, but it is a case of substance. The marriage of the Princess Beatrice is one dictated, like the previous marriages of the Royal Family, in the first instance, and before all things, by genuine attachment—by that genuine attachment which forms the only solid foundation of future happiness in married life. That has been the disposition of Her Majesty and the disposition of Her Royal offspring; and, undoubtedly, it has greatly increased those feelings of loyalty and satisfaction and approval with which the country, from time to time, has contemplated these marriages one by one. Sir, I will not now argue, but I will only remind the House that the arrangements made for Her Majesty under the Civil List Act in no sense and in no degree either contemplated or presupposed an indefinite charge upon Her Majesty on account of Her Royal children. The early training and education of these children have, speaking generally, been defrayed by Her Majesty. I do not speak of the Prince of Wales, whose case forms an exception on account of his having an independent provision secured by law; but during nonage, and in the case of daughters, until marriage, the whole charge connected with the Royal children has been borne by the Queen. But it is an understanding now, confirmed by a long course of precedents, that upon the coming of age of the Royal Dukes, and upon the marriage of the Princesses, the obligation of the Queen no longer subsists, either legally or morally. And, indeed, I may say that, if there be an obligation, it is the reverse of an obligation on the Queen, because Parliament expressly and advisedly made an arrangement which excluded any provision of the sort. This provision is a moderate provision, as I have formerly contended, though I will not now endeavour to show it in detail; but I may, perhaps, refresh the memory of the Committee by once more stating that going back to the daughters of George III., in the case of the Princess Augusta Sophia, a provision was made of £15,000 a-year, partly out of the Civil List—but a Civil List not regulated and organized like the present Civil List—and partly out of the Consolidated Fund; that the provision made for the Princess Elizabeth was £14,000 a-year; and that the provision made for the Princess Sophia was £13,000 a-year. I think, therefore, it will not be deemed surprising that we of the Government continue to be of opinion that a provision of £6,000 a-year out of the Consolidated Fund, which has been made on former occasions, and which we now ask once more, is a moderate, and a fair, and, certainly, net an extravagant amount. The life of the Princess Beatrice has been spent in filial duty, and there is every likelihood—I may say, more than likelihood, as far as we can look into futurity—that her life will continue in a great degree to be so spent, and that her husband will be associated with her as a resident in this country, making it their home. I may say, Sir, I am not here to give a highly-coloured statement; but I believe that everything connected with this youthful Prince and the promise of his future life is what the country could wish, and though not like his brother, Prince Louis, an officer of great promise in Her Majesty's Navy, he is already one of whom the most favourable anticipations are formed in regard to his future career and his qualities of mind. So I think that, looking round this matter from every point of view, there is nothing which the Committee can contemplate except with satisfaction, and I will not therefore dwell further upon the particulars connected with the marriage, nor will I even suppose that it will be necessary to trouble the Committee again in regard to a matter of a class now so thoroughly understood in all its bearings, and in regard to a proposal which has been found on former occasions to meet so very largely and generally with the approval of the House. There is, however, one topic, Sir, extraneous to the proposal itself, and having no direct connection with it, and not to be touched upon in the Resolution which I shall submit to the Committee, or in the Bill by which it will be necessary to follow up that Resolution, and yet upon which, as it is a matter of interest, I wish to say one word to the Committee by way of announcement. The Committee is aware that there has grown up in recent times a salutary practice, although I am not aware that it is a very old one. At the commencement, particularly, of the Reign of William IV., and of the Reign of Her present Majesty, a careful investigation was made by a powerful and influential Committee of this House into the condition of the Civil List, the proper distribution of the expenditure, and the proper limits to be placed on the amount of that expenditure. This course of practice has been adopted as regards the Sovereign. As regards, not the Sovereign himself or herself, but those Members of the Royal Family who stand in sufficiently close proximity to the Sovereign to become, according to our usage, the customary subjects of Parliamentary provision, it has never yet been the practice to refer the consideration of the provision to be made for them to a Parliamentary Committee. I think, certainly, that in the Reign of George III. it may be shown that such was the case. In the time when Sir Robert Peel was Minister the first of these proposals within my recollection was made; and, undoubtedly, it was made, at the time, simply on a Resolution of the Cabinet. In the time of Lord Palmerston a step in advance was made. A Minute was drawn up with care, and a scale of annuities, and, in certain cases, of dowry, was proposed and submitted, and pains were taken to ascertain that there should be such a concurrence of view among the leading men of the House of Commons who had been connected with Office, so that something like system might be introduced into the grant of those provisions; but no provision was made then, or has been attempted since, for the reference of this portion of what has been, for a century, one subject to a Committee of the House. Method and unity of proceeding were secured, but nothing was done. We have considered this matter, Sir, and we are of opinion that it would be decidedly a public advantage, and most consistent with the important considerations attaching to this subject, if henceforth Parliament were to apply to these secondary provisions, if I may so call them—as compared, of course, I mean, with the provision for the Crown and the Heir to the Throne—if Parliament were to apply the same principles as have been applied in the case of the Royal Civil List; and before the House of Commons hear of these proposals, a system on which they may well henceforward be founded should have been submitted by the Government to a Parliamentary Committee, and should have received the approval and sanction of that Committee. I have no doubt that the establishment of such a Committee will tend to secure even more perfect unity and uniformity of view in the House of Commons than has hitherto been found to exist. It is, therefore, the intention of the present Government, should they continue to hold their Offices, to propose that a Committee of this House should be appointed for the purpose of examining this important subject. The next remaining question that Gentlemen would put is—"When do you propose that that Committee should sit?" Sir, we have considered carefully whether we could hope to procure the appointment of such a Committee, and the sedulous and somewhat continued application, and certainly the very careful application, which the subject would require during the remainder of the present Session. If the question is referred to a Committee of this kind, it ought to be to an unusually strong Committee, and it ought to embrace every important class and shade of opi- nion in the House, and it ought to be one which should be appointed under such circumstances that there could be a confident expectation of the close attendance of its Members. Such a Committee could hardly be appointed, excepting at the commencement, or very early in a Session. Undoubtedly, considering that the House met in the latter part of October to begin the present Session, and considering that it has already accomplished a legislative work equal, perhaps, to that which formed the whole employment of two great legislative years—namely, 1831 and 1832, we could hardly hope, at this period, to obtain the services of such a Committee as could alone satisfactorily deal with this question. It is an important inquiry, and one which ought to be conducted with the utmost care, and, of course, under the responsibility, if I may presume to say so, and with the advice and guidance, of the Executive Government. But still the duties of such a Committee would have an important Constitutional character; and we do not think, therefore, that we could properly ask the House to appoint a Committee for this purpose in the month of June, and in the June of a Session dating from October. But, at the same time, we likewise feel that the appointment of such a Committee ought not to be long-delayed; and what we hope is, as far as we may venture to speak for a future Session and Parliament, and having regard to the contingency that the present Government, or those representing the present Government, may not remain in Office, and as far as we are entitled in any manner to indicate an intention for the future, that the early part of next year will probably form the best period for bringing this important and weighty instrument to bear upon the settlement of a delicate question, closely associated with the honour and dignity both of the Throne and of the Royal Family—matters not only in which Parliament, but the entire country, feels bound to take a loyal and affectionate interest. I will not give any further explanation of this subject. Although, as I have said, it does not touch directly upon the provision now proposed, it is referable in its principles to former precedents and former arrangements; and I thought the Committee would not deem that this was an improper occasion to indicate the views of the Government, as far as they have formed an intention, with regard to the future mode of providing for this important class of subjects. Of course, the fact that we have now arrived at a resting point, the whole subject of provision for the children of Her Majesty being now disposed of, seemed to mark this particular moment as a proper moment at which the arrangements of the future might, with propriety, be taken into view, at least as to the principle and method of procedure. I will now move, Sir, the Resolution standing on the Paper.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the annual sum of Six Thousand Pounds be granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice for Her life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the Marriage of Her Royal Highness with His Serene Highness Prince Henry of Battenberg."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

Sir Arthur Otway, with regard to the Vote which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed, it is one for which the House has been thoroughly prepared ever since the commencement of the Session, or rather from the time when the announcement was made to us of the happy event which had been arranged in Her Majesty's Family. The House is accustomed to share in and to offer its congratulations to Her Majesty upon all occasions of joy, as well as to sympathize with Her Majesty on occasions of sorrow. It is not so very long since we had occasion to sympathize with Her Majesty on an occasion of deep sorrow; and now we have met for the purpose of expressing our satisfaction and our warm congratulations to Her Majesty upon this happy event of the marriage of Her daughter, and, at the same time, to make that provision which I trust will be made without any objection, and with the unanimous assent of the House. I feel sure, Sir, that the domestic virtues and quiet and unostentatious life which Her Royal Highness has passed among us have tended to endear her not only to those who have been more immediately honoured with her acquaintance, and who have had the privilege of enjoying her society, but to the whole nation at large. From time to time we have seen Her Royal High- ness, whose life has been devoted, as the Prime Minister has truly said, to filial duty—from time to time we have seen Her Royal Highness come forward to promote good works, and works of charity and benevolence, by which she has endeared herself, as was to be expected, to the whole people of the Empire. Sir, I have no doubt that, whether any question be raised or not, it will be of a formal character, and that the House will assent, in the case of the youngest and last unmarried child of the Sovereign, with pleasure and satisfaction to the grant that is proposed. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has coupled this proposal with an intimation of a more general character. Of course, it was to be expected that if such a matter as this was in the mind of the Government, it might be mentioned at the present time. But it does seem to me to be open to question whether it was desirable to raise any question of this kind at a time when it could not be followed up, and was not ripe or convenient for action to be taken. I take note of that without disputing the reasons which may have induced the Prime Minister and the Government to take the course which they have adopted. All I can say is, that I deprecate now any discussion with regard to the questions which have been partially opened by the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. I feel with him that if this is a matter which we are to refer to a Select Committee—and I do not deny that there will be a good deal to say for such a course—the grounds for taking that step should be carefully and fully stated, as well as the circumstances under which the Royal Family is placed with regard to its claims upon the nation, and the claims which have from time to time been presented for assistance to the Civil List, and that the whole matter will have to be carefully considered and thoroughly discussed. I only take notice of this for the purpose of expressing an earnest hope that the House will not now be led into any premature discussion of that matter.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) that this is not the time for discussing the idea of appointing the Select Committee which the Prime Minister has thrown out. I will only point out that it is somewhat curious that the Committee should be asked to vote a grant for a Member of the Royal Family, and, at the same time, be told, after that grant has been made, that the system of these grants would be taken into consideration by the next Parliament without going more fully into the matter. It seems to me very much like putting the cart before the horse. With respect to this particular grant, I fully agree with everything of a complimentary character which has been said of the Princess Beatrice by the two right hon. Gentlemen who have just addressed the Committee. But we are not asked to pay mere compliments to Her Royal Highness at the present moment, but to vote to her, out of the Consolidated Fund, a sum of £6,000 per annum. I have always asked myself, when the Prime Minister has spoken upon these matters before, whether he fully understood their real bearing. I used to think that the right hon. Gentleman knew almost everything. But I am inclined to think that, in respect of these matters, the right hon. Gentleman has not devoted so much time and attention to the Civil Lists preceding the present Civil List as he has to many other and perhaps more important subjects, because he has always founded his demands upon the House upon a series of pious legends. The right hon. Gentleman has said, when this question has been before the House on previous occasions, that the grant ought to be voted, because Her Majesty has given up a very large sum of money to the country, and made a bargain with the State on doing so. Now, it is a pure delusion to suppose that Her Majesty has ever given up a single shilling to which she was entitled, on that understanding and bargain, that her children should be provided for. It is a pure delusion based on erroneous ideas with respect to the Crown Lands. I presume it will be admitted that the Civil List, as it at present exists, dates from the Revolution. Before then there was no distinction between the Civil List and the other Revenues of the Crown—but all were taken and devoted to the general purposes of the country—to the Army and Navy, and the requirements of the Sovereign. When William III ascended the Throne he received £700,000 a-year. But then there were a great many more charges on the Civil List than there are now. But there was not a single word, in the Civil List Act of William III., with respect to any renunciation on the part of William III. of the Crown Lands. Nor was there any such renunciation expressed in the Acts of Queen Anne, or George I., or George II. The first mention of the kind was in the Civil List Act of George III.; and the idea was first started, I presume, at the instance of Lord Bute. It then found its way into the annual Act in which it was stated that His Majesty gave up all his rights to the Revenues of the Crown Lands and certain other Revenues derived from duties on wine, ale, and beer, and other things of that sort. Before then no statement of the kind was ever put forward. Of course, George III. could only have inherited these Revenues from George II., George II. from George I., and so on; and there had been no renunciation, during the four previous Reigns, of the claim of the Crown to have possession of what were called the "hereditary Revenues" of the Sovereign. The claim since made, therefore, can scarcely be looked upon as a substantial one. This Preamble, however, was repeated, in the Civil List of William IV., and in that of Her Majesty. But the mere repetition of a statement contained in an Act, that the Sovereign or anyone else gave up a right to any specific property, is no evidence in favour of the accuracy of the statement, or any proof that the Sovereign ever had a right to the property renounced; and I shall contend, as everyone who has looked into this matter will also contend, that the Sovereign has no more right to what are called the "hereditary Revenues" of the Crown than the Sovereign has to the Mountains of the Moon. Upon this assertion has been founded a second legend, which is that, at the time the present Civil List was granted to Her Majesty, there was some sort of an understanding that the country should undertake to give dowries to any children which might be born of Her Majesty. There is no such undertaking. If there had been, there would have been an enactment. There is no such enactment to be found in connection with the Civil List Act, or any other Act. I could never understand whence this idea was derived. If hon. Members will look at the Act itself, it will be seen that precisely the reverse was in the minds of those who prepared it. The Civil List assigned £385,000 out of the Consolidated Fund yearly to Her Majesty, and it divided this amount into different classes. The Lords of the Treasury can pay only a fourth of the annual amount assigned to all classes during a particular quarter. If, at the end of the year, there is an excess in one class and a deficit in another, the excess and deficit may balance each other. It must have been thoroughly understood that if there were an excess in any class and no deficit in any other class, then the excess came back to the Treasury. In the classes there were two to which I would call the attention of the Committee. There was £60,000 per annum for the Privy Purse, and £8,000 per annum was unappropriated. These are assigned especially to Her Majesty. In addition, Her Majesty was left in possession of the Revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, which at present produced £42,000 per annum. The provision, under the Civil List Act, was supposed to provide, out of the £385,000, for all the requirements of Her Majesty as Sovereign of the country. Consequently, the £60,000 and the £8,000 and the £42,000 per annum are left to Her Majesty to do what she pleased with. There is also, in the Civil List, another class by which provision is made for Her Majesty's charities, so that it may therefore be assumed that, for a considerable number of years, Her Majesty has received, putting aside the supposition that there has been any excess which has not been accounted for in excess of her requirements, £110,000 per annum; and we know perfectly well that that amount has not been expended. Nobody knows it better than the Prime Minister himself; for, in 1862 he brought in a Bill which gave Her Majesty the right to hold private property. I do not know whether it was previously supposed that the Sovereign could not hold private property; but unquestionably the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister came forward and asked the House to pass that Bill. There was a second Bill brought in by the right hon. Gentleman in 1869, which gave power to Her Majesty to leave any money she possessed to her children. There appears to have been some doubt as to whether she could leave anything she possessed to anyone who stood in direct succession to the Throne. What I want to point out is, that the Prime Minister would not have come forward, as a servant of Her Majesty, to ask the House to pass these Acts to enable Her Majesty to hold property, and to leave property, if Her Majesty did not hold property and had property to leave. I believe the Civil List is far too high at the present time. At the lowest estimate, the Civil List and the allowances to Her Majesty and Members of the Royal Family exceed £700,000 per annual—perhaps £720,000—[Cries of "No!"]—I think that that is really a very low estimate; but I need not trouble the Committee by going into all of the details. The figure I have given is, I believe, a fair Estimate, and hon. Gentlemen know very well that it has often been put very much higher. Of course, I include the expense of keeping up the Royal Palaces, whether occupied in whole or in part by Her Majesty; and if I were called upon to substantiate my figures, I believe I should be able to show that the amount is a good deal higher than I have fixed it at, because it has been my wish to be within the mark, and therefore I have put down the annual sum at £700,000. If, however, it will please hon. Members opposite, I will take the Civil List and allowances to Her Majesty and to other Members of the Royal Family at £600,000; and I say that there is a very strong feeling in the country that that is quite sufficient for the maintenance of the Royal Family, and that is why—perhaps not in this House—there is, most unquestionably, a very strong feeling against increasing these grants. It is felt that if Her Majesty has this money—I say it with all respect—Her Majesty can provide for Her Family. It is felt that Her Majesty has not now such expenses as she had when she had all her children at home, and had to educate them. Her Majesty's last child is now going away, and we know besides that she has the £110,000 per annum which I have mentioned. I do not think, therefore, that anybody will deny that Her Majesty has already ample means, and that she is perfectly able to make provision for her children. Therefore, before any fresh demand is made upon the country the House ought to be assured that Her Majesty is un able to provide for Her Family, and until such a statement is made Parliament ought not to vote another grant for any other Member of the Royal Family. No doubt, what has actuated many hon. Members in this House has been a sentimental feeling. Well, I am a man of sentiment myself, but I restrain my sentiment. I feel that we are all here as guardians of the public purse. It is not our business to take a sentimental view of these matters, and to say that, because previous Parliaments have voted grants to the children of Her Majesty, therefore this Parliament ought to do so. If such a doctrine is to be accepted, the first proposal ought to have bound us. It ought to have been enacted at first, not that one child should have £6,000 or £8,000 a-year, but that every child born of Her Majesty should have the same sum. That has not been done; but it has been left to each particular Parliament to decide, and we are at perfect liberty to consider, each claim on its own merits, and not accept the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, that as there are so many precedents before us we are bound to accept them. Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman would not have come down here and asked for this grant; but there would have been an Act to determine that Her Majesty should receive a certain amount of money annually upon the marriage of each of her children. It is not necessary that I should detain the Committee longer. I am perfectly aware, as I intend to challenge the Vote, that I shall be defeated; but if the feeling inside this House is not very strong against the Vote there is a very strong feeling—and many hon. Gentlemen know it—against the Vote outside the House. I believe that those who oppose this Vote are far stronger friends of the Monarchy than those who supportit. The real danger to the Monarchy at the present time is that many persons may come to the conclusion that the advantages derived from it are more than counter-balanced by the cost if these grants are to be continually voted.

MR. LEWIS

I wish to draw attention to a question which suggests itself, and which is of some Constitutional importance. It is whether, underlying the acquiescence and the general unanimity of the House on these Votes, there is not an implied understanding that the hus- band of a Royal daughter should not take a prominent part in the political contests of the day? If necessary, I am prepared to move an Amendment, to put myself right, to the Resolution which has been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. If the House, upon the present occasion, or upon previous occasions, had been under the belief that the husband of a Royal daughter who was about to be married was likely to enter into political controversy and strife the same as any ordinary subject of the Queen, I do not believe these Votes would have been passed with the unanimity with which they have usually been passed. Recent circumstances have rendered it necessary that, at all events, a protest should be made on this occasion against what might possibly turn out to be the practice of husbands of Royal daughters presenting themselves as Parliamentary candidates, and taking an active part in the heated political controversies of the day. I think, in this respect, I may be allowed to make a protest on what I believe to be a fair Constitutional point. At least, I would ask, whether there is not really an understanding on which these Votes have been passed with unanimity by previous Houses of Commons that there should be absence from such activity? I need not say that with regard to the sons of the Monarch the question never arises. I am not prepared to say that the sons of the Monarch are legally disqualified from taking their seats in this House. I believe there is no legal disqualification; but, although I am led to the belief that they are not legally disqualified from sitting in this House, I believe there is no precedent for the husband of a Royal daughter taking part in the election contests which occur in this country, and long Constitutional usage has produced the belief that they are not qualified to sit in the House of Commons. I would venture to suggest that it is of the greatest importance that the Sovereign and Members of the Royal Family should be kept free from mixing in Parliamentary contests. I will suppose a case which would not be at all unlikely to occur. Suppose the husband of one of the Royal daughters were a candidate for a great popular constituency, and were called upon to take part in public entertainments and proceedings in that capacity, surely it would be placing both the husband and the Princess in a position in which they might be gravely compromised.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is opening up a very wide question, which the Committee is not competent to decide. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue it, he must address himself to the full House and not to the Committee.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am very glad that we shall not be allowed to be led into the broad by-field of discussion about matters undoubtedly of very great importance, and doctrines which excite in some minds a considerable degree of astonishment, as involving interference with private and personal liberty. I shall not say one word upon that subject, because I think that if I did I should be transgressing the spirit of what you, Sir, have said from the Chair; but I am desirous to correct a slight error into which I fell when I said that the first Vote to a Member of the Royal Family, in my recollection, was in the Government of Sir Robert Peel. It was in the Government of Lord Melbourne, when a provision was proposed for the Prince Consort, upon his marriage with Her Majesty. Having made that correction, I will only say, with regard to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), that I will not attempt to answer that speech, because there is much history in the matter, and in our endeavouring to set right that history from one side or the other we might be led into great length of discussion, which I cannot think is at all desirable that we should enter into. Therefore, if my hon. Friend will allow me, I will rather enter a general protest against his speech. I believe it is the general disposition of the House that we should now proceed to a vote.

MR. O'BRIEN

I am more surprised at the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) than by those which have fallen from the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in opposing this grant; because if the Irish people had the choice of their own Rulers, or were an ordinary Republic, I do not think they would split straws or be very churlish as to the expense of it. It is not to a few thousand pounds here or there in the cost of Royalty that we particularly object. If Royalty is anything it must be expensive; but after what the hon. Member for Londonderry has said, certain recent events make it necessary for me also to protest against its being supposed that the Irish people entertain the same feelings as the English people, or participate in their enthusiasm about the Royal Family, or have, indeed, any feeling with regard to them except such loyalty as the strict letter of the law enforces. That, unquestionably, is my definition of the loyalty of the Irish people towards England. Some Members of the Royal Family in England appear to live hard-working and, in their way, useful lives; but, as far as Ireland is concerned, their lives are something worse than a blank. We never see them in Ireland at all—although I, for one, do not in the least object to that, for, as the hon. Member for Londonderry has remarked of another personage Connected with the Royal Family, Royal personages are brought over to that country on a political campaign in precisely the same way as the Prime Minister sometimes goes to Mid Lothian. After the Chairman's ruling, I suppose it would not be competent for me to make any detailed reference to the circumstances connected with the Prince of Wales's recent visit to Ireland. Probably there will be another opportunity of doing so. I only allude to it now as an illustration of the purposes to which the money granted by Parliament to the Royal Family may occasionally be devoted; and I must say that, up to this moment, no intelligible motive has ever been assigned for that Royal visit to Ireland. [Cries of" Order!"] The only conclusion which the Irish people can draw or have drawn—

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member's remarks have no reference, and are, indeed, entirely irrelevant to the Resolution before the Committee.

MR. O'BRIEN

I will not pursue my observations on the subject. I simply meant to point out that you cannot expect the Irish people, while things of this sort are going on, to exhibit the same enthusiasm for the functions of the Royal Family, whom they never see except in the character of political agents, and whom they can neither hold aloof from without being misrepresented, or tell the truth to without having their heads broken. It was for this reason, and not from anything personal to the Royal Family, that I, for one, feel constrained to vote against any grant of this kind, which I am quite sure will not be used for the benefit of the Irish people, and may, possibly, be used to their detriment.

COLONEL STEBLE

I will not detain the Committee for many moments. I may say that there is no Member of this House who has a stronger feeling than I have against the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; and I entered the House this afternoon with a full determination, if not to challenge the Vote, at any rate to enter a protest against it without recording my vote. But, Sir, permit me to say that I have considered the matter fully, and, on reflection, I cannot in my heart pursue the course I had intended to take. I will give two or three reasons why I do not pursue that course. When I consider that the request now made is for the last of all Her Majesty's unmarried children; when I consider, also, that all the other daughters of the Queen have received a similar grant; when I consider, further, that the Princess Beatrice is one of the noblest of England's daughters—I feel that it would be invidious, harsh, and even cruel to refuse the grant proposed on this occasion. I therefore appeal to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) not to press his opposition to a division. The hon. Member has already entered his protest; he may now let us, for once, have unanimity; and, as this is the last occasion, he will have a fair field and no favour open to him in the future.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

(who rose amid cries of "Divide!") said: I think, Sir Arthur Otway, that if any proof were required of the absolute unsoundness of the reasons which have been advanced in favour of the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman, it would be found in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman, his Government, and his supporters are evincing this afternoon an unwillingness to hear any discussion of the question. I must say I am opinion that if a Motion like this were not discussed we should be setting an extremely bad precedent. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) had not uttered his protest against this grant, what should we have found in the newspapers to-morrow? We should have found every newspaper exultingly describing the extraordinary unanimity of the Committee, and pointing out, in a tone of triumph, that even the Irish Members were not able to stand up in the House and speak out against the Vote in the name of those whom they represent. It is, therefore, the duty of the Irish Members to tell the House plainly that we represent people who do not believe in English Royalty, and that the time has come when, on behalf of the people we represent, we should speak out; for if we did not do so we should be properly looked upon as hypocrites. In Ireland we have had very little experience of Royalty. But a very short time ago we had a visit from a Member of the Royal Family, and what was the impression we derived from that visit? [Cries of" Order!"] I am merely going to give a reason why I oppose this Vote. The impression of Royalty we have gathered from that visit—and as this is a grant for a Member of the Royal Family, this is an appropriate occasion for referring to the matter—the impression of Royalty received by the Irish people from that visit was simply this—that Royalty is something we must take off our hats to and cheer, whether we like or not, on pain of having our heads broken by a policeman and being turned out of our own railway stations. We are perfectly willing to be loyal, and even to support grants like that now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in support of Royalty, provided the result is something of benefit to ourselves, and provided we get something in return for the public money we are asked to vote; but we object to make provision for a Royalty which we are obliged to cheer, or else run the risk of getting our heads broken. Our recent experiences of Royalty have not been such as to encourage us in any demonstration of loyalty, and we certainly do not feel disposed to pay for the privilege of having our rights violated. I think that this debate will have done several good things. Among others, it will have had the effect of showing to the working people of England—who themselves, I believe, do not care the snuff of a candle about Eoyalty—that there is only one English Member in this House calling himself a Radical who has the common honesty and the straightforwardness to stand up and speak his mind on this question. It will convey to the working classes the perfect uselessness and the hollowness of the Radical Party below the Ministerial Gangway. [Cries of" Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out that the remarks the hon. Member is now making are not relevant to the Question before the Committee.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

I desire to make my remarks as relevant as I possibly can. I was about to point out some reasons why I think hon. Members opposite should not take exception to sentiments which cannot altogether be called Royal sentiments, and why they should oppose this Vote. Some of them profess to be Republicans, and certainly ought to oppose it. The Prime Minister himself has been unable to make out a case in favour of it. The right hon. Gentleman came before the House this evening in a suppliant attitude, and he has not attempted to prove that his approval is in itself a sound and a just one, which should recommend itself to the minds of the thinking English people; but he simply said—"Oh, if you please, this is the last of the Queen's daughters; accept this proposal, because it is the last of its kind." He said nothing in support of past grants, or anything in favour of this; but, in effect, he said—"Let us have no more trouble about the matter; it is not worth raising a discussion, as this is the last proposal which can be made in the present Reign." Now, if this is a good proposal, it ought to be capable of being supported by argument; and if it is not, it ought not to be accepted simply because it is the last. I hope my hon. Friends around me will challenge a division, even if the Radical Members opposite do not remain in the House to vote against the grant. I believe the time is coming when hon. Members will speak out against this humbug and this superstition which makes you feed—[Loud cries of "Order," and interruption. Hon. Members may interrupt, but I am going to have my say. I maintain that it is time this superstition which prompts the English people to feed and to pamper Royal personages were got rid of, when you seethe streets of your capital filled with unfortunate wretches who are starving. I maintain that such a proceeding is not worthy of a civilized nation, and a proposal of this character is especially objectionable, coming as it does from a man like the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who knows of the existence of stark and staring poverty in this country, of the large number of people who are out of work, and of the many poor households in which £1 at the present moment would be much more acceptable to them than the £6,000 which it is proposed the Committee should give to this Royal Princess. The Committee may be able to give this money now; but certainly a day will come in England when the people will assemble in their thousands, as they assembled last night, to consider the proposals of the Budget. Whenever the people do assemble, it will not be merely to protest, against the impositions of a Budget; but it will be to protest against the existence of that machinery of Government which robs the people of their money and keeps them in starvation. It will be to tear down this building upon the heads of the House of Commons, and to march into Downing Street in a way which the right hon. Gentleman has been little accustomed to. [Cries of "Divide!"] I shall not be deterred by interruptions of this kind from entering my protest against the Vote. No persons like to be told they are robbers, and no wonder the Committee are crying "Divide!" But I maintain that you are robbing the people, and I protest against such robbery, believing that the day will come when the people will make themselves heard in a manner stronger and more effective than my voice has been able to accomplish.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 337; Noes 38: Majority 299.—(Div. List, No. 188.) Resolved, That the annual sum of Six Thousand Pounds he granted to Her Majesty, out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland, the said Annuity to be settled on Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice for her life, in such manner as Her Majesty shall think proper, and to commence from the date of the Marriage of Her Royal Highness with His Serene Highness Prince Henry of Battenberg.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.