HC Deb 01 August 1889 vol 339 cc133-57

Considered in Committee.

(In Committee.)

Clause 1.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

I beg to move an Amendment with regard to this Bill, Clause 1, line 28, to leave out the words "Trustees hereinafter mentioned." Mr. Courtney, strong language has been used by Gentlemen opposite, and by some Gentlemen on this side of the House, against those who oppose this Grant, in pursuance of what we estimate to be our duty. But if this money is to be granted I cannot exactly see why we should interfere between the Prince of Wales and his children and a number of Trustees. We have more confidence than the Government in the Prince of Wales's honour and policy. It seems to me that this proposal involves the idea that if this money were left to the management of the Prince of Wales he would make away with it. We heard some very beautiful sentiments from the right hon. Gentlemen (Mr. W. H. Smith) about the family relations when he brought in this Bill, but when he comes to give effect to his own ideas of family, he actually wishes to make clear that this House is not prepared to trust the parent with the money. I always thought it would be more simple to vote the money directly to the children, or that the money should be voted to the Prince of Wales to be allocated in certain fixed ways amongst the children. But, then, what is the good of Trustees? They are an extra and perfectly unnecessary wheel of the coach. The father is the fitting trustee of the children, and it seems to me that the only plea and reason why, instead of voting the money directly to the children of the Prince of Wales we should vote it to the Prince of Wales, is to recognise in some sort of way his parental authority. His Royal Highness is not a young man. He is almost middle-aged, and this proposal really does seem a gratuitous insult on the part of the Government towards the Prince of Wales. We wish on this side of the House to free ourselves from any notion that we wish to impose such a condition on the Prince of Wales, or that we remotely or distantly imagine that the Prince of Wales is not to be trusted with the money that we vote to his children. It seems to me that those who advocate the passing of these Grants say that the Prince of Wales shall be nominally the holder of this money, but we will put half-a dozen policeman around him to see that he does not make away with it. I think it is more consistent with the respect which this House entertains for the Prince of Wales, and its belief that he is a perfectly honest man, and that he would honestly administer this money, that we should do away entirely with these trustees. Of course, if this Amendment be carried it will be necessary to carry a certain number of consequential Amendments, although I do not think there is likely to be any discussion if this Amendment be carried. This Amendment recognises the Prince of Wales as the fitting guardian and trustee of his children, and objects to the interpolation of "trustees" because the Government chooses to distrust the honesty of the Prince of Wales.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 28, to leave out the words "trustees hereinafter mentioned."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided: —Ayes 147; Noes 47.—(Div. List, No. 270.)

* MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

I now move the Amendment which stands in my name, by which I propose to strike out the words "thirty-six" in order to insert the words "twenty-one." I may say that I am quite prepared for the imputation of shabbiness from hon. Members on the other side of the House, or, if not from them, from the organs which represent or misrepresent them in the country. I care no more for imputations of shabbiness than hon. Members opposite care for imputations of wasteful extravagance. I would here venture to remark that we are to-night, or, perhaps, to-morrow, absolutely going to vote more money than Her Majesty has asked for. When Ministers come down and represent that it is necessary, in additfon to the extraordinary large sums voted to support the dignity of the Throne, that more money should be voted, it was originally intended to ask for a sum of £13,000 per annum; but a Committee "was appointed, and the result was that £23,000 a year more was asked for. I propose in some degree to remedy that exceedingly improper proposal by reducing the sum asked for to £21,000. I am not unwilling to admit that the elder son of the Prince of Wales should have £10,000 a year, and as the younger Prince would probably feel uncomfortable if he had much less than his brother, I am not unwilling to admit that he should have £8,000 a year. Nor do I object that the Princess just married, and whose happiness we all desire, just as we desire the happiness of every young bride in England, should have £3,000 a year. In that way I get at the sum of £21,000. What I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer is—where is the other £15,000 going to? Is the Prince of Wales to have it? Or is it to be spent for the other young Princesses? If not, what is to be done with it? Is it to be accumulated and invested? If so I entirely resist and repel the notion that out of the public money any sum should be given to be invested and accumulated for future purposes. We live now in troublous days for Royal people. I believe that Napoleon when on the Throne of France invested large sums in English and American securities, so that when the inevitable issue came he might not be without resources. Can it be that our Royal Family think their position so insecure that they, too, wanted to make a bag, that when the inevitable change comes they may not be left without means? If this extra £15,000is not spent on the Princesses, and if it is not to be spent by the Prince of Wales, and if it is not to be accumulated, what is to become of it? I suggest that the proper thing would be to keep it in the Public Exchequer. It is the people's money. It ought not to be reserved for the probabilities of the future; there ought to be no disposition to make insurance against the future. The ancient Constitutional practice of this country has been, year by year, to meet the necessities of the year, and so also should it be in the case of the Royal Family. I propose, therefore, that instead of paying £36,000 out of the National Exchequer we should pay £20,000. In Clause 2 of the Bill—if I may refer, for the purpose of explanation and elucidation, to further Amendments—I propose to give effect to my contention by providing that the annual sum which the Trustees hold under the Act shall be distributed in a certain statutory manner and not according to the notion of the father or grandmother. There have been oases in history where Kings have blessed favourite sons and cursed those they thought less of—when the money that the people had given for the support of the Royal Family was wasted on certain members of the Royal Family, while others were left in need. Therefore, I propose that the money should not be distributed according to the temporary wish or whim of the Trustees or anyone else, but that it should be distributed amongst the grandchildren of the Queen so as to relieve them from fear as to whether they will receive it or not. I propose that the eldest Prince shall receive five-twelfths of the £21,000; the second Prince four-twelfths, and the daughters one-twelfth each. In this way we shall guard against anything like a recurrence of that period in history when there was a King's Party and a Prince's Party, as happened in the time of George II., a state of things which might arise if the demise of the Prince of Wales should take place. The inevitable consequence of such a state of things would be that there would be dissensions, and that the Prince would depend upon others for what he received. I say that if this money is to be divided Parliament should say precisely how the division is to be made. Now, why do I fix on this sum of £15,000 to be saved to the public purse? I fix on it because it is almost exactly the sum that is saved at the present moment upon the gifts to the Queen under the Act of 1837. The Report of the Committee shows that between£15,000 and £16,000 a year, which is given for specific purposes, has not been applied to those purposes, but has been, instead, paid into the Privy Purse of the Queen and become her private property. So long as this £15,000 a year is saved, the Government have no right to come to this House and ask for a further Grant in aid. When I made my speech the other night I had the misfortune to be followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone). It was not a misfortune for the House or the country, but it was an extreme misfortune for me, because the right hon. Gentleman's great authority, and influence, and knowledge were all exerted to prove that I was wrong, and that the Government were right. Well, I would put this point— which is extremely germane to the point I am urging—both to the First Lord of the Treasury and the Member for Mid Lothian, that there is no precedent in the whole history of England for the Ministry coming to this House and asking for a grant in aid whilst already the Sovereign had resources.

* THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,) St. George's, Hanover Square

I did not catch the point of the hon. Member.

* MR. STOREY

What I say is, I have looked up authorities, and I find that in this country in the whole of the dealings between the King and his subjects on the matter of grants in aid there has never been an application made without a previous statement on the part of the Crown that the resources were exhausted, and that it was necessary to ask for more money. [A laugh.] I do not understand that laugh.

* MR. GOSCHEN

No such declaration has been made in recent years.

* MR. STOREY

No, and why? I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there has been any declaration made in recent years that the Queen had large savings? I want to know whether any declaration was made in 1882 or 1885, when we put questions to the Government on the subject of the savings on the Civil List. We were told that we have not to inquire into that. But I contend there is a necessity for such an inquiry, and that it is no answer to me to say that there has been no such declaration in recent years. It has been done during the whole of the time of the House of Hanover. The practice prevailed in the time of Elizabeth and in the reign of Charles I. I have here evidence to show that in the time of William III. such declaration was made. In the time before William IV. a demand for money for the support of the younger branches of the Royal Family was always preceded by the statement— Whereas His Majesty is restrained by the laws now in being from making provision for his younger children. These were the wise days when the King was not permitted to own property, except such as fell to the State when he died. I submit there is no such statement now, because since that unfortunate Act of 1873, it is not impossible for the head of the State to provide for younger children. What I want to point out is, that the object to be attained is the same. The point of view of the people then was "The king has no more money; give him some more; long live the King." What is the point of view now? The Queen comes to us and confesses through her Ministers that she has enormous sums of money.

* THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,) Strand, Westminster

No.

* MR. STOREY

I suppose that to the right hon. Gentleman £824,000 is not enormous. It is to me. But I will not go into figures. I will say a great sum of money.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

Not great.

* MR. STOREY

Well, I should like to have it. I will not even insist on "great." It is not necessary to my argument. I will say the Queen has ample resources.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

No.

* MR. STOREY

Well, she has resources. If the right hon. Gentleman will get up and tell me that the Queen has no resources, then, Radical as I am, I will vote for the Grant. The other night I objected to the declaration that this demand is founded upon reason. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian insisted upon it, and told us he was one of the old-fashioned order who stood upon precedent. I am prepared to state this tonight, and without fear of contradiction, that there never was a precedent in the history of England for an application from the Sovereign to Parliament without a preliminary statement, either in the Message itself or in the speech of a Minister, that the Queen had no resources for the purpose. I hold that the Queen at the present time has resources which she may fairly employ for the purpose in view. I was very much rebuked the other night for having made what was said to be a reckless statement about the savings of the Queen. That rebuke came from the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), and I must say that such an accusation comes with admirable grace from one whose name in the Parliament of 1880 was a synonym for all recklessness of speech and act. I make the same contention now. Until this £824,000 is exhausted there is not, according to the Constitution or precedent, any right in the Crown or any propriety in Ministers to come down to the House and ask for further Grants.

* MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport)

I rise to order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that there should be no Grant at all, whereas the question before the Committee is the reduction of the Vote to £21,000.

* MR. STOREY

Now with regard to this £15,000 or £16,000, I will ask the question again, why should that, instead of being applied to the support of these younger branches of the Royal Family, go into a fund of accumulation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when I raised this point the other night, told me, if I looked at the Act of 1837, I should find a distinct declaration that the whole sum of £385,000, clear and certain income, had to be paid to Her Majesty. I have read the Act over and over again, and although I am no lawyer, or because I am no lawyer, I can read the common sense of the Act, and I say there is no such statement whatever in it. First, I must tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Parliament did not give the Queen any money whatever. Parliament had had no experience of Her Majesty. If it had it would have been less jealous. But former Parliaments had had experience of former Sovereigns—experience of waste, extravagance, and constant running into debt—and, therefore, when the new Civil List was granted, not one penny was ordered to be paid to Her Majesty, except the sum of £60,000. The whole of the rest of the money was to be paid to trustees. Clause 2 of the Act says, "That for the support of Her Majesty's household, and of the honour and dignity of the Crown, and for the payment of the charges on the first, second, fourth, and sixth classes in the schedule, it is enacted that there shall be granted to Her Majesty during her life a net yearly revenue of £385,000, and the Lord Treasurer or the Commissioners of the Treasury are hereby authorised on and during every succeeding quarter to cause the said yearly revenue to be issued and applied from time to time, monthly, weekly, or otherwise, for the uses and purposes by this Act appointed."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.

The hon. Gentleman has omitted the important words, "Paid to Her Gracious Majesty during her life."

* MR. STOREY

The right hon. Gentleman cannot suppose I would wilfully omit so obvious a thing as that. There can be no doubt that it is to be paid to Her Majesty during her life, and the clause goes on to show how. It is to be paid to the Trustees.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

There are no Trustees.

* MR. STOREY

The only way I can settle it is to read the clause throughout.

The hon. Gentleman again read the clause, down to the words, "The Queen, whom God long preserve."

MR. W. JOHNSTON (Belfast, S.)

"Amen."

* MR. STOREY

That rather offensive ejaculation comes from a Loyalist of the North of Ireland.

MR. JOHNSTON

I wish to know, Sir, whether there is anything improper in my saying "Amen" to the wish for the preservation of Her Majesty's life.

THE CHAIRMAN

Let the hon. Member proceed, but I hope that he will be more succinct in his argument.

* MR. STOREY

In view of what has fallen from you, Sir, I will not continue to read the terms of the Act. My opinion is that this clause means that there is to be granted for certain specific purposes £385,000, but that is not to be paid to Her Majesty except as regards the £60,000. The rest is to be retained in the Treasury, and to be paid out at convenient periods for the purposes specified. Then Clause 8 recites absolutely what is to be done with this money. All sums of money shall become due and payable out of the Civil List revenues for any of the purposes of this Act, and be paid in the order and according to the plan herein mentioned —and it being expedient—and I invite the attention of my hon. Friends to the change in the law—to specify the sums to be appropriated to each class, an estimate has been laid before Parliament, and the amount for each class respectively is specified in the schedule of the Act. That means that the money has been appropriated to distinct classes, and for these classes it is to be used. The clause also means, that, given A, B, and C, the money set apart for A is during the year to be spent on A; the sum for B is to be paid for B, and the same with regard to C. Now, the only other clause which I will touch is Clause 9. That enacts that if any surplus be carried forward into the Exchequer, the amount shall be applied in aid of the charges of any other class or charges upon the Civil List revenues, in such manner as may under the circumstances appear to be most convenient. Now, I hope I shall get the assent of the Government to my view of that Clause. Given at the end of the year a saving in A and a deficiency in B, it is legal under this provision to take the saving in A to supply the deficiency in B. But supposing there is not a deficiency in any, what follows? In that case the Act says the surplus may be applied for any charge or charges upon Her Majesty's Civil List revenues in such manner as may, under the circumstances, appear most convenient. I will put a case. Suppose no deficiency in any class. Suppose the Queen has got her £60,000 from the Privy Purse, what charge remains to which the money is to be applied? When I put this case the other night, the noble Lord said, "What prevents the Government from handing it over to the Queen?" I am rot concerned to point out any such thing. Here is an Act of Parliament bestowing a revenue and creating a trust. I want to know how, under this Act, you gat power to apply the money any way else than as the Act directs, or according to the provisions it contains? The Act contains no directions. Now, I ask, what have they done with this money? They have handed it over year after year to the Queen, for no charges whatever, because money was already applied to meet every expense. What they have done is to go behind the Act of Parliament and increase the Privy Purse without any right to do so. The Privy Purse was fixed at £60,000. The Act of Parliament limits it to that; but, by this sleight-of-hand, successive Governments have increased the Privy Purse from £60,000 to £76,000 per annum for the last 50 years. It was said by the noble Lord the other night that we were imputing embezzlement to Her Majesty, and to successive Governments. The noble Lord is a master of fence, and he knows the prejudice which is created by affixing a bad name to anything. I made, however, no charge of embezzlement, and I should be ashamed if any Member on that side of the House thought that I made any such charge against Her Majesty or her Ministers. The charge I made was that they used the Act of Parliament in the interest of the Crown, and not of the people—that they transferred to the Privy Purse savings which the Privy Purse had no right to receive, and that they should rather have taken this £16,000 or £17,000, and have put it into the Exchequer—either in aid of the public funds or in satisfaction of those exceptional charges which, in consequence of her large family and of the considerable families of her children, have come on the Queen. If we had the £824,000 standing in the Exchequer, as we should have, there would be none of these demands on Parliament and none of these Debates. The money would have been there to be devoted to Her Majesty and her grandchildren, and we should have been called on for nothing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, our leader, told me the other night that such a sum as I named could not have produced anything like a sufficient sum for the support of the Queen's grandchildren, and I admit it. The £824,000 or the £400,000 savings on Class 6, which I mentioned, would probably not produce a sum sufficient for the grandchildren. But that was not my contention. I dispute the right of any head of the State in England, under the present Constitution, to take the public money in order to make an accumulation. I say that under the ancient Constitutional principle of England, ever since the present Royal Family came to the Throne —a Constitutional principle which should now be insisted upon—there has been no contention on the part of Parliament that out of the public monies granted to Her Majesty she should be able to accumulate sums. The purpose has always been liberally and loyally to bestow sums on His or Her Majesty for the time being, with the intent that they should not be hoarded but Royally spent in supporting the dignity of the country and the honour of the Royal Family. On that ground I object to these accumulations, and make it my argument that, until this £15,000 or £16,000 a year is accounted for, and the £824,000 which has grown out of the accumulation of this £15,000 or £16,000 a year for 40 or 50 years are expended and accounted for, there does not remain in the Crown or its Ministers a right to come to the Representatives of the people and ask for more money. Now I have carried the argument so far, but, entertaining the objection that I still ent rtain, I do not pretend to state to the House that if they accept my Amendment, that will make the proposal of the Government more palatable to me. I think the original proposal was bad. I think my proposal a little better' and therefore I am ready to accept a compromise. If I cannot get w hat I want, I will accept a compromise. But I do not say that the proposal will then be more palatable to me than it is now. I am, however, willing that £21,000 should be given instead of £36,000, simply for the sake of peace. I have now stated to the House as clearly as I could my contention that the savings on the Civil List under the Act should not go to the Crown or the Crown's Privy Purse, but should be retained by the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if expended at all should be expended under the direct orders of Parliament. And I have endeavoured to support that contention by showing that the Act reads so, and that the purposes of the Act should be carried out. If I had that view before, I have been fortified ten-fold in my idea of its truth by reading the terms of the Bill now put into our hands. I can point out to the Committee that Clause 2 of this Bill, for the first time in the history of England since these Grants have been made, states that the Trustees shall hold the annual sum granted under the Act, and any accumulations of that fund. Why is that inserted in the Bill? I will tell the House it is inserted because under the stress of the discussions of last week, the Government recognise that under the Act of 1837 they had no such power. No such power exists in that Act. Therefore they have given the authority in the Bill that the Prince's Trustees should not only have the annual sum, but the accumulated money. I have put my first contention, no doubt, at some length, but still with all the brevity of which I am capable, he fore the House. I have put it seriously, and if the Front Bench will hold their tongues and let some Gentleman behind them reply to me, I shall be glad to hear any substantial objections to the points I have raised. I beg then, in conclusion, to propose that we should omit the words, "thirty-six," and insert "twenty-one."

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 1, to leave out the word "thirty-six," in order to insert the word "twenty-one."—(Mr. Storey.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'thirty-six' stand part of the Clause."

* MR. GOSCHEN

If there has been a little impatience with the latter part of the hon. Member's speech it is no doubt due to the fact that he dealt at considerable length with a point which has been threshed out in a previous Debate, and which has no special bearing upon the Amendment now before the House. The question is, how far we are going over the same ground again that has been traversed in the previous Debate. The hon. Member has utilised the occasion to make another speech on the question of the savings on the Civil List. The senior Member for Northampton has contended that all payments made to the Queen in excess of the £60,000 a year assigned to the Privy Purse have been practically illegal; and the hon. Member's contention is that the Government and the Parliament which originally framed the Civil List Act did not know what they were doing. Now, after 50 years have elapsed, the hon. Member claims to know better what was the intention of the framers of the Act than they knew themselves. It is almost labour lost at this time of day to justify the payments made to the Queen from the year 1838 down to the present time by every Administration, by men belonging to both political Parties, and by the most watchful Chancellors of the Exchequer and Secretaries to the Treasury that ever existed. The hon. Member was perfectly within his right when he moved to reduce the sum payable under this Bill from £36,000 to £21,000, but the argument he has raised with regard to savings ought to be abandoned, looking to the history of the case from 1837 down to the present day. The hon. Member maintains that the charges on the Privy Purse have been discharged by the payment of £60,000 a year, but how does he know that that is the case? It is true that £60,000 is paid to the Privy Purse, but the expenditure of the Privy Purse has often been much larger than £60,000, and it is much larger at the present moment; and it is in aid of the Privy Purse that the savings to which he has alluded have habitually been paid. After all that has been said in previous Debates it is unnecessary to dwell more upon that point. But then the hon. Member wants to know how the £824,000 paid to Her Majesty has been applied. [Mr. STOREY: We want to know.] Why should the hon. Member know? The sum was paid to Her Majesty as Her Majesty's private property, and we have no right to ask as to its application. The hon. Member seems to think that he is the only watchful guardian of the public purse that has existed during the last 50 years, that he alone of all Members of Parliamentduringthelast50 years has had a proper appreciation of this particular bargain. As the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has said, we have no right to pry into the expenditure of the Sovereign. The hon. Member knows better; he thinks it is the privilege of a Member of Parliament.

* MR. STOREY

I did not say that, and it is not fair to put it in that way. All I argued was that the Sovereign has never applied to Parliament without stating that she had no more resources.

* MR. GOSCHEN

The hon. Member has claimed that if any application is made for a Grant we are entitled to know the savings of the Sovereign. The hon. Member claims to know what has been the expenditure of the Sovereign, and whether she has properly applied the sums which have been paid in aid of the Privy Purse, according to his views of what is right. The letter from Sir Henry Ponsonby, which the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) quoted distinctly stated the maximum amount of the savings of the Queen, and after the production of that letter I should have thought hon. Members would scarcely wish to convey exaggerated ideas of Her Majesty's savings. The hon. Member's great point is that there is no precedent of a Sovereign asking for a Grant without stating the necessity of the case, and that there is no provision from which otherwise the Grant might be made. I maintain that during the whole course of the present reign no single instance has occurred in which application has been made to Parliament based upon the absence of a fund for making the provision asked. Whether in the case of the daughters of the Duke of Cambridge, or of the Queen's sons and daughters, the claim has never been rested upon the absence of savings or upon the absence of power in the Crown to make the provision. The hon. Member still argues the question of savings, although the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian has declared that it is impossible to believe that the Sovereign has saved sufficient to enable her to provide for the children of the Prince of Wales. With regard to the hon. Member's actual Amendment to reduce the amount to be paid to £21,000, the hon. Member first objects to the form in which we propose to deal with the £36,000; he wishes it to be allocated by Parliament in certain fixed proportions. He desires that so many twelfths shall be allotted by Parliament to the sons and so many to the daughters. But the hon. Member not only voted, but told with the hon. Member for Northampton, who strongly contended that Parliament should not interfere at all, and that the whole matter should be left in the hands of the Prince of Wales. Now, the hon. Member entirely discards the view which he previously voted for, and contends that Parliament should retain the matter in its own hands. The hon. Gentleman thinks £36,000is a great deal too much to grant, and suggests that we should grant £21,000. He would prefer, however, to deal only with the present emergency, and to give £13,000 —namely, £10,000 to Prince Albert Victor and £3,000 to the Princess Louise of Wales, leaving the provision for other children to be settled hereafter. He thinks it is a gratuitous piece of profligacy on the part of the Government when they ask for £36,000. Yes; but we have been accused of shabbiness became we departed from our original proposition. Now, what are the facts? What we propose to grant is a sum which, properly arranged, will provide adequate incomes for the children of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Hon. Members below the Gangway say this sum of £36,000 is far in excess of the original proposition, and, therefore, ought not to be adopted by zealous guardians of the Public Purse. But hon. Members are in error. The hon. Member thinks it would be better for Parliament to keep the matter in its own hands, and he says this Bill is against precedent; but? a Committee was appointed to lay down the principle upon which these Grants should be made in future, and the Committee reported that, in order to avoid repeated applications to Parliament and all these painful Debates, it would be desirable to make one arrangement with the Prince of Wales which should last during the present reign, and to give him a certain sum to provide for all his children, so that when once that matter was settled by Parliament further applications would be unnecessary. It is a question for the House to decide whether a lump sum of £36,000 a year to cover provision for all the Prince's children is a fair equivalent for the offer which was originally made. £21,000 would be as a permanent arrangement far below the mark, and would not supply those annuities which the hon. Member himself is not unprepared to give. Then the hon. Member asks how is the matter to be arranged, and whether there are to be accumulations? The general principle of the plan is that instead of giving a varying amount, which might rise to £49,000 a year, Parliament shall give a permanent Grant of £36,000 to meet all contingencies. In the first year the whole of the £36,000 will not be required. Then the hon. Member asks, will the balance be paid over to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales? Certainly not. It will be held by the Trustees and invested, and form the basis of annuities, and the basis of dowries for Princesses, or other allowances. The calculation is that this sum of £36,000, if fairly invested during the present reign, will provide for all the children of the Prince of Wales. The suggestion is one which the Government adopted from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, but for which we do not wish to make him specially responsible, for it appears to us, as it appeared to him, that it is an equitable arrangement which will save much trouble to Parliament and much friction, and which will prevent these unseemly questions arising between the Crown and the Commons.

* MR.CUNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

In rising to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Sunderland, I must take exception to the phrase several times used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He deprecated these "unseemly and painful" Debates. What, I should like to know, is there of a painful nature connected with these discussions? Laying aside all cant, so far as it is possible to do so in any assembly of men, I try to look at the question on its own merits, and I think the word "painful" does not at all apply to this question. The Kings and Queens of this country are not Kings and Queens in the ordinary sense. They are the creatures of Parliament. Parliament placed them on the Throne, and has from the beginning regulated the amount of money which they are to take from the country; and in an extreme case, I presume that Parliament could unmake them altogether. I am, therefore, unable to understand the introduction of the phrase as applied to the discussion of the question as to whether the Grant should be £36,000 or £21,000. I do not intervene, as the House well knows, for the purpose of wasting time. I must say that this question of whether we should give a few thousands more or less to the grandchildren of the Queen is not to my mind a question of very great importance. I do not think the British exchequer will suffer greatly from the Grant of £15,000 more or less; but, I do hold again, in direct opposition to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, rightly or wrongly, the working classes of the country take a very great interest in this question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not, I think, include a large number of the working classes in his constituency; but I think I understood him to say that the working classes generally are not averse to these Grants in principle. Well, it is a very curious thing if that is so, seeing the attitude that has been taken by so many of my hon. Friends who are undoubted representatives of working class constituencies. I appeal to them, and they can testify to the undoubted feeling of the working classes against the whole principle of these Grants. For further corroboration I would draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the votes of confidence received by the hon. Member for the Rhondda Division (Mr. Abraham), and he has spoken in this House on this subject in the name of his constituents. The Chancellor of the Exchequer disavows very strongly all that the hon. Member for Rhondda has said; but I do not admit his claim to be a better exponent of the wishes of the working classes of the United Kingdom than the hon. Member of the miners of Wales. However, leaving this aside, and coming more to what I have alleged before, that, rightly or wrongly, there is a strong feeling against these Grants, I may say we have often seen millions voted with more celerity than this sum will be granted, and I attribute this to the fact, and I know that it is a point of view in which I shall not get many Members to agree with me—I attribute it to the fact that large bodies of the working classes of the kingdom have got to dissociate themselves from these demands for ironclads, for armies, or for official expenditure; their interests do not seem to be touched by these matters, but this question somehow seems to them of great importance. Their attention is much directed to it, and undoubtedly in almost every part of the kingdom very strong expressions of opinion have been given in regard to it. Some very memorable words fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in reference to this subject; so memorable that I venture to trouble the House with a repetition of them, for it almost seemed as if a revelation had descended upon the right hon. Gentleman, a revelation that I, for one, hail with exceeding joy, and I hope it will be confirmed and pressed inside and outside the House. The broad difference, the right hon. Gentleman said, between members of the Royal Family and other men of gigantic wealth, is that while in the case of the Royal Family large means are associated and even tied to the discharge of public duties, in the case of other wealthy men in the country, they are under no such obligation except to their own consciences. Very memorable words for an ex-Prime Minister; very memorable words from the Leader of the popular Party. I, for one, never have attacked the Queen or any Member of the Royal Family outside the House, and I do not come here, therefore, with any nauseous pretensions of sham loyalty.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the hon. Member that the Question is that £36,000 stand part of the clause.

* MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

Certainly, Sir, I bow to your reminder. The question is whether we shall grant the smaller or the larger sum for the maintenance of the Royal State and the performance of their duties. I was I about to urge, and I hope I shall not be transgressing your ruling, that this question of Royal Grants has not so much importance as many people seem disposed to attach to it, and I, for one, shall support the hon. Member for Sunderland simply and solely because I consider his Motion an expression of public opinion and a protest against a continuance of the state of society as we know it now, a state of society that condemns large bodies of people to misery, semi-starvation, and overwork, while these large sums are voted to the maintenance of a single family. I will not for a moment deny that there may be 20 Members sitting on both sides of the House whose joint incomes are a heavier burden than this same Vote to the Royal Family.

THE CHAIRMAN

Again I must remind the hon. Member that the Question is whether £36,000 shall stand part of the clause.

* MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM

I accept your ruling, Sir, and abandon my line of argument. I will merely say this before I conclude. I reiterate that it is simply and solely as a protest that I give my vote in support of the hon. Member for Sunderland, believing that the sum now devoted to the interest of the Royal Family in return for duties which, in my opinion, they do not discharge, is ample, and in the interest of great masses of our overworked, underfed population, I support the protest against the system that tends to increase the feelings of class hatred and class distinction.

MR. LABOUCHERE

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said just now that there never had been expenditure from the Privy Purse of less than £60,000 per annum. Now, certain figures were laid before us in Committee which we were asked to consider private, but it was not stated to the Committee and figures were not laid before the Committee to show that the Privy Purse had ever fallen short of the £60,000 allocated to it. As a matter of fact, it seemed to me, so far as I could deduce conclusions from the figures, that the Privy Purse and the Duchy of Lancaster receipts—for we must put them together —had never in any single year, certainly not in any average year, been expended. Therefore, I do protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer making this statement to the House which he was not prepared to make and did not make in Committee upstairs, and when his statements might have been verified. I quite agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we ought not to pry into the private savings of Her Majesty. We ought not to ask the exact amount, and no one has asked that; but we ought to have a clear and distinct statement that the amount now paid to the Royal Family, which amounts to £700,000, is not adequate, and that nothing can come from that source for the support of the younger members of the Family. We have not been told that, and we know perfectly well that there have been savings amounting to at least a million. I am not now refering to any figures put before us in Committee. I am referring to the Ponsonby letter, from which, I take it, the amount does not, or did not then, exceed a million—that is to say, about a million. In addition to that, we know perfectly well that, from the fact of the Duchy of Lancaster producing £38,000 per annum in excess of what it did when the Civil List was voted to Her Majesty; and from the fact that £16,000 was the amount turned from other classes to the Privy Purse, then we know that Her Majesty is in receipt of an income of £52,000 more than was deemed sufficient for the requirements of Her Majesty when the Civil List was fixed. The House, by reading this Bill a second time, must be taken to have decided that some sum should be voted to the Prince of Wales for his children, but the question now is what sum? I, who was against voting any amount because I believed there was already sufficient in the hands of the Family, would certainly prefer £21,000 to £36,000. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer appears to regard the hon. Member for Sunderland as a perfect monster of iniquity because he proposes that the amount should be reduced from £36,000 to £21,000. We have made our calculation said the right hon. Gentleman, and £40,000 a year will practically give what we originally asked, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer used this as an argument for not yielding to my hon. Friend. Well, but it is not £40,000. After making all their calculations, no sooner did my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian move that £36,000 should be substituted for £40,000, than the Government at once threw over all their calculations and said "Yes, by all means let us make it £36,000 "—a figure for which I am bound to say my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian adduced no sort of reason, and if he had I should have advanced reasons for a further reduction. Now, I take this sum of £21,000, and I find it would enable the Prince to give his eldest son £10,000 a year, his second son £5,000 a year, and his daughters £2,000 a year, which would be very handsome incomes for them all. We live in an age when the worship of the Golden Calf is getting daily more scandalous. We have all sorts of Nitrate kings and men who have become rich—Heaven knows how—becoming the darlings of Society. [Interruption.] Have hon. Gentlemen got shares in the Nitrate kingdom? These people raise the level of expenditure, spread abroad their wealth, and get somebody to invite people to their entertainments. [Interruption; Cries of "Question."] I know how the Nitrate shares were divided. But these worshippers of the Golden Calf are persons with whom I have no sort of sympathy. I think we might take this opportunity of establishing the principle that there is a family for whom we entertain great respect, and it is not necessary to command that respect that they should be excessively rich. I was reading the other day some letters of Sir William Temple. ["Divide!"] I may tell the hon. Member opposite that Sir W. Temple was a gentleman who lived in the time of Charles II., and he was sent over by Charles as Ambassador to Holland. In one of his letters he mentions that he went to visit the Grand Pensionary of Holland. ["Question!"] The hon. Gentleman says "Question!" How can I cope with such ignorance as that? I do not profess to be among the Gods, but the hon. Member reminds me of what Goethe says: "Against stupidity the Gods fight in vain." But to return to my Grand Pensionary. Sir W. Temple called upon the Grand Pensionary, and found him living upon the third storey with a single maid to look after him and open his door. Sir W. Temple contrasted the dignity and real importance of the Grand Pensionary living like that with the tinsel, gaud, and wretched position in Europe of his own master Charles II. I cite this instance to show that it is not necessary to endow heads of families or of States with large possessions in order that they may be regarded with respect. I think the sum proposed by the hon. Member for Sunderland is amply sufficient for Royalty to live not only in decent comfort but with reasonable splendour, and I shall support the proposal.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 201; Noes 62.—(Div. List, No. 271.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

I now wish to insert at the end of this clause words which provide practically that if any son of the Prince of Wales is in receipt of any salary or emolument attached to any office, place, or employment under the Crown, the amount so received shall be deducted from the annual amount now granted. I regret to see that those two Kilkenny cats of Unionism—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the noble Lord the Member for Paddington—are not present, because I believe that both of them would have been anxious and eager to support this particular Amendment. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington has been lecturing about the country, and has been prating a good deal about economy, while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has claimed to be an old Radical, and to have inherited in some special way the mantles both of Cobden and Bright.

An hon. MEMBER

He is here.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Oh! very well. Then I have no doubt I shall have his support, because this happens to be an Amendment of Mr. Bright's. In 1850, as the Committee will no doubt remember, there was a proposal made to grant a sum of£l2,000 per annum to the Duke of Cambridge, and on that occasion Mr. Bright put down an Amendment which I have taken for my model, and it is practically the same as the Amendment which stands in my name. Mr. Bright said this— Let us at least arrange that this annuity of £12,000 shall be all that the Duke shall receive in all circumstances. Many persons in receipt of pensions have allowed them to be merged in the salaries of their offices, and why should not this principle be applied to the Duke of Cambridge? Now His Royal Highness has occupied places, the emoluments of which have been added to the £12,000 per annum, and he has been permitted as a Royal Prince to draw large official salaries. The same rule has been followed in the case of the Prince of Wales, who is now colonel of a regiment for which he receives £1,500 per annum. The Duke of Connaught, too, enjoys a high position in the Army, while the Duke of Edinburgh has a high position in the Navy, and both receive large salaries. It seems to me that while we hold that the Princes of the Royal Family should have some adequate provision made for them, we are not prepared to say that they should do nothing for it. I believe that they are anxious to do something for the large sums which they receive, and the object of my Amendment is to recognise that desire on their part, and to provide that in the case of their occupying some place of emolument, the emolument they receive shall be merged in the amount of the annuity voted for them. As I have said before, I have the authority of Mr. Bright for this Amendment. We are told that we are getting more democratic every day. Do not let us go back, and do not let us be behind the Parliament of 1850. At that time there was only a majority of 59 against the proposal of Mr. Bright, and I do trust that this Committee, by the vote which it is about to give, will agree that this is a fair and reasonable proposal which I am making.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 3, after the word "preserve," to insert the words— Provided that, in case any son of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales shall at any time be in receipt of any sum or sums of money by way of salary or emolument attached to any office, place, or employment he may hold under the Crown, the whole amount of such sum or sums so received shall be deducted from the annual amount now granted, so long as the said salary or emolument shall be enjoyed."— (Mr. Labouchere.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I will only say a very few words in respect to this Amendment. It will be felt by the House and the country that it is very much to the advantage of the House and the nation that the Royal Princes should be employed in the Public Ser- vice, and they should be paid those sums which are befitting for the posts they occupy, and which, so far as I know, very rarely exceed the expense to which officers are put in the discharge of their duties. No greater misfortune could happen to the country than that these Princes should be induced, from any influence brought to bear on them, not to accept employment in the Public Service, because such employment qualifies them for the higher and more important duties which devolve upon them later in life.

MR. STOREY

Even supposing it is desirable that the Princes should enter the Public Service, why should they be treated differently from other public servants? If they take the pay attached to an office they ought to give up their pensions, in the same way as Ministers and other persons are required to do in the like case. But I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman, and say that, so far from being advantageous, it cannot but be of great disadvantage that those Princes should enter the Public Service. We have seen one Royal Prince after another entering the Public Service, and instead of attaining, after years of great anxiety and labour, the position which other men attain in that way, they are pitched into positions far above their deserts, without any advantage to the country. I am not afraid to give instances. Who believes that the Duke of Edinburgh, if he had been anybody else but a Royal Duke, would have been made an Admiral at the time he obtained that rank? Who believes that the Duke of Connaught, for serving in the second line at Tel-el-Kebir, would have been specially thanked by Parliament if he had not been the Duke of Connaught? For winning the paltry action of Tel-el-Kebir nine General Officers were thanked, about as many as were thanked for winning the Battle of Waterloo. The Duke of Connaught has since received one of the principal commands in India at a salary of about £5,000 a year and huge perquisites, thereby getting a position which ought to have been filled by some worthy veteran; and it may be that even in this House there are worthy veterans who are suffering from the injustice of this system. If the wholesome rule that the pension should be deducted from the salary had operated in the case of His Royal Highness the present Commander-in-Chief of the Army at home we should long ago have had a change that is desirable from many points of view. I do not believe that the addition of Royal personages to the great Services of the country has ever been of any use to the country, but it has many a time been productive of the greatest harm. I, therefore, beg to support the Amendment.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 188.—(Div. List, No. 272.)

It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair.

Committee report Progress; to sit again to-morrow.