HC Deb 02 August 1889 vol 339 cc187-219

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

MR. ESSLEMONT (Aberdeen, E)

I beg to move, in line 5, after "thereof," to insert— Or from such sums as may become available from the discontinuance or abolition of offices in Class 2 of the Civil Service List, and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign. In moving this Amendment, I shall carefully avoid anything like making a SECOND READING speech. It is necessary to explain, however, that the subject of my Amendment has been under the consideration of Parliament for several years, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) has constantly directed attention to several matters connected with the Crown. But the Government have refused to listen to the representations made to them, and now we have the present Bill, which seems to have been drawn for the purpose of foreclosing the Civil List during Her Majesty's reign. I do not begrudge in any way the allowance to Her Majesty or to the Heir Apparent to the Throne; but my complaint is not that £36,000 additional should be granted, but that it should be granted upon the understanding that the Civil List shall remain in statu quo during Her Majesty's reign. I believe that the feeling of the country upon this subject is exceedingly keen, but the irritation which exist is not due to the Grants to Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales for the purpose of maintaining the dignity and splendour of the Monarchy, but to the realisation of the fact that there are around the Throne a number of persons receiving nearly £20,000 a year in pensions, and many thousands of pounds more in salaries, which are attached to sinecure offices. The people will remain dissatisfied with the Civil List until these parasites are removed and the sinecure offices abolished. They protest against paying a number of persons who do no service whatever to the State, and simply live upon the industry of the taxpayers. I am afraid that it will be in vain to attempt to allay this feeling of irritation until the long-promised Committee shall have been appointed and shall have reported. We have no objection to maintain the Monarchy in dignity and splendour, but we do object to maintain it for purposes which we think are pernicious and inimical to the best interests of the State. I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, after the word "thereof," to insert the words— Or from such sums as may become available from the discontinuance or abolition of offices in Class 2 of the Civil List, and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign."—(Mr. Esslemont.)

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

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

The Government are unable to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. The purport of the Amendment is that a revision of the Civil List should be undertaken with a view of seeing whether any saving can be made, and if so of applying such saving to an allowance for the Prince of Wales' children. It has been clearly established in the course of the Debates that not only do the Government not propose to disturb the Civil List during the present reign, but it is admitted pretty generally that that is a step that ought not to be taken at present. Therefore, both on account of the compact which has existed between the Crown and Parliament during more than 50 years, and on account of the general inexpediency of undertaking a revision of the Civil List at the present moment, the Government feel that they cannot accept the Amendment.

SIR G. CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy)

I concur with my hon. Friend as to the desirability of reducing surplus Court appointments, which are a means of corruption at the disposal of the Government of the day. A large number of excellent young men, heirs to large estates, are captured and taken political prisoners by a Lord in Waiting ship or something of that kind. But although I concur with my hon. Friend I cannot give him my vote, because in the whole of this matter I am publicly pledged to follow the declarations and the lead of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone.) Her Majesty having taken upon herself the burden of providing for the junior members of the Family, Parliament ought not to try to make money out of the Civil List, money which may fairly be taken by Her Majesty to enable her to discharge that very great burden. I am not well up in my knowledge of the Royal Family, but I find from Whitaker's Almanack that Her Majesty has had nine children. The children of four of them have already been provided for, but there are the families of three daughters who still require to be provided for. Her Majesty has taken upon herself that great burden, and it therefore seems to me that we ought in no way to interfere with the Civil List.

MR. COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I contend that the compact alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been observed only on one side, and I support the principle of the Amendment, by which my hon. Friend does not mean in any way to diminish the income of Her Majesty, but to utilise any savings that can be effected in the Civil List. I am afraid that there is nothing that tends to bring Royalty more in conflict with the feelings of the people than votes of this kind for persons who hang on to the skirts of Royalty. On that ground I shall support the Amendment of my hon. Friend, although as I have paired I cannot vote for it.

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

I wish to assert most emphatically, in contradiction to the statement of the hon. Member, that the compact of 1837 has been observed by Her Majesty to the very letter from the very beginning until now, and the applications made to Parliament from time to time have been made by responsible Ministers of the Crown upon their own sense of their duty to Parliament, the Crown, and the country, and in full recognition of the compact originally made.

* MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

I hope that the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment will not go to a Division upon it. I am quite in favour of the abolition of many of the offices provided for under Class 2 of the Estimates, but I am not aware that any of those offices will be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign without some specific enactment. Therefore the Amendment does not in terms apply to what the hon. Member wishes.

* MR. C. J. DARLING (Deptford)

In my opinion the Amendment is entirely nugatory, because if money comes to be at the disposal of Parliament it would come into the Treasury in natural course, and need only be left there.

* MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

In 1844 a number of these offices were abolished, but the money did not come to Parliament at all. It was retained in the hands of Trustees and handed over to Her Majesty. I contend that every application to Parliament for an increase of the amount to the Royal Family has been a breaking of the agreement of 1837. ["No!"] I shall be glad if the hon. Member who says "No" will endeavour to prove it. The other night it was said that no intimation had ever been made to the Crown that any additional application for a Grant to Members of the Royal Family should not be made, and that no Minister had ever intimated to Her Majesty that none was expected to be made. The First Civil List for a whole reign on the new plan was that of William IV. It included the pensions then borne upon the Consolidated Fund—£50,000 a year for Queen Adelaide.

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see how the hon. Member can make these observations relevant to the Amendment.

* MR. STOREY

The proposal of my hon. Friend is that any savings that may be made hereafter shall be retained for public purposes, and it is contended on the other side that that would be a breach of the compact entered into in 1837. I wish to show that, as a matter of fact, no such compact exists. My only object was to call attention to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November, 1837 (Mr. Spring Rice), in which he clearly pointed out that the Civil List were to be regarded as final, and that there were to be no further applications to Parliament for additions. All the engagements which this House has entered into were, I maintain, fulfilled when the Civil List was fixed at £385,000, and that no further contribution in excess ought to be imposed upon the people.

MR. GLADSTONE (Edinburgh, Mid Lothian)

While the Bill has been in Committee, I have thought that I should best promote the progress of Public Business by not taking part in the discussion, the principle and provisions of the Bill having been largely expounded and, as I think, thoroughly understood by the House. But when the statement is made, no doubt in perfect good faith, by the right hon. Gentleman that the compact between the Crown and Parliament has been broken by subsequent applications for Grants to members of the Royal Family, as one who had something to do with the original settlement I do not think I ought to remain entirely silent, and I must frankly adopt the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. It appears to me that Her Majesty has in the strictest and most absolute manner possible conformed to the declaration which was made in the Civil List when she came to the Throne. In regard to the non-possession of means by the Crown, the state of the case is this—that when the Government in the time of Lord Palmerston considered the question of provision for the children of the Queen they looked at the question as a whole. I think, if I remember the figures correctly, that, including the Prince of Wales, the total sum to be provided would have been above £150,000, and excluding the Prince of Wales £100,000 a year. It was the opinion of Her Majesty's advisers at that day that whether the Queen had or had not certain savings on the Civil List—and I am glad she has had them, as Parliament is going to be considerably benefited from them—Her Majesty had no savings and no means at her free disposal which could have enabled her to face such a demand as that for £100,000 a year. With respect to the Amendment immediately before the House, I am unable to support it for reasons which are extremely patent. I take it to be perfectly clear in law and according to the equity of the ease that if any inquiry should be made which should result in savings being made in the present Civil List by the abolition of certain offices, those savings will be absolutely in law and in honour the property of Her Majesty, with which Parliament ought not any more to interfere, and with which I do not believe Parliament will interfere, than with any other absolutely established and universally recognised right. I must repeat the opinion mentioned by my hon. Friend the member for Kirkcaldy (Sir G. Campbell) just now that Her Majesty is about to assume a very heavy burden, and if Her Majesty can be aided by any such savings as those intended in the present Amendment, I would be extremely glad if she could be assisted by any economies which it is in her power, and not in that of Parliament, both in law and in equity to make. To lighten her burden would be the natural, honourable, and only legitimate application of these funds.

MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)

Many of the questions raised in these Debates are questions upon which much may be said on either side. I do not think it is necessary to go into the question whether there was a compact with Her Majesty which precludes Her Majesty from asking any additional aid for her children or grandchildren, but I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that when he says that if Her Majesty were to do away with a considerable number of household offices she would have a right to acquire the salaries, he can hardly remember that the Civil List Act was based on a Report of a Committee. That Committee went into all these details and made alterations in regard to the amount to be paid during the reign of William IV., and the Act was founded on that Report, just as the present Bill is founded on the Report of the Grants Committee. It seems to me that if by an Act of Parliament it has been agreed to give Her Majesty £385,000 a year, which Act was based on the Report of a Committee which said so much shall be given to A, so much to B, and so much to C, it would be hardly fair and reasonable, if the salaries were suppressed, that Her Majesty should enjoy the amount saved. These salaries are supposed to be paid in the interest of the maintenance of the honour and dignity of the Crown, and if they are suppressed, the money ought to remain in the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that it would be unfair to insist upon Her Majesty, in the autumn of her life, making great changes in her household. There is a certain amount of force in that, but the Amendment does not insist that Her Majesty should do so. All it says is that if Her Majesty should do so the amount should go in aid of the sum which it is proposed should be given towards the support of the Prince of Wales, and therefore that the taxpayer should be relieved to that extent. I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether very lately Lord Spencer and Sir Reginald Welby have not gone into the question whether any of these salaries could be suppressed, and whether the result was not that the office of Clerk held by Lord Alfred Paget was not filled up upon the death of that gentleman. With respect to the Amendment, however, unless my hon. Friend consents to an amendment in its form it will be rather difficult to vote for it. The Amendment speaks of funds "which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign," but the funds to which it refers are not at the disposal of Parliament, but at the disposal of the Treasury.

MR. ESSLEMONT

I mean the Treasury; and am quite prepared to consent to the Amendment suggested.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Then I have nothing more to say except that I hope the Committee will adopt the Amendment with the alteration.

MR. ESSLEMONT

I cannot consent to withdraw the Amendment, but I will accept the amendment which has been suggested. I have great respect for the Leader of the Opposition, and have given great weight to all he has said as to this Amendment, but I feel that it is part of the duty of Parliament and the Treasury to reform these sinecure offices, and not burden the country with them. We are asked to pass this Bill, and practically to shut up every avenue to economy with regard to Royal Grants during the present reign. I believe the constituencies are not prepared to have this question foreclosed.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

I beg to move to omit from the Amendment the words "and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign."— (Mr. Bradlaugh.)

Question, "That the words 'and which may be at the disposal of Parliament during the present reign,' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, as amended, proposed.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I think the Amendment of my hon. Friend hits, from a popular point of view, the great blot in this Bill. The people perceive that there are vast numbers of enormously paid officials whose services are purely nominal. Lord Coventry, the Master of the Buckhounds, receives £1,700 a year, and the Duke of Portland, the Master of the Horse, is paid £2,500 a year. It is these things which shock the moral sense of the community. These men are very rich, and they render no service to the country or to the Queen—I mean no service to the country proportionate to the sums they receive. If there is one instinct of the democracy which is stronger than another—if there is one principle that they will enforce upon the House sooner or later—it is the principle that, with regard to the expenditure of public money, there must be some close proportion between the services that are rendered and the money that is paid for them. It was not so, I grant, at the commencement of the present reign. Fifty years ago the persons who were the depositories of political power were not shocked at such salaries as these which are paid to the Duke of Portland and Lord Coventry; but 50 years have made a mighty difference. The people have now a voice in the management of affairs, and those who are responsible in matters of this kind would do well to take heed of the warning which has been given them, not only by these Debates, but still more by the significant Divisions which have taken place upon this Bill, and to apply their minds to removing what, in the minds of the great mass of the people, is one of the great objections to Royalty. Hon. Members must remember that the large majority of voters are persons who are paid between 15s. and 35s. a week, and that the great majority of these are at present making less than £1 a week. A man who has to work an hour in order to earn 6d. or 8d. has a realising sense of the value of a penny, and the amount of labour and suffering it represents, which those in a more fortunate position in life cannot appreciate. It is said it is impossible to give effect to this Amendment, for technical reasons, in connection with the supposed compact established by the Civil List Act at the commencement of Her Majesty's reign. I do not think there is much profit or advantage in discussing at this time of day what is the true meaning of the Act establishing the Civil List. But if the framers of that piece of legislation had intended that the savings of Class 2 should go to the Privy Purse, they employed peculiar language for the purpose. If that was the intention, why did not the Act say so? It provides that any surplus may be transferred from one class in aid of another, which seems to imply that it is only to be done when there is an insufficiency in the class. There is not much advantage in discussing this matter now. I believe the real reason why the point was left in this highly ambiguous state was one highly creditable to Her Majesty. It was that the framers of the Act never contemplated the possibility of a Sovereign spending less than £385,000 a year. But whatever view we take of these matters, I think it ought not to be beyond the power of Her Majesty's Ministers to provide even at the latest moment for the abolition of offices which throw an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers of the country. I am certain that while the great mass of the people appreciate the advantages of the Monarchical form of Government as it now exists in this country, and are quite prepared to pay all necessary sums for its maintenance, they will nevertheless set their faces against the whole principle of Class 2, against the principle of honorary or titular or nominal offices bestowed upon rich men and highly paid at the expense of the State. Under these circumstances I shall certainly support the Amendment.

MR. WALLACE (Edinburgh, East)

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury criticised with his usual fairness the language of my hon. Friend when he seemed to charge him with reflecting on the conduct of Her Majesty. If my hon. Friend had done so, he would have been guilty of a transgression which must have brought upon him the censure of the Chair. All my hon. Friend could have meant was that the propositions of Her Majesty's Government were of such a nature that they presented the Sovereign in the aspect referred to. It is perfectly impossible that the Sovereign can be spoken of in a sinister manner by any person with a knowledge of the Constitution. The King can do no wrong. A Constitutional Sovereign, who follows the advice of her Ministers, must always be Constitutionally right. We know that the Ministers have placed the Sovereign in a false position; but, at the same time, I know Her Majesty is in a true and right position, because she is doing whatever she is advised by her Ministers. I rose, however, to offer a humble contribution to the discussion on the argument that the application of any savings which may be effected by the Treasury on the Civil List is really not relevant to the present emergency, because those savings become the property of Her Majesty by the act of the Trustees of the Fund, who are, according to law, entitled to devote them in aid of the charges on the Privy Purse, if they choose. I do not object to that reading of the law. I shall not dispute the position that any savings in Class 2 may be properly enough devoted to the charges on the Privy Purse, which is Class 1 of the Civil List. I ask whether the maintenance of the children of the Royal Family is a personal and private matter, as is the case in other families, or is it a matter connected with the maintenance of the dignity and honour of the Crown? If it is a duty of a personal and private capacity, I ask what could be a more natural distinction of private and personal funds? I take it that whether the savings go to the maintenance of the family or to the maintenance of the honour of the Crown, they are equally to be contemplated as devoteable—if I may coin a word—to the purposes of the maintenance of the Royal Family. I do not like the way in which Her Majesty's Ministers continue to speak of the bargain or compact which they say exists between the Queen and the nation. In the strict sense of the word there can be no contract between the Queen and her people, because there is no authority by which it can be enforced. The Preamble of the Civil List Act is founded on relations of affection between Sovereign and people. All the difficulty and painful feeling and misunderstanding of this matter at the present moment has been produced by the unwise conduct of Her Majesty's Government in not coming forward and plainly and honestly telling us, the Representatives of the people, that Her Majesty cannot conveniently support all the members of her Family in that style which is consistent with the maintenance of her Family.

* MR. GOSCHEN

I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so. I say distinctly that the Queen has not the means of providing for all her children and her grandchildren in a manner befitting their station and dignity. I make that statement in the fullest sense.

MR. WALLACE

If I rightly understand the right hon. Gentleman I accept his statement with confidence. I desire, however, that there should be no misunderstanding with regard to the matter. I have listened too carefully to the Debate—I will not say to be taken in— but to be misled by generalities. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to convey to the House that Her Majesty's means from all sources, both public and private, are not sufficient to enable her to maintain her children and grandchildren in becoming dignity?

* MR. GOSCHEN

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, as he has further pressed me upon the subject, I will make the matter absolutely plain. What I mean is that if the Queen devoted the whole of her fortune to the children of the Prince of Wales and to her other grandchildren it would not suffice to make that provision for them which I believe the House thinks necessary for their proper support.

MR. WALLACE

Then I must say that in the face of that declaration any opposition on my part to this Grant is entirely disarmed.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 54; Noes 164.—(Div. List, No. 273.)

* MR. STOREY

I do not know that I need press the next Amendment, but I will formally move it, in order to elicit from the right hon. Gentleman the reason why a particular date has been put in the Sub-section 2 of Clause 1. This sub section provides that the first quarterly payment shall be made on the 5th October, and as this is the 2nd August, I think the first payment ought not to be made until November or December.

Amendment proposed, Clause 1, in page 2, line 7, to leave out the word "October" and insert the word "November."—(Mr. Storey.)

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

* MR. W. H. SMITH

The reason for the insertion of this date is obvious. In these matters it has been customary to make the allowances date from the day on which the House has taken Her Majesty's Message into consideration. In this case Her Majesty's Message came down on the 2nd of July. The 5th of October is the first quarterly pay-day after that date.

* MR. STOREY

Then all I can say is I hope a similar course will be adopted with reference to other persons to whom grants are made. My opinion is that the payment should only date from the date when Parliament authorises the grant. I will not, however, press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."

* MR. STOREY

In order to give some of my friends who were prevented from voting on the second reading an opportunity, I shall divide against the clause. I will only refer to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which appears to have driven my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh out of the House. Her Majesty's Government have assured the House that the total sum under the control of Her Majesty is not sufficient to enable her Majesty to make provision for her grandchildren. That is a most extraordinary statement to be made at this stage of the proceedings. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer if that statement was made to the Committee upstairs? Did he furnish, the Committee with any figures which enabled the Committee to judge of the reasonableness of the statement? Did he satisfy the hon. member for Northampton?

MR. LABOUCHERE

No.

* MR. STOREY

Did be satisfy the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle? Did he give him figures which justified him in coming to the conclusion that Her Majesty's resources were not sufficient for the purpose in view? I am not quite of the same temper as my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh, who runs away the moment he hears a Ministerial statement capable of 50 interpretations. I have heard too many to be taken in with a bald statement of that kind. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what, in my opinion, would have been a judicious course for him to take. He should have given the Committee information, and enabled them to form an opinion, and then come down to the House with an explicit statement on the point. I shall take the opportunity of dividing against this clause.

MR. LABOUCHERE

What was clone in Committee was this—a statement was made as to the amount of Her Majesty's fortune at the present moment, and we were told to treat that as a private communication, and of course have done so. Everybody can form his own opinion as to whether the amount of accumulations at the present moment would be sufficient to enable Her Majesty to provide for her grandchildren at her death. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently said that the amount is not sufficient to provide for the grandchildren, whereupon a Scotchman, in rather a weak-minded way, immediately walked out of the House and said he would not vote. I am perfectly convinced of this—and I am not going to state the figures—that if the amount of Her Majesty's fortune was known to the House, every single Scotchman—for they are a careful and economical people—would be of opinion that there is amply sufficient, from the actual savings, to give what may be termed a reasonable fortune to each of the grandchildren. What is called the appanage of an Austrian Archduke is something between £1,500 and £2,000 a year. I hold that the sum of £2,000 per annum, with such a capital sum as would produce that sum, to be left to his children, is; sufficient for each grandchild of Her Majesty. In my opinion, there is sufficient to provide for all the grandchildren, exclusive of the children of the Prince of Wales. Her Majesty is, however, now receiving a larger revenue from the Duchy of Lancaster, and a far larger income, than she received for her private use when she came to the Throne and the Civil List was established; and I contend that out of the accumulations all the younger children can be provided with an ample fortune, and that out of the excess of the private revenue over expenditure an ample amount—a sum greater than £36,000 a year—might without any curtailment in necessary expenditure be granted to the children of the Prince of Wales during Her Majesty's life.

MR. GLADSTONE

My hon. Friend has just said that he is convinced every Scotchman would agree with him that the savings of Her Majesty were amply sufficient for her grandchildren.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I consider the right hon. Gentleman as belonging to the United Kingdom and not to Scotland.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend, but I may tell him that we hold in Scotland that belonging to the United Kingdom makes us not still less but still more Scotchmen than we were before. I have not a single drop of blood which is not Scotch nor a single blood relation except those who are Scotch. I wish to accept the challenge of my hon. Friend, and I must say, having thought over the matter from my own point of view, before the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made, that I respectfully differ from my hon. Friend. I am convinced that if the vast majority of the House examined into the question they would come to a conclusion in conformity with the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the insufficiency of the accumulations. I am not speaking of the large and splendid figures with which we have been accustomed to deal in this House in providing £25,000 a year for the Royal Princes; but, forming the best estimate I can as to what is necessary for sustaining the burdens of life only on the footing of a gentleman—which is surely a very moderate estimate to form as to the mode of life of the immediate descendants of Royalty—I think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right, and that the means at the disposal of Her Majesty are not sufficient to make provision for her descendants. I cannot see that the hon. Member for Edinburgh was in the least to blame because he was disposed to attach weight to the responsible judgment of a Minister of the Crown. It is said that that statement was made at a late moment, but I may point out that it was not called for before. It should be borne in mind that the Committee has distinctly reported that all the information deemed by them needful to the objects of the inquiry was fully and freely laid before them by Her Majesty.

MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

I appeal to both Front Benches in this matter to enable us to form a judgment for ourselves. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us if we were in possession of the facts we should agree that the sum at Her Majesty's disposal is not sufficient to maintain the Royal grandchildren with proper dignity. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian not only confirms this but adds that it is not sufficient to maintain them properly in the station of private gentlemen. Will right hon. Gentlemen tell us what sum they would deem to be sufficient? That is the essence of the whole question. If I am to give a blind vote, I would rather do so following my leader into the Lobby; but I intend to say it is a blind vote given in the absence of definite information. I approve of the position taken up by the Member for South Edinburgh.

The Committee divided: Ayes 179; Noes 48.—(Div. List, No. 274.)

Clause 2.

* MR. STOREY

The Amendment I have to propose is that the words from "Act" in the nineteenth line to "otherwise" in the following line be omitted. I move it for the purpose of recording my protest against a system under which Parliament is required not merely to make Grants to persons, but also to enable a fund to be formed by accumulations, which fund will be entirely out of the control of Parliament. I make no speech upon it because the matter has been discussed again and again, but I move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in line 19 to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "otherwise" in line 20, inclusive.

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

* MR. STOREY

With regard to the next Amendment I may say it is intended to place a limit upon the now unlimited control the clause gives to the Prince of Wales and certain officials to distribute the sum in any way they may think best. My Amendment prescribes the amount that shall be paid to each child in the following proportion, five twelfths to the elder son, four-twelfths to the younger son, and to the daughters one-twelfth each. I have a very simple reason for proposing this. Anybody who reads history knows quite well that there have been in times past serious conflicts arising from differences of opinion in the Royal Household, and I can conceive circumstances under which internal differences may affect the distribution. The official persons will always be very much under the influence of the Prince of Wales and will do pretty much as he desires, and the appointment may be made according to favouritism and used as a means of punishment or reward. I simply say this that my intention may he recorded though I will not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member does not move?

* MR. STOREY

No.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Upon the point to which the next Amendment which stands in my name is directed, perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury or the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give me some enlightenment. What is to happen in the event of there being accumulations of unexpended funds? I need not go into this elaborately, but it is very evident as I read the clause that there may be considerable accumulations. For instance it is intended to give certain annuities to the daughters of the Prince of Wales and also £10,000 down. Well, suppose one of the younger daughters should die before the demise of the Prince of Wales, and that the sums are allowed to accumulate, and there should be a change in the Sovereignty of the country; then you have a fund hung up high and dry, a fund voted for a specific purpose, and this fund not being required for that purpose ought surely to be paid back to the Treasury.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, at the end of the Clause, to add the words— But should the trustees have in hand any unexpended accumulations of this sum six months after the death of Her Majesty, whom God long preserve, then such accumulations shall he paid into the Public Exchequer."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

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

* MR. W. H. SMITH

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that we cannot accept this Amendment.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I am surprised.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

We regard this as a Grant to make provision for the family of the Prince of Wales. The trustees to be appointed are official trustees—namely, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the time being, and they will be bound to see that the fund is properly distributed. It is obvious that provision may not be required to be made for some members of the family for a year or two, but when it is required there is the provision made by the Bill. That there will be accumulations to any considerable amount, for, say, eight or ten years is highly improbable in every sense of the word. The utmost we can hope is that there may be some accumulations during the earlier years that will enable His Royal Highness and the trustees to make such provision for his children as may be necessary and reasonable. Assuming even the possibility of accumulations, then these will be known to Parliament, and will be an element to take into consideration when a new Civil List comes to be settled. Under the circumstances I cannot see there is any necessity for the Amendment.

MR. LABOUCHERE

It is very evident, and every hon. Member who has paid attention to the point must see it, that I am right and that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. The fact is, he did not think of this point, and I have thought of it. The right hon. Gentleman does not want a Report stage of the Bill, but I do not share his view. I should rather like a Report stage, for we have a little more to say upon these matters. But I can perfectly understand why the right hon. Gentleman does not wish for this additional stage of the Bill. He has admitted I am right, for he says the matter will have to be re-considered in the event of the demise of the Sovereign. But surely we ought to consider it now; surely we have had sufficient discussion upon these accumulations; surely we ought to have it perfectly clear that if, on the demise of the Queen, there are accumulations, and the children of the Prince of Wales become the children of the Sovereign, then the money in the hands of the trustees for the benefit of the children, of the Prince of Wales and not of the children of the Sovereign should be repaid by the trustees into the Treasury.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 42;, Noes 175.—(Div. List, No. 275.)

MR. LABOUCHERE

Perhaps I may be more fortunate in inducing Her Majesty's Government to accept the next Amendment I have to propose. The point is this: supposing, first—I sincerely hope it may not be the case—but suppose the two sons and the two younger daughters of the Prince of Wales should die to-morrow, should there be granted to the Duchess of Fife £36,000 a year during the time she remains the grandchild of the Sovereign? Surely that is not the intention. We want to make a fair and adequate allowance of the £36,000. It is not probable that all the children will die except one, and I trust that none of them may die; still one may die. Supposing, after the allowance is given to the elder son and to the three daughters, the second son were to die. So far as I understand it, it is assumed that the second son will have £15,000 if he marries. Let us suppose he dies, and his wife dies, where is the £15,000 to go to? The elder son is to have £25,000, which is thought amply sufficient. On this happening, is he to have £40,000, or are the daughters to have additions made to their allowances on the death of their brother? It is a bungling arrangement, I have always thought, giving the sum to the Prince of Wales and leaving him to divide it; I have always thought it would be much better to give a specific sum to each of the children; still, we have made the arrangement by this Bill, and I only want to carry out what I believe to be the intention of the Bill that each of the children shall have her or his fair proportion of the sum, and shall not have more if one or two or three of the children should unfortunately die. I therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, at the end of the clause, to add the words:— But should any of the children of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales predecease His Royal Highness, during the lifetime of Her Majesty, then such amount as had been allotted annually to the said child shall cease to be paid, and such amount shall he repaid to the Exchequer annually by the trustees."—(Mr. Labouchere.)

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

* MR. GOSCHEN

The hon. Member trusted that the event for which this Amendment is intended to provide would not occur, and I can assure him we heartily share his hope. The estimate of what would be ultimately necessary to provide for all the Prince of Wales's children was, as the hon. Member knows, a higher figure, £49,000 a year. The question therefore is, what would be a fair composition, taking all the chances into consideration, between our original proposal and the proposal subsequently made? The sum of £36,000 was agreed upon, although it scarcely provides the necessary margin. We are not prepared, under the circumstances, to say that in the unfortunate event of the death of one of the Prince of Wales's children any change should be made in the amount of the annual Grant. The House, as representing the taxpayer, is making an arrangement with the Prince of Wales, by which His Royal Highness's family, in all contingencies, will receive the sum now proposed, which sum is smaller than that originally proposed.

* MR. STOREY

The position of things is this—£36,000 a year is given for the five children, and my hon. Friend has put the hypothesis that it may go to one of the children. I will not put such an extreme hypothesis, I will take the less extreme hypothesis that two of the children might die, and in that case the whole of the £36,000 would go to the other three, though the Government themselves agree that £36,000 is ample for the five. The Government would never have come here with a proposition which they did not think ample. They would have thought £49,000 a little better, but they do not think£36,000 insufficient. What I say is that in case some of the children die the money set apart for them ought to go back to the Exchequer. The intention of the Government seems to be to get as much as they can out of the Exchequer and to give nothing back.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 171.—(Div. List, No. 276.)

* MR. M'LAREN (Cheshire, Crewe)

The Amendment I beg to move is to add at the end of Clause 2— The trustees shall make an annual return, to he presented to both Houses of Parliament, stating the manner in which they have dealt with the sum granted to them, and showing the amount of the accumulations, if any. I venture to think that this Amendment ought to be considered by the Government on quite different grounds from the other Amendments, the objects of which were, more or less, to diminish the sum to be granted to the Royal Family, and which may have been considered by the Government as conceived more or less in a spirit of hostility to the Royal Family. But this Amendment ought to commend itself to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury, because it is based upon the solid principle of finance that it is the duty of the House, as the guardian of the public purse, to know in what manner the money voted by it is expended. There is another reason that must have been present to the mind of every hon. Member during these Debates, and that is that if one thing has been more prejudicial to the interests of the Royal Family than another it is the element of mystery which has surrounded these arrangements. It is this element which has created such a great amount of feeling out of doors. There is an idea—which may be dispelled, to some extent, after to-day's Debate—that the savings of the Crown have been exceedingly large; and it is this element of mystery that is so difficult to get rid of. We have had an assurance to-day that these savings have not been as large as some of us believe; but I want to prevent that feeling of dissatisfaction in the popular mind that there are great accumulations being made for the future. Though this Amendment would not prevent the feeling arising in the future, so far as the main sources of the income of the Royal Family are concerned, it would prevent it arising in the future so far as this Grant of £36,000 a year is concerned. We must remember that this Bill is an entirely new development in the matter of Royal Grants. I believe it is absolutely the first time that money voted by Parliament has not been specifically allocated to the person to whom it is granted. This money is allocated to five persons, but in what way the House does not know, and I think the House is entitled to know it. It is likely that the daughters of the Prince of Wales will receive a lump sum, and if that is so, I think it desirable that the House should know it. We should none of us like to see them inadequately considered, and the tendency is to give the sons more than the daughters. The public want to have a guarantee that the daughters will be fairly treated, even though they marry rich men. I trust I am only following the original proposal in asking that the public may know how the money goes. We are face to face with a complete change of policy on the part of the Government. So far as I am concerned, it is a change I regret. We should know what we are proposing for each child and let the matter rest there. Then we are asked to place a discretionary power in the hands of unknown persons to a considerable extent. Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales will, no doubt, have the main voice in the disposal of this money, but we are also putting it in the hands of official trustees, and we do not know what views they may take of the manner in which the money is to be allocated in the future. We may reasonably assume that whilst the Queen and the Prince of Wales will naturally exercise the most influence, other views will also be consulted. The Bill is expressly framed on the supposition that there will be accumulations. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has said it is extremely improbable that at the end of eight or ten years there will be any accumulations. He believes there will be accumulations for a few years in order that larger sums may be given subsequently. I do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's statement. I have no means of knowing whether it is likely to be right or not. But if there are to be no accumulations I shall be all the better pleased. In that case the country ought to know the manner in which the money is disposed of. If the money had been allocated in the manner originally intended by the Government this Amendment would have been unnecessary, because Parliament would have known how it went. Now that we are voting a lump sum, I think it is necessary that we should ask for an annual return to Parliament. It would be the more necessary in the unfortunate event, which we hope is not likely to occur, of the demise of one of these five children. If one of the Princesses should unfortunately die, the amount of money set free would be, comparatively speaking, small, but if it should be one of the sons, a large amount would be set free for distribution. I contend that, on sound financial considerations, the House is entitled to know whether the money is allocated in a way that the House and the country would approve of, and I cannot conceive why the Government should refuse to accept this Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 29, at the end of the clause, to add the words— The Trustees stall make an annual Return, to be presented to both Houses of Parliament, stating the manner in which they have dealt with the sum granted to them, and showing the amount of the accumulations, if any."—(Mr. W. M'Laren.)

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

* MR. W. H. SMITH

I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, and he will forgive me if I say that he has failed altogether to realise the object, and spirit, and intention of the Bill, which is to enable the Prince of Wales, with the sanction of the Queen, to make provision for his own family. The assistance of official trustees, in the persons of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury, for the time being, is secured, but any of those contingencies to which reference has been made could not by any possibility happen. What does the hon. Gentleman desire to do? He desires to give Parliament power to review the discretion exercised by the Queen and the Prince of Wales in dealing with the affairs of their own family.

* MR. M'LAREN

My Amendment does not imply that. The Bill is absolutely clear in stating that the Prince of Wales and the Official Trustees may allocate the money in any way they may think fit.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

But the hon. Gentleman made use of words to the effect that the country ought to know whether the money was allocated in a way of which they approve, and therefore it would be open to the House of Commons and the country to raise a discussion as to whether proper discretion had been exercised. I believe there is a general desire throughout the country that we should not have these discussions in Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) only gave expression to that feeling when he said that the opportunities for discussions of this character should be made much less frequent. There can be no doubt that the provision will be made with due regard to the claims of the Heir Presumptive to the Throne, and of the next in succession, and the Princesses. We have stated our view that the Princesses should receive a portion of £3,000 a year, with a Grant of £10,000, and this has to be taken in connection with the provision now made. The House of Commons and the country have had indications of the proportions which the Government thought it right to propose, and the proposition of the Government will no doubt have effect given to it in any appropriation made by the Prince of Wales with the sanction of the Queen and the Trustees. I do not think there is any dissatisfaction in the country with the Grant proposed. I think the proposal has been received with very great satisfaction, except by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), and I dispute his authority to represent the people of the country, although no doubt he represents a large number of his constituents. The principle has been laid down that power should be placed in the hands of the Prince of Wales to make provision for his children with the sanction of the head of the family, the Queen, and with the concurrence of the responsible Ministers, and from that principle the Government cannot depart. The hon. Gentleman says we do not know who the future Official Trustees will be, but I think he may rest assured that as they are to hold the responsible positions of Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury they are not likely to sanction any arrangement which is not fully justified by the circumstances of the case. I could not undertake to place before the House of Commons information which would afford the opportunity which I expressly deny to be in the public interest—that is to say, of discussing the discretion exercised by the Prince of Wales with the sanction of the Queen and Trustees, and I therefore cannot accept the Amendment. No doubt hon. Gentlemen know how these Grants are made. ["How?"] They can obtain the information, for hon. Gentlemen seem to know a great many facts as regards this subject.

* MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

; This seems to me a reasonable Amendment, and the Return for which, it asks does not necesarily mean review. Many Returns are made to this House in which the House is powerless for review. The Amendment would have a good effect in preventing mystery about the administration of these funds. The right hon. Gentleman will pardon me for saying that I have not the confidence in Official Trustees which he seems to have. I will give him an illustration. By two Acts of Parliament two sums of money were put in the hands of Trustees, £600,000 in the hands of five Trustees, one of whom was the First Lord of the Treasury for the time being, and £330,000, in the name of five other Trustees, of whom the First Lord of the Treasury was also one. The only First Lord of the Treasury who concerned himself at all was Lord Palmerston; and as to the other sum the First Lord of the Treasury was absolutely unaware that any duties were imposed upon him. Neither did his predecessors appear to have taken any active notice of the matter. That was put in evidence before the Committee which sat in relation to perpetual pensions. While I have no doubt whatever that if the official Trustees were possessed with a sense of the duty imposed upon them, they would fulfil that duty; I think sometimes that official trusteeships of that character become very little regarded as a matter of practice. I think this Bill establishes a dangerous precedent by saying that lump sums may be allocated to the parents for Grants to the children, without Parliament having any knowledge of how those lump sums are applied. Of course, I know that we are utterly powerless as against the expression of opinion by the Government. I had refrained from speaking on these Amendments, but I must, in this case, not only give my hearty support to the Amendment, but I hope the mover will press it to a Division, so that our protest may at least be recorded.

MR. HALLEY STEWART

It is perfectly true, as the First Lord of the Treasury has said, that in terms this is a Grant to the Prince of Wales, but it is in reality a Grant to the individual children of the Prince of Wales. Why should we take all this trouble of appointing trustees if in reality the Grant is not made to the Prince of Wales? There is a wide gulf between the demand of the Amendment and the interpretation put upon it by the First Lord of the Treasury. All we wish to secure is that we shall have the healthy moral control of public opinion over the allocations made. We do not want to come here from year to year to find fault with those who will have to report the allocation of money. All we want is to bring to bear that publicity which, as everyone knows on both sides of the House, is the best security for the wise distribution of the funds placed at the disposal of the trustees.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 169.—(Div. List No. 277.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."

* MR. STOREY

The Government have persistently not listened to our arguments nor accepted an Amendment to this Bill. We are equally persistent, and you shall not get an inch of this Bill without commentary and Division. I oppose the clause because of what it contains, and what it does not contain. I oppose it because it introduces a new method of dealing with public money. Arrangements are to be made for handing over to trustees money which is to accumulate, and to be allocated in proportions which we do not know. I resist the clause still more strongly because the right hon. Gentleman most unwisely refused the proposal on which we have just divided the House. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that if he gave us information it would cause less discussion. But the reason I want information, and I make no secret about it, is that there shall be more discussion. I think there is an enormous disproportion in the Grants to Royal persons, and they should be discussed again and again until the people outside compel Parliament inside to take more reasonable views of these matters. On these grounds I resist the clause, and I will take the liberty of dividing the House.

MR. LABOUCHERE

As will be perceived by this time, I am entirely opposed to the principle of the Bill, but when a Bill does leave Parliament, as a Member of the House of Commons I want to see it drafted in a respectable fashion. I have done my best to alter this clause, and to make it reasonable. I have failed. Just let me point out to the First Lord of the Treasury what he and his draftsman have done. The clause as it stands now is a monstrous and most unnatural clause. And I will tell the right hon. Gentleman why. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that it is possible that the second son of the Prince of Wales may die. He may have married and had a child; yet this amount of money which is allocated to him, call it £10,000 a year, would go to his brothers and to his sisters, and under no possibility by this Act could one shilling of the sum be handed over to his child. That, Sir, is what the right hon. Gentleman has done with his clause. He cuts off the child from the benefit in favour of the brothers and sisters. I really do think that it is unnecessary to say anything more against the drafting of this clause.

* MR. GOSCHEN

The only thing we have to say in reply to the hon. Member is that he is mistaken in his reading of the clause.

MR. LABOUCHERE

The right hon. Gentleman boldly makes the assertion that I am mistaken. I defy the right hon. Gentleman to prove that.

* MR. GOSCHEN

All I can say is that we have taken the best legal advice on the subject. The matter has been fully considered, and the Bill was drafted by a very able lawyer, and others whose legal ability the hon. Member will not question, have been consulted on the point, and the clause was so drafted as to meet the very objection which the hon. Member raises.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I ask any hon. and learned Gentleman on the other side of the House, if he will take the trouble to read this clause, whether he agrees with the draftsman or me in this matter.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 45.—(Div. List, No. 278.)

Clause 3, agreed to.

Preamble.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I move to omit certain of the words, "and establish the principle that the provision for the children should hereafter be made by Grants adequate for that purpose, which have been assigned to their parents," that is to say, to the grandchildren of Her Majesty. I ask the Committee to look at the scope of the Bill. It seems to me that the words of the Preamble go beyond the title of the Bill, which is "A Bill to make provision for the support and maintenance of the children of His Royal Highness Albert Edward Prince of Wales." It astonishes me that exception was not taken to these words of the Preamble on the Second Reading of the Bill, and the opinion of the Speaker taken as to whether they were in order. I believe they are not, and I hold that the Bill lays down a principle which ought not to be laid down, because the Bill has nothing to do with the children of the younger children of Her Majesty the Queen. I object to any prejudging of what may happen in a future reign. Possibly in a future reign there may be a Civil List that will cover such allowances; but I want to leave the whole matter to the Parliament which will be called together in a future reign. Beyond this, I am against the "finality" of the right hon. member for Newcastle, and do not wish to prejudice the judgment and action of future Ministers. These words go beyond any principle laid down in the Report of the Committee, and beyond all that was contemplated by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian. We have heard that right hon. Gentleman lauded to the skies by Gentlemen opposite for the speech he made on their behalf and for the votes he has given this evening and yesterday evening for the Government proposal; and I do not complain of that; but I think it singularly ungrateful on the part of the Government to reward the action of the right hon. Gentleman and the strong and unselfish support they have received from him by dragging into this Bill words that are entirely antagonistic to the views he has expressed. I see the right hon. Gentleman has gone away, or I should have claimed his support in this matter. I now propose to substitute for the words I object to the words which appear in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out from the word "and" to the word "have" in line 20, and insert— Your Majesty's gracious intimation, that no further application to Parliament on behalf, of the children of the younger sons and of the daughters of your Majesty will be made during your Majesty's reign.

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

* MR. GOSCHEN

I think the hon. Member has read in these words more than they meant or were intended to mean. They have no reference to the children of the younger sons or daughters of Her Majesty. The words were taken literally from the Report of the Committee, and I have every reason to believe they met with the approval of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, who believed them to be valuable as a precedent.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I do not pretend to understand the legal English of words in Acts of Parliament, which very often are not English at all; but I think that any layman reading the words I have referred to will agree with me that there is no limitation to the children of the Heir Apparent, but that they apply equally to the children of all the children of the Sovereign, whoever and where so ever they may be. The word "children" is used as extending to Her Majesty's family.

* MR. GOSCHEN

As I read the words they mean that where provision is made for children it shall be made in this way—not that provision shall be made for all.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I think the right hon. Gentleman will admit that the principle is doubtful, but at any rate, although that may be his view, he did not draft the Bill. If the draftsman says the provision was meant to be restricted to the children of the Prince of Wales I am ready to accept that; but I contend that these words do not make such a limitation. Will the right hon. Gentleman make the suggested alteration limiting the Grants to the children of the Prince of Wales? All I want is that this limitation should be inserted in the Bill in char language.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I want the Committee to take note that Her Majesty does not wish to press her claim on behalf of the children of her daughters; but in the Preamble of the Bill we have a reference made to "Her Majesty's family," and I understand the family to be Her Majesty's children and grandchildren. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, I think he had better take care, as his words are to my mind very dangerous words. He uses the words "During your Majesty's reign," and as I understand it Her Majesty does not desire that the provision should go beyond her reign; and this was the view of the Committee. We have done with the families of the younger children of Her Majesty, but if we insert the words "during Her Majesty's reign" we may be opening the way for future claims.

* MR. STOREY

What is objected to here is that the words we desire to get rid of would establish a principle for provision to be made OUL of Grants for this purpose which have been assigned to the parents. You thus lay down a principle which will be a guide to future Parliaments and would be quoted as a precedent in future reigns for the new Parliament in regard to such provision. Now, suppose the Queen should die, and a new Monarch should come to the Throne, that Monarch having children; the Prince of Wales has children already, some of whom are now married and all of whom may marry and have families. Under these words of the Preamble of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister of a future day might come to Parliament and say, "It is your duty not only to make provision for the new King, but also for his family and their families." These words, in fact, make a wider application of the public money than was ever made before, and will in effect be the laying down of a principle that will enable future Governments to provide not only for the children of the Sovereign but for the families of the children of the Sovereign. I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman will consent to insert a limitation which will make the meaning which he himself assigned to the words clearer than they are at present. Will he allow the clause to read thus: To establish the principle that where provision is made for the children that provision shall be made out of the Grants that are made to the parents. If he will do that I will not take advantage of his goodness and fairness on the Report. I believe my hon. Friends will say the same.

MR. LABOUCHERE

NO.

* MR. STOREY

Then I will speak for myself. But if my hon. Friend will not make the promise, I do not see any hope of prevailing on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the slightest change in the Bill. As far as I am concerned I think that this alteration would be an important improvement.

* MR. M'LAREN

I would suggest to the Government that if they cannot accept this Amendment, they should put in words on the Report to make the meaning more plain.

MR. LABOUCHERE

I am really unable to give any pledge, as I really do not know what I shall think on Monday when the Bill passes through Committee. I shall devote Sunday to reading the Bill.

* MR. W. H. SMITH

The Government are laying down a principle which may be applied on a future occasion, when the necessity arises that a provision for children should hereafter be made out of Grants to their parents. I cannot hold out any hopes that the words which have been adopted in the Committee by a large majority will be modified.

SIR G. CAMPBELL

I am satisfied that the words as they stand are all that can be desired. The provision for the children is "to be made, not out of Grants which might be, but which have been, assigned to their parents."

* MR. STOREY

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether these words cover the case I have put?

* MR. GOSCHEN

It has been laid down for the guidance of a future Parliament that the proper course would be to make provision, not for each child, but for children generally by Grants to the parents.

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

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 17, to leave out from the word "Family," to the word "have," in line 20."—(Mr. Storey.)

Question put, That the words 'and to establish the principle that the provision for children shall hereafter be made out of Grants adequate for that purpose which have been assigned' stand part of the Preamble.

The Committee divided: Ayes 146; Noes 42.—(Div. List, No. 279.)

* MR. STOREY

I will not occupy the time of the House many minutes with the next Amendment, but I do hold it is extremely important that there should be a clear and energetic protest on record which may be quoted hereafter, when in a new reign demands are made upon Parliament under cover of the words which are to be inserted in this Bill. It is impossible for us to resist this being paid, but it is not impossible for us to indicate the views of the minority of this House, which may be quoted hereafter, and if the principle is to be laid down its application ought to be limited to the children of the Sovereign and of the Heir Apparent. Therefore I propose the omission of the words "their parents," with the object of inserting afterwards, "to the Sovereign and the Heir Apparent." The Preamble will then read so as to establish the principle that the provision made by the Grant shall be confined to the children of the Sovereign and the Heir Apparent. These words enable us to indicate clearly what we mean.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words "their parents," and insert the words "the Sovereign."—(Mr. Storey.)

Question put, "That the words 'their parents' stand part of the Preamble."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 134; Noes 38—(Div. List, No. 280)

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Northampton, to omit the word "cheerfully," cannot be put without an instruction from the House, as it is part of the framework of the Bill, and it is of so grave importance that it could not be put without special instruction from the House. The Question is that this be the Preamble of the Bill.

MR. LABOUCHERE

But I object to the Preamble on account of the word "cheerfully" which it contains.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is not part of the Preamble. It is part of the granting and enacting words of the Bill, which are not put in Committee at all, and which cannot be modified without an instruction authorising it.

MR. LABOUCHERE

But I object to the enacting portion of the Bill. I am not cheerful.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is part of the framework of the Bill, which is common to all Money Bills, and I say that it cannot be touched without authority from the House. The Question is that this be the Preamble of the Bill.

A Division having been challenged, and the House cleared for a Division,

DR. CLARK (sitting with his hat on)

What are the words before the enacting portion of the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

"Granting and enacting" are the special words which are used in all Money Bills.

* MR. STOREY

Is it possible to move to re-commit the Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

That is not relevant to the Question now before the Committee.

Question put, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 129; Noes 38.—(Div. List, No. 281.)

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read a third time upon Monday next.