§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI wish to take this opportunity of fulfilling an 106 engagement I entered into with the House some weeks ago. Various questions were then put to the Government with respect to the altered position of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, now Duke of Saxe-Coburg, and, those questions being more or less of a fragmentary character, I intimated, on behalf of the Government, that we were considering the whole of them, and that when they reached the stage of what might be regarded as maturity I would offer some explanation to the House, presenting a clear view on the subject. That pledge I now wish to redeem by making a statement to the House, of course on the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. The House is aware that the position of the Duke of Edinburgh is fixed by two Acts, one of the year 1866, which conferred upon him for his own personal use an annuity of £15,000 a year, and the second an Act of 1873, which, in view of his then immediately approaching marriage, conferred on His Royal Highness a further annuity of £10,000 a year in somewhat different language, for the words used were—
In order to provide for the establishment of His Royal Highness and for Her Imperial Highnesswho was to become, and did become, Duchess of Edinburgh. Both these Acts contained a provision having reference to the contingency of a foreign accession, the provision being to this effect—that it should be allowable for Her Majesty, in the event of such accession, with the consent of Parliament, to reduce or revoke the annuity. The freedom of Parliament was thereby completely secured, and Parliament can take what course it may think proper in the matter. But, in the meantime, I wish to state to the House what has been done by the Executive Government. I have, however, also to say that when the Act of 1873 was passed, in lieu of the reserved power to deal with the annuity on the arrival of a certain contingency, a Motion was made in this House to provide beforehand for an absolute reduction. I represented the Government on that occasion. My speech is reported, I have no doubt, with substantial accuracy in the columns of Hansard, and the effect of it was that the Duke's accession would not necessarily have the consequence of removing him from the cha- 107 racter of a British Prince, or from all British obligations, and that, therefore, liberty ought to be reserved to Parliament to consider the case according to circumstances when it arose. I also gave it as the opinion of the Government that the annuity might be reduced, but ought not to be revoked. Parliament was not a party to that declaration, but it was received, I think, on the assurance that Parliament was free, with satisfaction by the House, and it was, I think, regarded as not unreasonable that our discretion should be reserved, and should not be foreclosed by an absolute declaration providing for the reduction of the annuity. Well, Sir, that was the situation, and now the situation is affected, I think, in a manner that will give satisfaction by a declaration of His Royal Highness himself. His Royal Highness has signified to us—it having been, of course, our duty to enter into communications with His Royal Highness on the subject—in the first place that he desires—and he uses, I think, a happy expression—not simply to comply with, but to anticipate the wishes of Parliament, by himself proposing to surrender a portion of the annuity.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEHe says a portion of the annuity, and His Royal Highness gives the reason why, as he thinks, that is the proper course. He states in a manner which appears to us perfectly explicit, and for which we make ourselves responsible, that he proposes habitually—of course as a general rule—to pass a portion of the year in England—and for that purpose to retain the possession of Clarence House, and to maintain Clarence House with the establishment that will be necessary for its maintenance. In that manner the Duke of Edinburgh—or, as I should now call him, the Duke of Saxe-Coburg—has manifestly shown, in the first place, that he regards it as his duty to maintain in full his domestic relations in England with the illustrious family of the Queen; and, in the second place, that he contemplates an annual expenditure in England which will be a strictly British expenditure. Well, Sir, under these circumstances, and from this point of view, Her Majesty's Government took the matter into their consideration, and 108 the conclusion at which they arrived was that, in the event of the surrender, or, rather, the renunciation of the Act of 1866, which confers an annuity of £15,000 a year, it would be just and equitable, in view of the Duke's prospective British expenditure in his character as a member of the Royal Family, that His Royal Highness should continue during his life to receive the annuity of £10,000 a, year granted by the Act of 1873. That is the substance of what I have to state to the House. What remains is a question of procedure. I have pointed out to the House that the Duke was desirous to anticipate the desires of Parliament and the country within the limits which appear to him to be reasonable, and that Her Majesty's Government have considered those limits to be reasonable. The mode of proceeding adopted has been this. To mark this as a voluntary act on the part of his Royal Highness there has been drawn a deed of renunciation absolving and cancelling altogether the annuity of £15,000 a year. That deed has been executed by the Duke and transmitted to the Government. It will be treated by the Government as a public document; in fact, this matter will be treated in substance as corresponding to a somewhat similar, but not wholly analogous, matter—the case of Leopold King of Belgium. The deed will be treated as a public document, and on the strength of that document any issue of the money will be prevented. That being so, it is quite evident to us that the machinery contemplated by the Act of Parliament need not be put in motion. It was a machinery applicable to the purpose of a coercive giving up of the annuity, for which we think there is no cause when coercive action has been anticipated by a voluntary offer which appears to be reasonable in its terms. I do not think it would be satisfactory to Parliament or to the people of England either that the Duke of Saxe-Coburg should abandon his close relations with the Queen and the Royal Family, or that when he remains for a portion of the year in this country in order to maintain those relations the expense of so doing should be thrown upon himself. We feel that the application of the machinery I have referred to has become altogether unnecessary, and that, besides being unnecessary, inasmuch as we are responsible 109 to the House for the full execution of the intentions I have announced, it would he injudicious. I do not know a case in which this House or any quarter of this House has in a matter of this kind shown a disposition, when there is full security for the substantial maintenance of the public interests involved, to receive in an ungracious temper a proposal involving a question of the Royal Family. So much for the question of the annuity. There are two other questions raised by the accession of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh to the Principality of Saxe-Coburg. One of them is a question with which I think we in this House have nothing to do. The Duke of Edinburgh is a Peer, and has sat, and no doubt voted, in the House of Lords. The question whether he retains his position in the House of Lords is a question for the House of Lords itself to decide, and the House of Lords would, I imagine, decline to recognise any attempt to interfere in the matter from any other quarter. The other question upon which I have been interrogated in this House is in respect of the Privy Council. I stated upon an earlier occasion that Her Majesty's Government were desirous to leave that matter to he made the subject of communication between His Royal Highness and Her Majesty the Queen. Such communication, Sir, has taken place in the form of a request by the Duke of Saxe-Coburg to Her Majesty that his name might he omitted from the list of the Privy Council. That I believe, whether it, is a necessary proceeding or not, is on the whole a, just and judicious proceeding, and it disposes of the matter in a way which, on the whole, the House will be inclined to think most judicious and proper. That is, I think, a complete statement of all the facts. It relieves the House from all trouble in the matter, and I am bound to say that in my opinion the form of proceeding we have suggested is the best one to adopt—namely, the negative form of recognising the anticipatory act of the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and accepting it. I have stated frankly that it is our opinion that the Duke, contemplating it, regular British expenditure, an expenditure which has belonged to the whole of his earlier life, a life which has now reached half a century—should continue to receive the minor income granted to him by Parlia- 110 ment—namely, the annuity of £10,000 a year secured by the Act of 1873. That is the redemption of the promise I gave to the House.
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)The statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that he holds that it is the province of the House of Commons to decide whether it shall accept this voluntary renunciation—
§ MR. LABOUCHEREI am going to ask a question, Sir. I merely put that as a preamble. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that all in this House do not concur in the opinion that the Duke of Edinburgh ought to continue to receive this £10,000 per annum, an opportunity will be given to those in the House who take that view to express their opinions and register their votes against it?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEAny discussion in this House would be quite inconsistent with the views I have already slated. I must again declare my strong opinion that, I do not suppose the House of Commons would think that the Duke of Saxe-Coburg ought to drop altogether his connection with this country and the recollections of the life he has passed in it. I conceive that these recollections are not to be dropped, and if, on the contrary, they are to be maintained by periodical residence, it would not be the view of the House of Commons or, I think, of the hon. Member that the expenditure on that residence ought not to he paid for out, of the pockets of the people of this country.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThat is entirely my view. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman this. Is he prepared to afford this House an opportunity to express its views upon the matter, and to register those views?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEIt would be absolutely a contradiction of our view that we should ourselves be the proposers of an opportunity which would he a distinct invitation to the House to protest against the present arrangement. There is no necessity for us to do so, and there would be no advantage in doing it.
MR. DALZIEL&c.) (Kirkcaldy,I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can now give any information; in regard to a point in connection with 111 the change in the position of the Duke of Edinburgh which I brought to his attention some time ago. It is whether or not the Duke of Edinburgh remains a British subject?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONENo, Sir, I am not prepared to give any information on that subject. Anything that is to be said on that matter should be said by the Legal Advisers of the Crown. It is not absolutely involved in the practical arrangements we have to make. I must not, however, be understood to maintain or imply by anything that has fallen from me that His Royal Highness does remain a British subject.
§ MR. DALZIELI shall put a question on the subject to-morrow to the Attorney General.