HL Deb 26 January 1819 vol 39 cc105-8

On the order of the day for the second reading of the bill,

Lord Holland

observed, that he had not yesterday thought it necessary to make any observations on this measure, as explained by the noble secretary of state, nor, as he understood it now, had he any very strong objection to urge against it. Since he had come down to the House, he had, however, perused the bill, and there was a part of it, which, for the sake of propriety and consistency in their lordships' proceedings, required in his mind some consideration. He was perfectly willing to acknowledge, on the ground of parliament having recognized the principle, whether right or wrong, that the care of the king's person should be separated from the executive government, that the trust could not be better disposed of than it was by this bill. But, besides the separation of the trust, the bill involved another principle, which had, when the question was before discussed, been the subject of much objection with many noble lords: he meant the establishment of an imperium in imperio, by giving to the person who had the care of the king's person an extensive patronage. It was then strongly contended, that no patronage ought to accompany the trust, and that all the appointments should be made by the executive government. With respect to this point, some explanation was necessary; for it appeared that their lordships were now not only called upon to recognize this principle, but were left without any information as to the extent to which it might be carried. What offices it was intended to continue on the Windsor establishment, and who the persons were by whom those offices were to be tilled, did not appear; but it appeared on the face of the bill, that the duke of York was to have the power of nomination and removal, with respect to all offices on that establishment, with the same exceptions which existed in the case of the queen, and which he thought were very properly made. It was, perhaps, intended that the measure for fixing the establishment should originate in another place; but he thought that their lordships ought not to pass the present bill, until they ascertained the nature of the patronage which was to be vested in the duke of York. He had no objection to the object of the bill, but wished, for the sake of regularity in their lordships' proceedings, that some explanation should be given on the point to which he had alluded.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, he had no objection to give the explanation which, the noble lord required. The noble lord had observed, that though it might be a question, whether it was expedient to vest the executive government and the care of the king's person in one individual, yet that the principle of separation being recognized by parliament, he thought the duke of York a very proper person for the trust proposed to be vested in his Royal Highness by this bill. Now, if this was the view which the noble lord took of the subject—if the appointment made by the bill appeared proper—it seemed that the conclusion to be drawn was, that all the patronage, be it more or less, which belonged to the office, ought to be vested in the individual named in the bill, who must have the superintendence of the establishment. The question of the extent of the establishment was at present not before their lordships; but he had no difficulty in saying, that it was under consideration, and would soon be the subject of a proposition in another place. It was intended, that the establishment should undergo a reduction, and the proposition which was to be made would be founded on a principle of reduction; but as to the details of that reduction, they had no connexion with the present bill. They would come first before the other House, and would, in the usual course of business, be brought under the consideration of their lordships. In the mean time, all that he contended for was, that whatever that establishment might be, it ought, if their lordships agreed to the present bill, to be placed under the control of the duke of York.

Lord Holland

said, he could not accede ║ to the principle so broadly laid down by the noble secretary of state, that all the patronage of the establishment ought to be vested in the person to whom the care of the king's person was intrusted. That principle had not been sanctioned by parliament: indeed, precisely an opposite principle had been established, by vesting patronage in others, as appeared from the cases which had been expressly excepted. With regard to the extent of the establishment, he was one of those who never thought its maintenance proper, and it would be for the noble lord hereafter to explain how it happened that reductions which could be made in 1819 were totally impracticable in 1818. One set of persons might think it right that the care of the king's person should be separated from the executive government; another might be of opinion that this was not right; others again, who thought the separation right, might still desire that all the patronage should be vested in the executive government. If it should be the opinion of their lordships that an establishment ought to be maintained for the purposes of splendor or comfort, the question whether the whole patronage of that establishment ought to be vested in the hands of the individual to whom the care of the king's person was intrusted, ought still to remain open to their consideration. Here, however, they were pledging themselves to the affirmative of that question, by directly recognizing the principle, that the whole patronage was to be vested in the duke of York. It certainly was not probable, supposing the nature of the establishment to be such as he could approve, that he should object to the patronage being in the hands of his Royal Highness; but he objected to the course taken with respect to the present bill, that it was an irregular and inconvenient mode of proceeding. Was it regular, before their lordships were informed what the nature of the establishment was to be, to determine that, great or small, the patronage should all be vested in one individual? He thought it would be much better to expunge the clause which contained this provision, and insert it in the other measure which was to originate elsewhere. Their lordships would then have the opportunity of considering both the principle and its application, when the other bill should come before them.

The Earl of Liverpool

conceived that the noble lord had taken an erroneous view of the subject, if he supposed that any new question could now arise. No difficulty could possibly arise with respect to the nature of the establishment in contemplation, as it could not in any case extend beyond that which was now in existence. If, therefore, the noble lord was prepared to say that he had no objection to the individual named in the bill having a certain patronage, he already knew the full extent to which that patronage could be carried. If it should be the opinion of parliament to appoint the duke of York, he thought that the same powers which had been vested in her majesty, as custos personœ, should devolve on his Royal Highness. The noble lord had observed, that it might still be a question, whether the patronage of the establishment ought not to be vested in the executive government; but that question had been determined when the act on which this bill was founded passed. He presumed that their lordships had not changed their opinion on that subject. At any rate, the objection of the noble lord was not well founded, since he already knew the full extent of the establishment, and had been informed that a reduction was to be proposed. Whatever change it might undergo would only have the effect of making it less, and thereby rendering it more consistent with the views which the noble lord entertained on the subject.

The bill was then read a second time.