HL Deb 27 January 1819 vol 39 cc124-8

The House having resolved itself into a Committee on this bill,

Lord Holland

said, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not object to the care and custody of the king's person being vested in the duke of, York, it having been deemed fitting by the legislature that the custody of the king's sacred person should be separated from the executive government; and some measure being rendered necessary by the demise of her late majesty, he undoubtedly thought that the duke of York, from his station, his high character, and the relation in which he stood to his majesty, was the fittest person that could possibly be chosen for that high trust. He still, however, thought, notwithstanding what had been said by the noble earl opposite on the preceding evening, that the present bill was, by the clause relating to the Windsor establishment, rendered inconsistent, and that to render the bill an intelligent piece of legislation, it was absolutely necessary that that clause should be struck out. Either their lordships should have before them, previous to passing this bill, a statement as to the extent of the establishment, or the bill should relate solely to the care and custody of the king's person, without referring at all to the establishment. The noble earl had, however, said, it was impossible that the establishment should be augmented; but where was the evidence of this? for not one word tending to such a conclusion was to be found in the bill. But, then, it had been said by the noble earl, that it was intended to reduce the establishment, without, however, entering into any detail, though he did not mean to charge this as matter of blame, it being perfectly natural. This was certainly evidence of the present intentions of the noble earl, whose opinion, no doubt, had great influence in that House. But it was possible, that the noble earl might change his opinion; and it was just possible, though not so probable as the former, that the majority of parliament might differ in opinion with the noble earl. Their lordships would recollect, that it was not the first time the noble earl had changed an opinion after intimating that opinion in that House. It was not long since, and upon a question, too, relating to the royal family, that the noble earl, after delivering an opinion in that House, found reason, in consequence of the silent voice of a little parliament of his own, to correct the opinion which he had first stated. Another instance occurred during the short time of the present session; the noble earl having expressed an opinion, on the first day of its opening against any inquiry into the affairs of the Bank, which opinion, in consequence of a communication with a certain little parliament of his own, he had since found reason to change. Where, then, was the security in the present case, that some little parliament of lords of the bed-chamber, and persons connected with the Windsor establishment, might not induce the noble earl to change, to alter, the intention he had expressed of reducing that establishment? Upon a former occasion, when he (lord Holland) thought the Windsor establishment much too large for any purposes of comfort to our afflicted monarch, lords of the bedchamber started up, to say, forsooth, that they, who had stuck by the king in his prosperity, would not desert him in his adversity; and that they would not take away one iota from the splendor which surrounded their sovereign. What security was there now, that lords of the bedchamber might not again start up, to declare that they would not take away any part of the splendor which surrounded the monarch? and with this additional reason, that his majesty required more consolation now, from the circumstance of his having lost her who had been his companion for upwards of fifty years. Why, then, if there was no security, notwithstanding all that had been said, for the reduction of the Windsor establishment, or even that it might not be increased, surely it became the House to pause before they sanctioned an establishment without knowing of what that establishment was to consist, and when the bill might be passed for vesting the care of the king's person without any reference whatever to the establishment, and be perfectly effective for that object. The noble lord concluded by moving to leave out all the words in the bill relating to the Windsor establishment.

The Earl of Liverpool

observed, that their lordships were now only proceeding to legislate on a part of the subject, upon which no difference of opinion existed. They were all agreed as to the propriety of establishing the custody of the king's person in one of the royal family; they were agreed as to the propriety of vesting it in the duke of York, to whom the control of the establishment was to be given, in consequence of such appointment, by the present clause. To this he thought that no objection could fairly be urged. A difference of opinion might arise with respect to the amount of the establishment; but the best way of proceeding, in such a case, was to separate the two questions; to appoint the duke of York, in the first instance, and to leave the other subject for a future occasion, not as being less fit for legislative provision, but as being more likely to divide the sentiments of the House. The noble lord had alluded to a former session, when a reduction of the establishment was spoken of. He had no hesitation in stating, that if a proposition to that effect had been made at that time, he would have opposed it. What difference there was in the present state of things, which might justify a different course, it would be for him to explain when the subject came regularly before their lordships. This much he would state at present, that while her majesty lived, she was queen consort; and when the establishment was first taken into consideration, regard was had to her majesty's situation, as well as to the king's. But this would come more properly into discussion when the other measure was before them. The noble lord had objected against giving to the duke of York the patronage of the establishment, when they did not know to what amount it was to be reduced. The noble lord's objection would have some weight if he was perfectly prepared to say, that in case the establishment was continued at its present amount, the duke of York ought not to have the control of it; but the ground upon which he urged them to adopt the measure was this, that whatever that establishment might be, leaving its limits to be determined by future discussions, it was fit that the duke of York should have the patronage, and exercise every power over it which her majesty had done before him. The question was, whether they would refuse to the duke of York, being custos personœ, the privileges that belonged to the character in which they were agreed that he should be placed. The noble lord did not like an imperium in imperio; neither did he: but it was to be observed, that the question was not now proposed for the first time, that the principle had been already acted on, and that this was not the only case to which if was applicable. The objection of an imperium in imperio extended, in fact, to any, establishment for any branches of the royal family. It was applicable to the establishment of the prince of Wales. If any inconvenience was felt from its application to these cases; a fact of which he professed himself perfectly un aware, their lordships would balance such inconvenience with that of having the members of the royal family, and particularly the prince of Wales, without establishments suitable to their rank. His lordship concluded by repeating, that the objection of the noble lord would be valid if he could go the length of saying that the duke of York ought not to have the patronage of the establishment, if it was to be continued at its present amount.

Lord Holland

said, he did not join issue with the noble earl. It was by no means necessary, to support his objection to refuse the patronage of the establishment to the duke of York in the case alluded to. In one word, his objection was this, that if they agreed to the clause in its present shape without any qualification they would allow a principle of larger extent than the noble lord himself would, upon reflection, be willing to recognise. At the same time, having stated his opinion, he would not give their lordships the trouble of dividing.

The amendment was then negatived.

The Earl of Liverpool

said, he had now to propose to fill up the blank, and to move the appointment of a member of the council, to supply the vacancy occasioned by the death of lord chief-justice Ellenborough. It was from no want of respect for the learned person who succeeded that noble and learned lord that he did not propose him for this situation; but the official duties of the chief-justice rendered the appointment inconvenient, as it was desirable that a sufficient number of members should always be ready to attend the council on the monthly and quarterly meetings. He should therefore move the appointment of marquis Camden.

Lord Holland

concurred most heartily in the motion, and congratulated their lordships on the choice which had been made of the noble marquis, who had acted so generous and disinterested a part with respect to the reduction of his own establishment. Hence, he was the fittest person that could be selected.

The bill then went through the committee.