Regent's ministers in their view of the subject; but this being the scale of allowance which they intended to propose for all the married sons of his majesty, it was thought not to be just or proper to make an exception in the case of the duke of Cumberland. It was therefore resolved to bring the subject again before the House, which, indeed, was a necessary course, unless they meant to act on the principle of perpetual exclusion. The same provisions were therefore intended for him, as for the junior branches of the royal family. The whole expense of the proposed arrangement, supposing that the duke of Kent should marry, would amount annually to 55,500. An outfit to a corresponding amount was also to be proposed; as it was only by means of a liberal outfit that any chance was afforded to the royal pair of being enabled to avoid getting into debt. This provision in the first year would have been 110,500, and the permanent annual charge 55,5001. He had now to state the outline of the plan which, under all the circumstances, it was the intention of ministers to submit to the House, and the sources from which the charges of it were to be supplied. He must first, however, observe that in his own opinion nothing ought to be deducted from the regular incomes of their royal highnesses in consideration of what they might receive professionally; nor should their incomes, in either their single or married state, be regulated by the sums which they might derive from other quarters. With re spect to the duke of Clarence, he had no revenue except that granted him by parliament, and his pay as an admiral, which amounted only to 1,100. a year. The proposal in his case was, that the amount of his income, added to his present revenue, should reach to 28,000l. instead of 40,000. as first proposed; and as to the other royal dukes, it should amount to 24,000l. a year, instead of 30,000l. He concluded by moving the following resolu tion: ، That his Majesty be enabled to grant an additional yearly sum of money out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of 10,000. to make a suitable provision for his royal highness the duke of Clarence, upon his marriage." This proposition was warmly encountered by the House in general, and was the cause of many speeches. At length Mr. Holme Sumner said that he could not consent that the House should provide for the duke of Clarence on the ground of his being presumptive heir to the throne, a situation in which he did not stand. He therefore must disagree to the present demand for the duke, but was disposed to go to the extent of 6,000l. He would first ask, however, was the House in possession of the necessary information to assure it that such an increase would be applied to uphold the splendor and dignity of that illustrious personage? Before any increase was granted, the whole of the circumstances ought to come before parliament, and it ought to be ascertained that the sum granted would be available available to the purpose. The noble lord who had introduced the proposition had stated that a liberal outfit was the best antidote against incurring debt, but if the debts were already incurred, the antidote would be inoperative. With respect to the junior members of the royal family, he would have no objection to a regulated grant on their marriage; but with regard to the duke of Cumberland, the question had been long ago settled; and he thought that parliament was not fairly treated by hooking-in that duke into the proposed grants for the other royal dukes. Lord Castlereagh rose to set the hon. gentleman right as to the debts of the duke of Clarence, assuring the House that a provision was made for paying them off, so that they would soon be completely discharged, provided the present vote of 25,000l. a year was agreed to. The committee divided on the amendment proposed by Mr. Holme Sumner for reducing the allowance of the duke of Clarence from 10,000l. to 6,000l. a year: For the Amendment 193 Majority 9 On April 16th Lord Castlereagh moved in the House of Commons for a committee to take into consideration the message of the Prince Regent respecting the intended marriages of some of his royal brothers. The House having accordingly resolved itself into the committee, his lordship said, that the part of the message to which he desired to call the attention of the committee was that which related to the marriage of his royal highness the duke of Cambridge: and he moved, "That it is the opinion of this committee that his Majesty be enabled to grant an additional yearly sum of money out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding the sum of 6,000l. to make a suitable provision for his royal highness the duke of Cambridge, upon his marriage." Several speakers arose to give their sentiments both for and against the present motion, but upon the whole it was carried by a considerable majority. There appeared, For the Resolution... 177 95 Majority -82 Lord Castlereagh then moved, "That a sum of 6,000l. per annum be settled upon her highness the princess of Hesse, when she shall become duchess of Cambridge, in case her highness should survive his royal highness the duke of Cambridge, to be issued and payable out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." This motion was agreed to. Lord Castlereagh next rose to do (as he said) an act of justice towards an illustrious individual; and he trusted the House, in its wisdom and liberality, would concur in the motion he was about to bring forward. Whatever prejudice might be entertained against the illustrious individual to whom he alluded, he could conscientiously say, that he never knew a reasonable or fair man who denied to him the praise which was due to his honourable character. After some farther attempts attempts to restore this illustrious person to the favour of the House, he ventured to move, "That his Majesty be enabled to grant an additional sum of money out of the consolidated fund of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding 6,000l. to commence from the 5th of April last, towards providing for the establishment of the duke and duchess of Cumberland." Lord Folkestone expressed his hope that parliament would assign dower to the duchess of Cumberberland, with regard to whose character he could say of his own knowledge, many of the prevailing prejudices were groundless. Lord Castlereagh said, that he held in his hand a motion for that purpose, and when the resolution then before the House was disposed of, should propose it. After some warm discussions, the committee divided: For the Grant...... 136 ....... 143 Majority --7 Lord Castlereagh then moved, "That a sum of 6,000l. per annum be settled upon her royal highness the duchess of Cumberland, in case her royal highness should survive his royal highness the duke of Cumberland, to be issued and payable out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." The resolution was agreed to. On the bringing up of the report of the grant to the duke of Clarence, Lord Castlereagh observed, that as his royal highness had declined accepting the sum which had been voted to him, it would be better to withdraw it altogether. Mr. Tierney wished that the reasons for it should at least be entered upon the Journals, otherwise it would not be dealing fairly with the House or the royal duke. Lord Castlereagh suggested that all inconvenience would be avoided by agreeing to the resolution, upon an understanding that no bill should be brought in upon it. This suggestion was adopted. On the 20th of April there was presented to the House of Commons a Return of all Income received by their royal highnesses the dukes of Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Sussex and Cambridge, arising from Military, Naval, or Civil Appointments, Pensions, or other Emoluments, as well as all grants out of the Admiralty Droits made to them since the year 1800. On May 13th Lord Castlereagh presented to the House of Commons the following message from the Prince Regent: "GEORGE P. R. "The Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, thinks it right to acquaint the House of Commons, that he has given the royal consent to a marriage between his royal highness the duke of Kent, and her serene highness Mary Louisa Victoria, widow of the late prince of Leiningen, and sister of the reigning duke of Saxe Cobourg of Saalfeld, and of his royal highness Leopold George Frederick, prince of Cobourg of Saalfeld. His Royal Highness is persuaded that this alliance cannot but be acceptable to his majesty's faithful subjects; and he has the fullest reliance on the the concurrence and assistance of the House of Commons in enabling him to make a suitable and proper provision with a view to the said marriage." The House agreed to return the thanks of this House for his most gracious communication of the intended marriage, &c. &c.; to express our entire satisfaction at the prospect of this alliance with a Protestant princess of illustrious family; and to assure his Royal Highness that the House will immediately proceed to the consideration of his Royal Highness's gracious message, &c. On May 15th Lord Castlereagh called the attention of the House to his Royal Highness's message. He proposed, in the present instance, strictly to follow the course adopted by the House in the case of the duke of Cambridge; which was, to make the same provision for the duke of Kent, and the same dower to his intended duchess, in the event of her surviving him. He did not propose any outfit, as he understood from his royal high. ness that under all the circumstances of the case he did not wish for it. He then took into consideration the character of the illustrious female with whom his royal highness was about to ally himself, and showed that the provision of a dower for her was but an act of bare justice. Turning to his royal highness, he observed that for some years he had been under streightened circumstances, which he had met in the most manly and honourable way. Until he was thirty-two years of age, he had only an allowance of 5,000l. from his royal father, together with about the same sum as commander-in-chief of the British possessions in North America. Under these circumstances he would move," That his majesty be enabled to grant a yearly sum of money out of the consolidated fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, not exceeding in the whole the sum of 6,000l., to make a suitable provision for his royal highness the duke of Kent, upon his marriage." Mr. Curwen said, that however painful to his feelings it might be, he felt it his duty to oppose the present motion. He rested his opposition on two points. In the first place, he did not know that he had ever acceded to any pledge which bound him, in all cases, to make provision for any branch of the royal family when a marriage was about to take place. Secondly, he had observed that it was expected that they were not to take into consideration any emolument enjoyed from military or other situations by the royal family. He never had conceded any such principle; and had it not been for the late hour at which the question was brought forward on a former occasion, he would have opposed it. He considered the situation in which the country was placed, and he could not consent that 6,000l. per annum should be added to the existing burthens. Lord Castlereagh appealed to the House, whether it would be grateful to their feelings that the sum necessary to enable his royal highness to support himself in a married state abroad, should be derived from any other source than the bounty of parliament. The The committee having divided, there appeared, Ayes (for lord Castlereagh's motion), 205; Noes, 51; Majority, 154. Lord Castlereagh next moved "That the sum of 6,000l. per annum be settled upon her serene highness Mary Louisa Victoria, princess of Leiningen, when she shall become duchess of Kent, in case her highness should survive his royal highness the duke of Kent, to be issuing and payable out of the consolidated fund of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." This was agreed to. In the House of Lords, on April 14th, the Earl of Liverpool stated that he wished, from peculiar circumstances, to postpone the consideration of the message of the Prince Regent, on the subject of the marriages of the dukes of Clarence and Cambridge till to-morrow; and in the meantime he moved, That the said order be discharged. The Marquis of Lansdowne felt that it was impossible not to be sensible of the singular situation which the House was placed in by the message which the noble earl had brought down, and the very extraordinary conduct which had been adopted upon it. He hoped that whatever might appear disrespectful to the Crown on the occasion, would not be imputed to the House, but that the blame would fall upon the advisers. The Earl of Liverpool was willing to take the blame on himself. But he thought it improper to move an address until their lordships were in possession of the measure which was to be 11 recommended; and felt that he should not be doing his duty if he called upon them to give an opinion before they were made fully acquainted with the sentiments of the Prince Regent's government on the subject. Lord Holland followed up the observations of the marquis of Lansdowne, and moved an address to the Prince Regent, in lieu of the discharge of the order proposed by the earl of Liverpool. Other remarks were made on the occasion, when the Address was negatived. The question was then put, That the order be discharged; upon which the House divided; Contents, 51: Not Contents, 12: Majority, 39. On the 15th of April, the order of the day for taking the Prince Regent's message into consideration being moved, it was again read, when the Earl of Liverpool rose for the purpose of proposing an answer of the House to the Prince Regent. The circumstances of this reply being exactly similar to that introduced to the House of Commons by lord Castlereagh; it cannot be necessary to repeat it in this place. It was answered by Lord King, who proposed the introduction of the following sentence: "But this House must at the same time express its confident hope, that such provisions as are necessary may be made without creating the necessity of laying any additional burthens upon the people." Several members spoke on this occasion, and at length the amendment was negatived without a division. The original motion |