The report on the King's Message was brought up, and the resolution for granting 6,000l. a-year for the maintenance and education of the Princess Alexandria Victoria of Kent was agreed to. On the resolution, for granting an annuity of 6,000l. to the duke of Cumberland, for the education of Prince George Frederick Alexander Charles Ernest Augustus being read,
§ Mr. Hume
said, that he was sorry not to see a right hon. baronet, the member for Waterford, in his place, who had given notice of an amendment upon this resolution. In his absence, he should propose to negative the motion o altogether. He thought ministers ill-advised in recommending his majesty to make such a demand on the liberality of parliament, and he was persuaded that no measure proposed by them during the session would give less satisfaction to the nation. The public would consider it a mere waste of its money, and a waste without all precedent. On Friday night the chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to provide that the boy should be educated in England [no, no]. He did not understand what those negatives meant, unless that the proposition was negatived by them on a division. The House had already refused a vote to the duke of Cumberland himself, and therefore the 935 resolution now under consideration was, in form, for the use of his son; but there could be little doubt that the 6,000l. was to be added to the income of the father. At present, the duke of Cumberland was paid 19,000l. a-year, besides the allowance from his regiment; he spent the whole of it upon the continent, in Hanover, or Prussia. Now, he had been informed, that 19,000l. a-year was equal at least to 30,000l. a-year in England. Could there be, then, the slightest desire for economy in ministers, when they brought down a proposition for adding 6,000l. a-year to the 19,000l. a-year? And yet the House was now called upon to make an additional charge of 6,000l. a-year on the consolidated fund for purposes of this nature. The fact was, that ministers had, on this occasion, come down to ask what had never been asked of that House before. When was it, that for the education of a boy not six years old, 6,000l. a-year had been asked for? He could discover no such allowance to have been ever made to them for such a purpose as that suggested by this resolution, even at periods when they were further advanced in life. The only instance that at all tallied with this, was the case of the duke of Gloucester, who formerly stood in the same situation with respect to the degree of his succession to the throne, as the infant prince of Cumberland stood in now. The present duke of Gloucester was nephew to the late king. In 1767 parliament granted to his late majesty's brother the duke of Gloucester 8,000l. a-year. But, soon after the birth of the present duke of Gloucester in 1776, parliament settled upon him 8,000l. a-year; and on his sister the princess 4,000l. a-year "upon the death of their father." The allowance of 8,000l. a-year, that had been made to the king's brother in 1767, was increased; but not until 1785, to 9,000l. a-year. It was therefore clear, that the late duke of Gloucester had educated and maintained his son out of his annuity of 9,000l. a-year, without any additional allowance; the 8,000l. a-year not having been paid until after his death to the present duke. When he remembered the last divisions which had taken place in that House, on the subject of the duke of Cumberland, he could not help asking what that individual had done since, to gain the good will of parliament? Was it because his son stood sixth or seventh from the throne, that parliament Was to be called 936 on to alter the wholesome precedent it had formerly observed, of making every prince support his own family out of the allowance made for him by his country? It had been said, that to the late princess Charlotte of Wales, this House had granted a separate maintenance. But she was at that time the heiress presumptive to the Crown; and the debates of the period he spoke of would show, that it was on that account parliament had made such a grant. But what was parliament asked to do by the present vote?—to put the sixth or seventh in succession on the same footing with the presumptive heiress to the Crown. A proposition for placing the prince of Cumberland on the same footing with the princess of Kent was contrary to all precedent. On all these grounds, it seemed the best and most direct course to put a negative on the resolution. Should he unfortunately not succeed in this object that night, he hoped that the opposition to be made to such an objectionable proposal would gain strength every time it came before the House.
Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if it had been the pleasure of the House, on a former occasion, to accede to the proposition for increasing the income of the duke of Cumberland on his marriage in the same way as that of the other members of the royal family, it certainly would have been unreasonable to make the present application to parliament, for the education of the duke of Cumberland's child. But, it should be recollected, that although an additional allowance of 6,000l. a-year had been granted to the dukes of Clarence and Cambridge, on their marriage, the duke of Cumberland did not obtain that sum at the time his marriage took place. He was placed, therefore, in a very different situation from that of his two royal brothers. Since that period a son had been born to him, and that son had reached the age of six years. Under such circumstances, he did not think there was any thing at all outrageous to the feelings of the country in proposing that adequate means should be afforded for the proper education of that young prince. The hon, member was extremely displeased that the same sum should be proposed for educating the son of the duke of Cumberland as for educating the daughter of the duchess of Kent, because the former did not stand in the same degree of proximity to the throne as the latter. But, there was some inconsistency in this 937 argument of the hon. gentleman, and that which had been resorted to by his friends on a former occasion. When it was proposed that a vote of 10,000l. should be granted to the duke of Clarence, and the sum of 6,000l. to the dukes of Cumberland and Cambridge, the House would not sanction this difference in the allowance on account of the difference of proximity in relation to the throne, and the vote of 10,000l. was reduced to 6,000l. If, therefore, any difference had been made on the present occasion in the allowance to he voted for the education of the son of the duke of Cumberland and the daughter of the duchess of Kent, it would have been made in contradiction to the principle which parliament adopted on a former occasion. He had stated the other night, in the most unequivocal manner, that the object of this vote was really and substantially to provide for the education of the boy in this country. This was his unequivocal declaration; and he had objected to the amendment proposed on that occasion, because he thought it ought not to be introduced in a measure, which was in effect only an answer to a message from the Crown; but if the House thought it necessary to secure that object by any specific provision in the bill, he had personally no objection to such a course. Some of his right hon. friends had suggested, that this might be effected by inserting in the preamble, that such was the motive and object of the bill; and in such a provision he was perfectly ready to acquiesce, for he should not feel it to be any personal imputation on himself, nor did he wish any declaration which he had made on the subject to be implicitly believed. He had no objection to any specific provision for the purpose of assuring the House and the country, that the education of the boy should take place in this country; but in effecting this object, he trusted that nothing would be done which might unnecessarily wound the feelings of the illustrious parents. Whatever hon. gentlemen might think of the illustrious duke, against whom so much animosity seemed to be felt, he could not agree with them, that it was quite a matter of course that a child should be separated from its parents. They seemed to think it perfectly a matter of course, that the duke of Cumberland should be expatriated, and that his son should be sent to this country to be educated. An hon. and learned civilian, indeed, had said the 938 other night, that he would do nothing which might induce the duke to return to this country; on the contrary, he would do every thing in his power to keep him out of it. To hold language of this kind was really to display very little feeling for the illustrious party to whom it referred. Such a course of proceeding, indeed, must terminate in the actual and perpetual separation of the father from his child. If this money was to be granted at all, it must clearly be granted in the way proposed; because to say that the father should have nothing whatever to do with the child's education, and no control over the application of the money proposed to be given, would be a course that he should exceedingly regret to see the House adopt. At the same time, he had not the slightest objection, nor could his majesty's government feel any, to incorporate into an act of parliament any words that should be thought to comprise the surest guarantee for the education of the child in England.
said, that since the last discussion on this subject he had referred to the debates which took place in that House in the years 1815 and 1818, on the proposed grant to the duke of Cumberland. He felt great reluctance in making any observation which might be considered personal to any branch of the royal family; he felt it his duty, however, to declare, that after a full consideration of all that passed in the years 1815 and 1818, he had come to the decided opinion, that the decision of the House on both these occasions was, in every point of view, just and proper. He did trust, therefore, that this House, would not retrace its former steps, and by consenting to this allowance of 6,000l. a-year for the education of the young prince, deny the principles upon which they had formerly acted; and, in reality, carry into effect that which they had before most properly rejected. He ventured to say, that never had an occasion presented itself on which the feelings of the country were more completely in unison with those of the House than on this question. If this was so—if the House were not prepared to retrace their steps—if they were not about to make a grant upon entirely new principles, and for as entirely novel purposes, let them first consider what grounds of necessity were laid for that grant. And, when that necessity should have been ascertained, let them take, above all things, 939 especial care that the resolution, and the act to be framed on that resolution, were expressed with sufficient carefulness, to carry into complete effect that which was now stated to be the real object of the resolution. First, then, as to the necessity for the grant. He protested that, on the present occasion, he did not think any satisfactory ground of necessity had been laid. Not that he thought the sum itself was matter of any very serious consideration, because it was impossible to say that 6,000l. a-year was an amount that could seem of great importance, in these cases, to parliament. But, the precedent was in itself a very dangerous one, and might lead to consequences mischievous in the extreme. For his own part, he did not see, that the duke of Cumberland had not already allowance enough to discharge all these duties of education and maintenance, if he was really disposed to discharge them. Let the House inquire what the duke of Cumberland had done to merit this grant. The hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House had not denied, that the duke meant to take up his residence abroad. But, he had a duty to perform in England, both to his country and to his child. What, then, ought the duke of Cumberland to have done? He ought to have endeavoured to perform them. He should have seen whether it was not possible to educate his son out of the means he already possessed, without resorting to the House for further means; and then, if, after doing all that lay in his power toward the education of his child, he had found it impossible to go on without additional assistance, —he might have come to parliament with a strong claim, not to say on its generosity, but on its justice. But, the duke of Cumberland had remained and still remained abroad. They were now calling him to look after his duties. Why he had not done soof himself before, not one word of explanation had been offered from the other side. Here, again, if these were the facts of the case, he must say, that until the duke should have returned to this country—until he should have shown himself willing to discharge the duties that he was bound to discharge—it would be premature to come to any vote at all. But, suppose the duke should come back to this country, he (Dr. L.) was still waiting for an answer to the question he had addressed to his majesty's ministers on a former evening; and this, was it—how came it, 940 that the duchess of Kent, with her 12,000l. a-year, would be able to provide for her young daughter who was so near in succession to the throne, to maintain her rank and state on their present footing, and to provide all the education suitable for that daughter, while the duke of Cumberland was incapable of managing the same duties with 19,000l. a year? Surely, here was a gross inconsistency at the outset. But, let them suppose the duke of Cumberland to have made out his case, and that House to have voted the money; in whom would be the management of the young prince, and of this sum? Would it be in the duke of Cumberland, or in the king? The right hon. the president of the board of Control had referred, on a preceding evening, to the opinion of the twelve judges, which went to this effect—that of grandsons in succession to the throne the management was in the king. For him (Dr. L.) this was too knotty a point to decide. But, let it be said that the present king was entitled to have the control and education of the young prince of Cumberland; then, of what egregious absurdity was the House about to be guilty? They would be voting to the king a grant of 6,000l. a-year for the education of a prince whom the law confided to his management; but this 6,000l. a-year they would empower the king to pay over to the duke of Cumberland, for the professed purpose of exercising that management, or control, which the law recognized only in the king. So that they would thus be separating the duty from the consideration paid for its due discharge. Or, let the House take the reverse of this statement. Suppose the king was not entitled to take care of this young prince's education, would it not be proper to give his majesty some power and authority, for the sake of so entitling him? When the right hon. gentleman opposite refused to say whether the duke of Cumberland was about to return to England or not, was it not high time that parliament should strengthen the hands of the king, and give him something like the ability to control, in so important an affair as the education of this prince, supposing that by law he, did not already possess that ability? Why then, whether by the existing law the king could or could not exert such control, it was obviously of the last importance, that this grant should be so worded, as to enable the king to 941 exercise so salutary an influence and authority. The chancellor of the Exchequer, in adverting to what he (Dr. L.) had said on another night, had not very correctly stated his observation. He had never said that he would wish to part the father from his son: no such idea had ever entered his mind. What he did say was, that he felt unwilling to give even a single shilling to enable the duke of Cumberland to return to this country. Nor did he think it would become that House to feel otherwise on the subject; nor that the duke deserved that they should feel otherwise, while they were to be thus reduced, as it were, to drive him by their votes on this resolution to the discharge of duties that he ought long ago to have discharged without any such incitement. Upon these grounds, he thought the present wording of the grant ought to be altered; and in the absence of his right hon. friend (sir J. Newport), he would presume to propose an amendment to the following effect; namely, that the words his royal highness the duke of Cumberland" be omitted; and that at the conclusion of the resolution there should be added these words—"in the United Kingdom." He could see no reason, if the House should think it proper to pass this grant, why they should not secure, to the utmost of their power, the fulfilment of their own intentions. He remarked this the more particularly, because, on referring to the discussions in the year 1818, he found that the late marquis of Londonderry used these very expressions:—"that as to that vote of 6,000l. per annum to the duke of Cumberland, which had been negatived in the year 1815, he did not consider that the opinion of parliament had been sufficiently recorded by it." Now, if the late lord Londonderry thought that the opinion of parliament was not sufficiently evinced by the vote just referred to, he called upon hon, gentlemen seriously to consider, whether the opinion of the House could with any degree of consistency be held to be sufficiently recorded by that which was no- thing better than the mere verbal assertion of the right hon, gentleman, as to the real object of this resolution, as to the education of the young prince; and of which assertion, sincere as it most undoubtedly was upon his lips, the right hon. gentleman himself could not possibly undertake for the strict and literal performance?
§ Mr. Creevey
declared, that he could not agree to pass either the original motion, or the amendment which had been proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last. During all the time that he had sat in parliament, he had never witnessed so gross an outrage as that which was now put upon the good sense and consistency of the House, by this attempt to get 6,000l. a-year out of the House of Commons for the duke of Cumberland. For that was the fact—the money was wanted for the duke of Cumberland. The duke of Cumberland and the House of Commons, however, had come into this sort of contact before; and he felt justified, from what had already happened on those occasions, in saying, that this was neither more nor less than an attempt to raise 6,000l. a-year under false pretences. Now, that was just the fact. Six thousand pounds a-year for the education of a child five years old? It was nonsense to talk of it. Was ever so absurd a thing heard of? In truth, this was as near as possible the old motions of 1815 and 1818 in a new form; but that was the most insulting and contemptuous in which it could have been produced to the House. It was true that 6,000l. a-year had been voted to the duchess of Kent, but the application, he was very sure, never came from her, nor from those around her. Her highness had been talked to, and talked about; and she and the princess her daughter, so far from being voluntary applicants on this occasion, had been made the mere tools to justify the application on behalf of the duke of Cumberland, and carry that with their own. If the House agreed to the resolution, he thought they would disgrace themselves for ever. He would support the negative that had been moved by his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen.
expressed himself to be friendly to the principle of the amendment. He should be perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. gentleman and those who acted with him on this subject; but as they might not always retain their places, and as human life was uncertain, he thought there could be no impropriety in introducing the words proposed as an amendment. Some allusion had been made to the difference in amount of the two sums which were the subject of this resolution; but when the difference between the manner in 943 which a male and a female of the exalted rank of the persons concerned in it was considered, he was sure this would not be thought unreasonable. The hon. gentleman who spoke last had seemed to think there had been some juggle between the duchess of Kent and the duke of Cumberland [cries of oh, no!].
§ Mr. Creevey
said, that nothing was further from his intention than to say any thing disrespectful of the duchess of Kent. On the contrary, he had intimated that the friends of the duke of Cumberland had put forward the case of the duchess of Kent for the purpose of supporting their application; that this proposition was by no means agreeable to the duchess of Kent and her family; and that she had no wish to have her claims mixed up with those of the duke of Cumberland, though he duke had good reason for wishing to make her claims subsidiary to his own rejected pretensions.
said, that nothing was further from his thoughts than to insinuate that there was any improper understanding between the two illustrious individuals; but he thought that, as the grounds of the claims of each were very nearly similar, they had properly come together before the House.
§ Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that he perfectly remembered what had passed during the former debates on an increased allowance to the duke of Cumberland. He then thought, that the duke had been treated with great unfairness; and he thought so still [hear, hear!]—the only possible claim on the country being as provision for the sons of the sovereign; and when the provisions of the dukes of Clarence and Cambridge were increased, those of the dukes of Cumberland and Sussex ought, in common reason and justice, to have been increased in the same manner. On this ground, he should vote for the motion, and not on the ground of its being required for the education of his son. As to the observations which had been made on his royal highness's habitually residing out of the country, the duke of Cumberland had a right to live where best it pleased him; to educate his own son where he thought most convenient; and the House of Commons had nothing to do with the matter [coughing and laughter]. The great and necessary evil attendant on the education of all princes was, their being, from the first, surrounded by sycophants. An 944 education in England, by act of parliament, was probably the worst education that could possibly be received by an English prince; and, in spite of all the clamour of the friends of freedom, who would deny to a father the right of direction in the bringing up of his own child, he should vote for the grant—not as necessary on account of the infant prince, but as reparation of a previous injustice.
§ Sir G. Rose
said, that having lived for some years so near the person of the duke of Cumberland as to enjoy frequent opportunities of ascertaining his character, and observing his conduct, he could not remain silent. With respect to the absence of the duke from England, that, it should be remembered, was in consequence of the treatment he had received here. It was impossible for any person to find himself the object of universal dislike, and treated with disrespect, and even insult, which he knew to be undeserved, but which he had no means of preventing, and yet subject himself to the repetition of them. His acquaintance with his royal highness had continued for four years and a half. Upon the commencement of it some of his friends had remonstrated with him on the danger which he might run from the bad repute in which his royal highness was held. To which he had replied, that he saw his royal highness surrounded by men of the most distinguished probity, of the most scrupulous delicacy of conduct, and as such he would not believe the disadvantageous reports which he had heard. Subsequent experience had convinced him that the opinion he had formed was correct, He had never known any man behave, upon all occasions, in a manner more becoming his station, or with more kindness and consideration to all who were about him. This behaviour of his royal highness was not purchased on his (sir G. Rose's) part by any servile compliance; on the contrary, he had upon some occasions felt himself obliged to differ from his royal highness, and on those occasions the duke had acted with the greatest fairness. During his residence at Berlin, he had constant opportunities of observing the duke in his family, and he must say that he had never seen a more affectionate parent, and that the child, the subject of the resolution before the House, as far as from his age he was capable of manifesting it, seemed to return that affection. He had come forward to say thus much, because he was 945 anxious to deprecate some of the expressions he had heard—expressions which had a tendency to exasperate the father against this country; a feeling in which it was natural to suppose that the son would be educated, if they were persevered in.
§ Sir W. Congreve
said, that he had known the duke of Cumberland for a long while, during which his conduct had been unexceptionable; and no one could be more punctual in the payment of his debts.
§ Mr. Alderman Smith
said, that his royal highness had been-the victim of malevolence, and was driven out of his native country by innuendos and misrepresentations. Whatever the House might think proper to do with respect to the education of the child, he thought these attacks against;the father should not be persisted in.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that, however various the views were which had been taken by hon. members in the course of this debate, still he thought there was an universal feeling, that nothing could be more unpleasant than the allusions to which it had given rise. He should, therefore, in the very little he had to say on the subject, avoid any reference whatever to those topics. He could not concur with the hon. gentleman(Mr. Gurney), who regarded the resolution before the House as an attempt to redress an injustice which had formerly been done. The proposition came simply upon its own grounds; and, so material a change had taken place, that the House could consistently agree to this, even though it were convinced that the grounds of its former refusal were correct. The way in which it had been put by an hon. and learned gentleman opposite was, he thought, a fair one. First, was this vote necessary; and secondly, what was the proper mode of making it secure? The hon. member for Montrose had said, that every man was bound to educate his own children. As applied to private life this was quite true; but, in the case before the House, the interest it had in this child made its education a matter of national importance; and since we thought fit to take upon ourselves the burthen of that education, we had a right to require, if we saw reason, that it should be carried on in England. Something had been said as to the adequacy of the sum; and it was insinuated, that as the duchess of Kent found her allowance of 12,000l. per annum sufficient, that of the duke of Cumberland, amounting to 18,000l., 946 was more than enough. But, he thought, when this came to be more Coolly considered, it would be seen, that the situation of a widow, leading a retired life, was very different from that of a prince, who had a wife and family to support, a station to keep up. It was asked, why the duke of Cumberland did not come home; but, when the manner in which his name had been introduced into the discussions of that House in 1815 and 1818, and the allusions which had been then made (and which he believed were now regretted) to his royal highness's wire, were recollected, it would not be wondered at that he should choose to reside abroad. He repeated, that it was in every way proper that his royal highness's son should be educated in England: and the House ought to require some more valid security than the word of a minister for that purpose. To effect this, he thought the best way would be by some proviso to be inserted in the bill hereafter, to be founded on the resolution recording the sense of the House; and he had no hesitation in saying, that any such introduction should have his consent. For the words in which it should be expressed he was indifferent, provided that they did not imply, that the duke of Cumberland was not worthy to be intrusted with the education of his own son, but merely that it was thought expedient that one who might hereafter be the monarch of England should receive his education in that country, the destinies of which he might one day be called to rule over.
§ Mr. Brougham
said, he was sorry to intrude himself on the attention of the House, for he agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that as the subject had been pretty thoroughly discussed, the sooner it was put an end to the better. He agreed also with the right hon. gentleman, in not caring by what form the principle of an English education was secured; and he agreed still further with him, in admitting that in private life every man was bound to educate his own child, and nobody had a right to interfere—so long as the father paid the money. The difference between that case and the one under discussion was so obvious, that he need say no more about it. With respect to the terms of the grant, all were agreed tonight; and that good, at least, had grown out of the former discussion. If the grant were really to be made, he should not object to those terms; but he was prepared to oppose it altogether; and in 947 this opposition he hoped he should receive some support. He had been told that such applications were matters of ordinary practice. Now, this was really of too much consequence to be passed lightly over; since it might hereafter be reduced to a general rule, that as often as any prince or princess should be born to any one connected with the royal family, the House should be called upon to provide for them. It appeared to him equally dangerous and novel to admit it in the shape of a precedent, that as soon as the scions of the royal stock attained their fifth or sixth year, the House should be expected to vote 6,000l. per annum for their education. The last instance of such an application was altogether different. It was made on behalf of the duke of Gloucester, whose life had been invariably respectable, and who had never involved himself in any pecuniary difficulties; but, that was a prospective provision made in the life time of the late duke, and no additional sum had been asked for the present duke, or for the princess Sophia. Was the House now to turn over a new leaf, and provide a large annual sum for the education of the child of a member of the royal family, whose income at present was 19,000l? The resolution, in favour of the duchess of Kent had been stated as a precedent, but it was the strangest precedent he had ever heard of—it was, in fact, part and parcel of the same resolution. But, the truth was, that no proposition whatever had been made by the duchess of Kent. She, with the assistance of prince Leopold, out of that ample allowance which he was in the enjoyment of, was quite able to educate her daughter in a proper manner. What, then, could be inure unjust than that it should be permitted to go forth to the public, that she solicited any allowance for that purpose? He believed that the duke of Cumberland did make an application—at all events, that his friends did for him, and he knew and assented to it; and thus the duchess of Kent and prince Leopold were associated in an application which they did not wish for, merely because the duke of Cumberland did ask for it. [A cry of "No"] At least if he did not ask for it lie would not, refuse it. He felt it to be his duty decidedly to oppose the grant, as being altogether unnecessary, and an abuse of that power which the people so largely intrusted to the House. He would oppose it also because its ten- 948 dency was, to lower that true dignity of the royal family which consisted in the respect felt for them by the people. Another reason which made him unfriendly to the measure was, the manner in which the duchess of Kent had been mixed up with it, and the misrepresentations to which that had given rise. He saw prince Leopold attacked for doing that winch he had, in fact, never done at all, and which he had never wished to see done. He had nothing to do with the other consideration which had been urged or rather alluded to: but, he objected that, by agreeing to this resolution, the House would be doing that indirectly which it had refused to do directly. He did not see upon what ground the taking the child of the duke of Cumberland from its parent could be justified. The late princess Charlotte had been taken from the care and superintendance of a parent to whom she was bound by all the dearest and most tender ties. He had not hesitated to condemn the cruelty and injustice of that measure; and although that parent was a favourite of the public, and the parent of the child now spoken of was any thing but a favourite with the public, he thought that it ought not to be taken away from him who had the best right to direct its education.
Mr. Secretary Canning ,
in consequence of the turn which the discussion had taken, wished to have it understood that the vote before the House was not proposed as an atonement for any former decision which it had come to, but grew merely out of the circumstance of a child whose education it was now the time to begin, and in which education, from the nearness of that child to the throne, the country was interested. Without going back, then, to blame or to justify the duke of Cumberland for his residence abroad, the House, he believed, would agree, that his child must be educated, not because it was his child, but because the duty of educating it devolved upon the state, of which it might one day be so important a member. What was now proposed, therefore, was, that by a resolution the most extended and most coercive, it should be provided, that this education should be carried on at home, and that the royal parent should either return to England himself, or send hither his child, as he might think proper. Thus would be avoided that harsh interference, which would on all accounts be inexpedient. The condition, however, 949 was one which could not be parted with and which might be so worded, as not to wound a parent's feelings. This was the case, in a few words, and all that had been added was extraneous. He put out of the question all that had been said upon other subjects, and particularly wished that mention should not be made of the duchess of Kent upon this occasion; because he was sure that to be thus made the subject of a discussion, would be as uncomfortable to her feelings as it was repugnant to that unobtrusive delicacy which characterized her conduct and which rendered her an ornament to her exalted station.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that when he came down to the House, he supposed that the question which was to be decided was whether or not the duke of Cumberland should have 6,000l. added to his income; in other words, whether that should be now done indirectly, which the House some years ago refused to do, when it was directly proposed to them. Had that been the case, he should have been placed in the situation of running the risk of incurring the disapprobation of the right hon. gentleman, who seemed to think that to advert to the character and conduct of the royal personage in question, if not absolutely unparliamentary, was, to say the least of it, highly improper. As, however, the question was placed altogether on a different footing, he felt greatly relieved; and was very much satisfied to find that, he could do his duty to the country without any violation of those feelings which, had the case been otherwise, he should have been called upon to disturb. It was probable that the proposers of this grant, perceiving the reluctance of the House to assent to it as directly to the duke, had the discretion to change the tone of their application, and to alter the object to which the grant was to be applied. Whatever might be the cause of the change, the House were now told, that the grant was required, not for the purpose of putting so much money into the pocket of the duke of Cumberland, but on public grounds, in order to insure a proper education to a young prince, who at some future period might be called to the throne. Now, he really could not comprehend how it was possible that 6,000l. a-year could be required for such a purpose, for an infant six years old. Nothing could be more injurious to that infant, and nothing could, in its con- 950 sequences, be more mischievous to the public, than to surround a child of that age with all the folly and expense which an income of 6,000l. would furnish. Such a proceeding (and history bore out the assertion) was calculated, more than any other, to render him unfit for the throne, should future contingencies, call upon him to fill it. If this royal child was in the country, the best education that could be given him was merely that which was usually given to the children of persons of rank. To surround him with a kind of little state would be so injurious, that he would rather consent to let the money go into the pockets of the father, than that the unfortunate child should be spoiled, and deprived of every chance of being qualified to exercise the kingly functions happily for himself, and beneficially to the public. He also felt some suspicion when he found this case mixed up with a proposed grant to a noble lady who had made no demand on the public, and respecting whom it had been understood that a near relation, for whom a generous and ample provision had been made by the state, would render no such demand requisite. Being convinced that the illustrious person to whom he alluded was not only willing to prevent such a necessity, but that he would be exceedingly uneasy if he were suspected of any reluctance to provide for the benefit, advantage, and comfort of the amiable lady in question, he could not but think, that the proposition for a grant to the duchess of Kent was only a mask, a kind of stalking-horse, to recommend the one to the duke of Cumberland. If so, the circumstance strengthened his objection to this latter grant. He repeated, that he could not see why an infant so circumstanced should have so large a sum voted for his education. If voted, however, it was absolutely necessary to take care that the money should be applied to that purpose, and to that purpose alone; and he was convinced that the public would be extremely dissatisfied if that were not done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the hon. baronet appeared to forget the circumstances of the case. Soon after the death of the duke of Kent, Bird Londonderry was asked in that House, whether, it was the intention of the Crown to propose an additional grant to the duchess. His answer was, that government did not think it necessary at that time to make such a proposition, inas- 951 much as prince Leopold had expressed his intention of contributing to the maintenance of her royal highness and child. It was impossible, however, that such an arrangement could be considered as permanent in its nature; and it was on that account that the present proposition was brought forward.
§ Mr. Brougham
observed, that as it was allowed on all sides, that security ought to be taken for compelling the proper appropriation of the grant, he would recommend his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his amendment, for the purpose of allowing the House to come to a distinct vote on the first and simple proposition.
said, he had no objection to do so, if the right hon. gentleman opposite would pledge himself to the introduction in the bill of a security for the education of the child in England, and of a control over the mode of payment.
Mr. Secretary Canning
replied, that he could not give any other pledge than that which he had already mentioned.
The House then divided: For the grant 120; Against it 97. Majority 28.
§ Mr. Brougham
gave notice to the House, that, on the constitutional grounds which he had stated, as well as because he perceived a disposition in the House to take advantage of a temporary and accidental coldness, on the part of the people, respecting questions of economy, and a tendency to spend the people's money, as if there was never to be a want of it again, he should continue to give the measure his strenuous opposition in all its stages.
List of the Minority. Abercromby, hon. J. Cavendish, H. Allen, J. H. Coffin, sir I. Astell, W. Coke, T. W. (Derby) Baillie, J. Corbett, P. Baring, A. Creevey, T. Baring, sir T. Davies, T. Barrett, S. M. Denison, W. Benett, J. Denman, T. Benyon, B. Drake, T. T. Bernal, R. Dundas, hon. T. Blake, sir F. Ellice, E. Brougham, H. Evans, W. Buxton, T. F. Fane, J. Byng, G. Ferguson, sir R. Calcraft, John. Foley, J. H. H. Calcraft, J. H. Gaskell, B. Calvert, C. Glenorchy, vise. Carter, J. Grattan, J. Cavendish lord G. Grenfell, P. Cavendish, C. Guise, sir W.
Handley, H. Ridley, sir M.W. Heron, sir R. Robarts, A.W. Heygate, W. Robarts, G Hobhouse, J. C. Robinson, sir G. Hughes, W. L. Russell, lord J. Hume, J. Scarlett, J. Hutchinson, hon. C. H. Scott, J. James, W. Sebright, sir J. Johnstone, W. A. Sefton, earl of Kennedy, T. F. Smith, A. King, sir J. D. Smith, J. Knight, R. Smith, S. Leycester, R. Smith, hon. R. Lushington, S. Smith, W. Marjoribanks, S. Taylor, M. A. Martin, J. Tierney, right hon. G. Maule, hon. W. R. Townshed, lord C. Maxwell, J. Tremayne, J. H. Monck, J. B. Webbe, E. Newman, R. W. Western, C. C. Nugent, lord. Whitbread, S. Ord, W. Williams, J. Osborne, lord F. Williams, T. P. Palmer, C. F. Wilson, sir R. Pares, T. Wood, M. Parnell, sir H. Wrottesley, sir J. Pelham, J. C. PAIRED OFF. Price, R. Portman, E. Pryse, Pryse tellers: Rice, T. S. Burdett, sir F. Rickford, W. Duncannon, vise