Star. — London, England, 1814-07-05 00:00:00

I 1 to any question of money. He requested the opinion of the Speaker. L.'rd CASTLEREAGH remarked, that be saw no objection to referring the information to a Com mittee el the House. What was to be done in that Committee was another question ; it might be a ques tion whether upon such a basis the House could found a measure like that which was now to be . suggested? Mr. C. WYNNE thought that the better way would have been for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Establishment of the Princess of ' Wales. His principal object in rising was to ask the' ' Noble Lord on what precedent he founded his Mo tion ? He had understood him to say, on a former occasion, that it was consistent with the practice of Parliament, though not in the best times. The SPEA KER then stated his opinion. The case was admitted to be entirely novel ; all that was analogous to ordinary proceedings was, that certain. Papers, by royal command, had been laid upon the table. It was competent, then, for any Member to move that those Papers should be taken into consi deration ; but if the object were a grant of money, the recommendation of the Crown was necessary.— Whether these Papers so referred would afford a sufficient basis, was not a question for his decision, bolt he knew of no irregularity in referring the papers to a Committee, or why the Crown might not be supposed to know the contents of papers that it had ordered to be laid upon the table. It was impossible to judge in this case but by its analogy to the Ordi. nary proceeding. Mr. TIERNEY would submit to the doctrine laid down by the Speaker, if the papers upon the table had any reference to a grant of money. Mr.WHITISREAD said, that the difficulty arose from the premature motion of the Noble Lord, who ought to have waited until the House were in Com mittee, before he stated that he was commissioned to give the Royal Assent. The mode of proceeding this 'right adopted, was certainly not the most re. specttul to any individual, but more particularly to the Princess of Wales. When the Noble Lord, on the night of the discussion of this subject, announced t h e vorious documents that Ind pa s sed, he certainly had mentioned in terms a brmal deed of separation, but among the papas upon the table no such paper was included Noble Lord had asserted tliat it WAS drawn up by the highest legal authorities of the day, but it turned out to be nothing more than a pe. Cutriary arrangement for the augmentation of the in come of the Princess of Wales to e.:17,0t10 by quar terly payments, and providing that, if her Royal highness should exceed her income, such excetts siiould be defrayed by Act of Parliament ; although in another part of the same instrument, the Prince was made liable, disproving the assertion that it was drawn up by the must eminat legal airthorities was but justice to state, as he (Mr. 'Whitbread) disi assert from the best authority (authority which he could not doubt), that so far from any .cause having arisen for the motion of to-night, the fact was, that the Prir.cess of Wales had made such economical arrangements to meet the difficulties ofthe time, that at the present moment she was not in6ebted to the extent of a single shilling. The Pi incess had made no call upon Parliament or upon the Noce for as sistance, and she had given no authority fay any ap plication for the increase of her income. Before the • House went into the Committee, he deemed it right farther to state, what had been the pecuniary situa tion of the Princess of Wales up to the present time. —The Princess of Wales arrived in this country in 1795, expecting to participate in all the splendour of the Heir Apparent of the British Throne ; but very shortly afterwards, from circumstances which it was not necessary to recapitulate, a separate establish anent was formed for her Royal Higl'ness, which was paid by the Prince of Wales until 1800. In that year it was thought fit to make arrangements, limit ing the expenditure of the Princess of Wales. When she resided in Carlton House, with an establishment provided for her, she was allowed £17,000 per an num, exclusive of £5OOO pin•money, allowed by Act of Parliament ; but upon the separation, her whole income was reduced to 812,000 a year : out of that limited sum, not being able to pay the necessary ex pences of furniture, plate, and linen, for a new and distioct establi,limem, considerable debts were incur red ; and it was agreed by the Minister of the day, to recommend to his Majesty the payment of those debts ; but the provision being made near the time of the cf.ath of Mr. Pitt, the discharge was not com pletely accomplished. Afterwards, the Princess of Wales had the benefit of the advice of Mr. Perceval, at which time the debts altogether amounted to £51,000 and a fraction. The Prince of Wales agreed to rake upon himself the payment of £49,000, in cluding the balance remaining unpaid under Mr. Fitt's idringement. At this period also the income of the Princess of Wales was augmented to £17,000 per annum, and the excuse made for the smallness of • the previous amount was, the difficulties in which the Prince of Wales was involved, which reduced his own income t0 . £24,000. It must be confessed, how ever, that these embarrassments were in rio respect to be attributed to the Princess of Wales, and she had, on separation, a right to expect such a provision as became the rank she held. The Honourable Member begged to take this opportunity of obliterating the impression which, the Noble Lord had made upon the House arid upon the country, by his solemn as sertion that a formal deed of separation, drawn up by the first legal authorities, had been agreed upon by the Prince and Princess of Wales and sanctioned by the authority of the common parent of the parties and of the people. The truth was, that no such in strument had ever been signed, nor would the Prin cess of Wales have put her band to any such docu ment. When, however, the income of the Regent was increased to £60,000, it was required that some addition should be made to that of the Princess of Wales, which then was limited to only £12,000 per annum. In consequence, in 1809, that £1'2,000 was increased to £1 ;,000. The rapid rise in die value of all articles of consumption was felt by all, and on this ground applications bad been made by oche: branches of the Royal Family for additions to their salaries : •the Princess of Wales, however, had met these difficulties by other means—she had adopted by which the intetferenct necessary, and Mr. Whit breao equirecl. She had not ex: she bad neithtr suggested, directed, authorised, nor sanctioned any application t.. Parliament for pecuniary mist:nee. Thus much be had thought it necessary to state before the Hduse went into the Committee. Lord CASTLEREAGH said that he should post pone some remarks upon what had fallen free the Honourable Member until after the Speaker had left the Chair. Mr. ROSE supported the motion for the House going into the Committee. The SPEAKER observed opals a confusion of terms employed in this discussion. The consent and recommendation of the Crown were totally dis tinct ; the proper phrase in this case was certainly the last. Lord CASTLEREAGH said that he was autho rized to employ the word recommendation in its lar gest sense. The SPEAKER then left his seat, and the House went into the Committee.—Mr. BROGDEN in the Chair. Lord CASTLEREAGH then rose, and spoke as follows :—lt is my wish, before I proceed further into the subject, to correct some misapprehensions as to the nature and esti:ht of the income of tl e Princess of Wales, which have gone abroad at various peeiods, but which do not vary the result. 7he Honourable Member ( Mr.Whitbread) has repeated the statement made by an Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Methuen) on a former night, that previous to the year 18(X) the income of the Princess of Wales was £17,000, besides £5,000 for her privy purse, paid out of the Exche. qutr. If lam correctly informed, drawing my in telligence through the most authentic channels, the Princess of Wales, previous to 1800, had no fixed annual income, and that after that year £19,000 were allowed. While her Royal Highness continued to reside at Carlton-House her fixed income was only £5,000, allowed by Act of Parliament, her other expences being paid nut of the General Fund for i)o -mes0c Charges, as the bills of the Prince of Vales It is entirely a mistake to suppose, that upon any oc casion I spoke of a formal deed of separation : that which amounted to the same thing was signed in 1800, which first established a fixed income for the Princess of Wales. It is not the fact that the Prin cess of Wales was allowed 5€2`2,000 before she quint.: Carlton-House, but it is true, that on leaving it A'l'2,ooo a-year was granted, not as any deduction, but as a new arrangement, and a fixed income. I must repeat, what I said upon a former night, that considering the existing circumstances of his Royal Highness, this allowance was as liberal, or more libe. ral than any individual so situated would have riven : it exceeded one quarter of his whole income. I will not enter now into any arguments respecting extrava n,,a on either side, but on the part of the Prince of Waite:, I do maintain that lie acted in this engage ment with the saute liberality that has eve: marked his conduct towards the Princess el Wales. He took upon himself, in 18(X), the payment of 4.19,000, the debts of his Wife, who lived in separation, and rather than allow her creditors to suffer, he put himself to great personal Ai:convenience. With respect to the amount of the debts of the Princess wt Wales, the Honourable Member and the House will see that it the sum of £49,000, paid in 1809, be divided into annuli income between that date and the separation in 1600, it will appear that the actual income of the Princess of Wales was mole Li;rtn at 22,0:.)0 per annum. Thi. was exclusive of the sums paid out the Droil% of Admiralty, amounting to £32,000 and £fi,ooo. —The actual :eduction, however. of the Pr ince of Wales's income, f?orn 1800 to 1809, was e 22,000 per annum. It now came to the question, what addi tion it was fit to make to the revenue cf the Princess of Wales, ales, and what sum it was expedient for Parlia ment to grant ? At the time the arrangement was made in 1809, it was intended to be final and binding upon the parties who treated, as in a state of absolute and complete separation. However conclusive it might be upon them, it does not, however, preclude Parliament from interfering to enable the Princess of Wales to maintain an establishment more spited to her station in the country. The measure, which un der all the circumstances I think most desirable, is to raise the income of the Princess of Wales to that point to which it would be raised in the event of the demise of the Prince Regent ; for without entering into legal details as to the nature of the separation, it is universally known to be as complete in fact as any separation which can take place between two persons. As, therefore, the Princess of Wales cannot be in the enjoyment of " those advantages which, if both these illustrious persons lived together, she would receive, and as it is not within the province of Parliament to investigate the causes of these differences, nor con sistent with the interest or dignity of the Royal Fa mily that any qt4Lee.ion respecting their difference:, should be entertained in this House—(hear, hear )— it seems consi s tent 1% i i h j us ti ce t hat h er R o y a l High ness should be placed in the same situation pending this separation, in which she would stand in the event of another calamity. By the proposition which I shall submit to the Committee, the income of her Royal Highness will thus be ra;:ed to a net amount of £50,000 per annum. The manner in which I wish to propose this income to be payable, is, that the whole charge of it should rest ou the Consolidated Fund, instead of being in part issued from the income of the Prince Regent, and in part from the Exche quer, as is the case at present; and that the public shall be indemnified to the amount of the sum which is at present paid to the Princess of Wales, out of the income of the Prince Regent. As to the nature of the arrangement formerly made between the Prince of Wales and the Princess, the object was, that his Royal Highness should not be, subsequently to the signing of that paper, liable to the debts contracted by the Princess. It is true that it was only by the ge nerosity of his Royal Highness that the creditors of the Princess had any claim ; for .as they had nor cont., plied with the rules of the law enacted for the regula tion of the Prince of Wales's income, in which it was expressed that unless all debts were given in within three mouths after they had been contracted they should not be re-claimable. It was thusto thegenerosity of his Royal Highness,that the creditors of the Princess of Wales were indebted for the payment which has been alluded to, and riot to any wanton the part of his Rojas Highness of legal rrotection. But his Royal Highness was not secure against being liable to the future debts If the Princess, as he might at any time have been 'ubliged to pay any debt contracted by the Princess,' nor creditors had talcce the trouble to give in their claims to the Prince within the stated erne. It may be doubted, indeed, whether it would tot hat" been Azix sufficient bar to the rem Cron the pritite of all I debts eostraeted by the • ef VAdes, that the two illustrious persons were iondy in a state of separation, and fat her loyal Highness had a sepa rate allowance assigned for bee sustenance. If in such a ease, independently of all Reeds o f i mp ij a il tn i , the creditors of the wife could not recover a fortiori with a deed of separation, they could not have any claim. But it was the peculiar situation of the Prince of Wales at that time, that for the purpose of justice to his actual creditors, the Parliament had taken away from him the ability d incurring debts, and from en tering into any deed which might affect his income. It was thus that his Royal Highness required the pro tection of the law more than any other subjtct, and it was to this purpose that the paper which has been presented to the House was drawn up, and his Ma jesty's signature affixed not only as a proof of the se paration of the illustrious parties, and the separate maintenance, but that there was not only the separa tion defrao, but such an improbability, or rather im possibility, that a termination of this separation should take place, that his Majesty was induced to lend his sanction to the deed of arrangement. From motives of delicacy, his Royal Highness had at the same time undertaken to pay the debts previously contracted by the Princess, with Ole assurance on the part of his Ma jesty, conveyed in the paper which has been men tioned, that in future cases, if any such occurred, be should be allowed to seek protection from Parliament. As to the nature of the regulations of the measure, it will be unnecessary for me to detail them minutely, until the Bill itself shall be submitted to the consider ation of Parliament. It will not be advisable to place her Royal Highness under the same disability in which the Parliament has thought fit to place the Prince of Wales, because in fact no debt has been lately incurred by her Royal Highness to call for the interference of Parliament. Another object of the measure I shall propose is, to protect the Prince Re gent from the payment of any debts which may in future be contracted by the Princess of Wales, as her Royal Highn,!ss will now have a distinct sepa rate income charged on the Consolidated Fund. I wish to propose that the net annual sum of £50,000 be granted to the Princess of Wales, and that the 45000 per ann. and the :17,000 per ann. which she 1 at present enjoys, be withheld from the Prince Re gent's income. His Lordship having stated that this was the general outline of the measure be should pro. pose, concluded by propo.ing this Resolution : " That it is the opinion of the Committee that the a!I ill, al sum of ai'..so,ooobe paid outof the Consolidated , Fund of Great Britain to the Princess of Wales." Mr. WHITBREAD ruse to set the House right as to the past income of the Princess of Wales, and duet ved that she was nit guilty of the embarrass. ment created by the Act of Parliament to which she was not a party. He could not illustrate the matter better than by an account of the various arrangements which had been made for the payment of the Prince of Wales's debts. Before the Princess of Wales came to this country, she expected to find the Prince of Wales in the full enjoyment of the splendour due to his station, as the second final arrangement for the payment of his debts had been made before her 4r t ival. Shortly after her arrival in this country, it was found impossible that his Royal Highness could con , tinue his establishments in the dignity in which PST. liament had expected them to. have be .11 maintained. In t:.e consequent reductions of the esvidishments. t`.e Princess of Wales necessarily shared: which after two final arrangements she could not have expected. Se venteen thousand pounds were, however, at that time set aside for her, whether paid into her hands or not, besides the X. 5000 which was legally due to her as pin-money, and which was vested in the hands of Lord Cholmondeley and Lord Thtirlow. In 1797 the separation was determined on, and here he should ask why the term separation was so much dwelt on by the Noble Lord (Castlereagh) ? Did he mean to found airy legal measure on such a term, or to prevent tier Royal Highness from the enjoyment of any of her just rights? Her Royal Highness was no party to a use id this word, nor did he agree that the paper which had been laid on the table amounted to a deed of separation. The Chancellor himself bad expressed the gravest doubts, whether any instrument of separation could have a legal effect. When the Princess of Wales had been limited to £12,000 a-year, it was said that it was a great act of generosity to increase her allow ance. But it was just to remember that when the Piincess left Carlton House, she had to provide her furniture, plate, house rent—for theonly articles which were given to her from Carlton House, were some knives and forks. would not, therefore, seem any. great act of generosisy that this allowance was in creased. It would be seen how moderate this allow. ante of £12,000 a-year, to which the necessity of the Prince of Wales had reduced her Royal Highness, when by an application made on his behalf on the sth of December, 1797, by Lord Cholmondeley, her Royal Highness was offered in the event of a sepa ration, a house in town with £20,000 a-year, besides the £5OOO settled on her. In 1800, however, when the separation took place, £12,000 was the extent of the allowance to her Royal Highness, and yet sur prise was expressed that a debt should have been con tracted, and paid out of the income of the Prince of Wales, to the amount of which the 46000 paid for the relinquishment of a house in Greenwich park was studiously related—(No, from Lord Cardereagh.)— That was the impression made on his (Mr. W.'ll) mind at the time. All that was necessary on this part of the question, was to relieve her Royal Highness from the imputation of extravagance, and from the idea of her having any wish or desire of the means of gratifying that propensity, or that such was.the intention of the applications which had been made to the. Honse.— She had been satisfied with the allowance whiLti she had possessed, nor had any disposition to have it in creased, until she had known the sense of the I louse on the subject. No such intention was entertained by any one who had applied to Parliament on the subject of her Royal Highness, and be (Mr. Whit bread) could•distinetly state, that the Princess had never authorized any one, directly or indirectly, to make any proposition on the s ubj ect o f i ncreasing h er income since ! he arr angement of I WA/. Lord CAS TLER EAGH observed, that though an arrangement, which was considered final, had been made respectmg the prince of Wales's debts, yet as li e) , had been co ntracted, it was necessary for them N some manner t o b e paid. H. (Lord Castlereagh) tad not mention e d t h e som of 4.13,000 for the House at Greenwich, as lav;ng been paid out of the Prince Admiralty.. r t h d. t on ui nt hin et et a ic e , ea 4mt being wobeen unngtwo I,l::jesP aboai2du t of of Wales's income- 4 out d of the Prin ce of Wales 's dehts intended to have been paid on those the Admiralty, but which were out of the Droits of left 'Drily y Dv paid t s d of the Princess paid by the Pi i ton had been Added her income, it woull have of 02,000 per annum, with amounted to an aconse Princess Aso bad never a remainder of £6,000. The • If the amou ioirn n of her places of residence, been at theaeatiessapenee ni t A cd. d th t a i t ie d ol ts been assigned to her by the statement not intend to found any argument oa for places of residence , be had made, yet be thought it just that the Prince h w i i s til M cnn ajest u y d . erabk Thou n g u h tfi h t e had d id never eny husband had surrendered up so MAC done: and that what. wife as his Royal Highness had aration it had he had d t shezdeld for tb f e uß pri cred bee i e t u for the He ex eep ertoo le s dh which ever was the cause or mull of the sep never been his incentive to visit the Priam' with any pecuniary Meer venience. Princess out of the Droits of the Adm i ral t y , and not between 2T6Bi andtE A sei D 7,o o uo bse b rv e e d d, be i e n n p e a s i p d la f na er ti d on :: that scs f , b e r o . oo in tended to l:are been so paid. Mr. TIERNEY observed on the real eff ect of the , which was the amount of all the debts o further. Sorry as lie was that it existed to this extent. he s hould decline isebepeammptiaotnib—ilitthritetfiteewmapserson,eaub-hdicbh had arisen from an all further comment—(Hear.) He gave tlisnks to the Noble Lord for what he had achieved, to which all he had done before was nothing to this recom mendation to Parliament for this allowance of fifty thmissnd pounds a-year to the Princess of Wales.— The effect of this measure would be speedily found, I and on a day when our feelings would be in unison with: such a happy event—he meant, on the Thanks giving-day. In the Procession on that occasion, he hoped and trusted the Princess would find a pl.tee— not so near to the Prince as she might have been un der other circumstances, but as tar off as the case would permit—(4 laugh.) He again thanked the Noble Lord for what lie had done, and hoped he would be also successful in bringing about the event to which he (Mr. Tierney) had alluded .(Hear, hear!) He (Mr. Tierney) if he had been one of the advisers • of her Royal Highness, should give her his opinion, that it would not be advisable for her to Burt en the country with so large a sum as the £50,000 a-year now offered to her. But supposing so large a sum to have been accepted, what was to become of the remainder of the £60,000 paid to the Regent as Prince of Wales, when die £17,000 was deducted. This sixty thousand pounds had been granted to the Prince of Wales for the joint lives of himself and his Majesty. This was given in die contem plation that the civil list would never be enjoyed by the Prince of Wales b fore the death of his Majesty. His Majesty, it was true, still survived, whether hap. pily or unhappily he scarce could say, and the Prince Regent received the £60,000 vot?d for the support of l,i, dignity of Prince of Wales, while he was act in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty and ounded by his State. Why was not then this 060,000 taken away' It was said that it was ap propriated to pay his debts, but it was an inconsist ency that the Parliament should pass an Act to say that the Prince of Wales should hay. no debts, and then immediately allow him to pay them with this i'60.000 a year without taking any notice of the matter. Why then shculd a fresh charge be made on the consolidated fund ? Why could not 450,000 of this £60,000 be transferred from the name of the Prince of %Vales to that of the Princess ? The real operation of the measure as at present proposed won'd be, that the Prince of Wales would eurthen the country, while the Princess would bear the odium. If any incumbrance remained to be paid (in what. ever mysterious terms they were wrapt up), why were they not paid directly and above board, and Princess of as the Sovereign not suffered in such a way to continue as to prevent the i g reat e P r ince hop ed ße o tt f iat a ale ? s i world re n pe ot ated countryl4: e t tiro t ac cept the whole of the proifered income of Fifty Thousand Pounds ; but, if she did, he thought she should not incur the odium of an increased h c arge on the country. Lord CASTLEREAGH disclaimed any credit to himself for the proposition which he had made. More credit was due to the Honourable Gentleman whom he did not see in his place (Mr. Methuen) ; for if the advocates of the Princess had before fairly said that an increase of her allowance was the object, there would have been no difficulty on the subject. In answer to what bad fallen from a Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney), be should say, that the last opportunity on which he should endeavour to bring together parties who felt mutusl repugnance, would be on an occasion when the devotion should not be interrupted in such a manner. As to the in. come formerly granted to the Prince of Wales, it had been applied since the time of the regulation which first took place of the Regency, to the liquidation of the debts of the Prince Regent. Since that time the liquidation had proceeded ; not one newelebt had been charged on that fund, and it was the i • ntention of the Prince Regent that no new debts should be charged on it, and when the present debts were liqui dated, it would revert to the country. Mr. TIERNEY sa id h e was satisfied, now be un derstood that the fund in question existed only till the Prince's debts were paid, although he did not kn ow when that w ou ld b e , or what the dubs were. As t o the appearance of the Princess on the Than I 6 k g . ving Day, he did not as k the Noble Lord to work impos sibilities, but it was reasonable that when the Home nt Commons had voted to the Princess of Wales so large a sum as £50,000 a year, that she should be !Present at a solemnity at e which Royal Peeresses, Lords and Commoners were b e He did not e x p ect any reconcilia • bu t to it would be present. pleasing to th e p ubl i c to see the two it nY.dpersellageb together, and earnestly hoped, th at t he rank of the Princess would b e respected on that Ncasion, because, otherwise, so large a vote would savour of a bribe or a compromise. He was persuaded that the m,, a Lord could mean no such insult, and that th e R egeot was incapable of i t . T he Proclamation that all perso ns should goto on Churcb com manded Thursday-, and that such as did not, would fall Highness's severe displeasure. wider hi s R oya l What, then, was the Princess to do ? Was she to he shut nut from the Ca. thedral Chnrcb ? He hoped not; but that if not in eermornical arrangements b: now proposed was not necesl believed never would be reqi ceeded her income, and slit