The National Register.
London, England, 1818-04-19 00:00:00

id/i(1/44.
(*Vii 1 ter.; 4,,if

No. 532.—V0i.. X.I.

POLITICAL DISQUISITION.

ROYAL MARRI GES.

'louse of Ceremons hove been this week em-
discuesing the most delicate of all subjects--
tile revenues stud expenditure cf the Royal Family,
svith a view to the making at. odditiena: provision far
such members cf it as should enter into the married
state. It was the original intention of the Ministers to
propose en increase of 20,0001. per annum to the Duke
of Clarence, and 12,000 i. to the Du .es of Kent, Cum-
berland, and Cambridge. Upon submitting this, how-
ever, to the consideration of a meeting of their friends,
it was deemed too liberal, and the respective stuns were
in consequence reduced to one:halE Our Parliamentary
Report shows, that the House of Commons considered
even this too ;Large, rad made a further reduction of
4,0001. in the ease of the Duke of Clarence, putting -
a negative altogether on the grant to the Duke of Cum-
berland. We shall not stop to enquire whether the
principles of abstract justice were sufficiently attended
to in this refusal, while a similar sum was voted to the
Duke of Cambridge, but proceed to treat of the ques-
tion upon general grounds. Much was said in the
lleuse respecting the impropriety of making invidious
distinctions, and we certainly think that those Gentle-
men acted most consistently who either supported or
opposed both the grants.
From the whole proceedings, many reflections arise,
and some of a very gratifying nature, as they regard
the excellence of our Constitution, and tile proud pre-
eminence which it enablea us to enjoy over the nations
of the Continent. In what other country couldiuck a
discussion have taken place ?—.Where would the claims
and resources of a ruling family have been freely can-
vassed, and partially rejected, but in Britain ? Look-
ing at the question is this point of view, and with
strict impartiality, we have no hesitation in saying
-that we rejoice at the result, as it affords a convincing
,proof otthe independence of our countrymen, and a
triumphant answer to the assertion that the House is
always guided by the Minister. Former instances of
vir.essful opposition are indeed sufficient to repel this,
but the preceut is perhaps the most decided, as it em-
braces what may be 2upposed the feelings of the Royal
Family, upon a subject of delicacy, and overlooks them
for the more exalted and truly. British feeling of puhßc
duty. We repeat, that this conclusion is gratifying,
inn:winch as it proves thwundaunted spirit, and the ra..
lite of the I louse of Commons ; and we arc persuaded
that both the Illustrious Family and the Ministry will
cheerfully submit'to the decision, produced, es it un-
doubtedly was, by the votes cf those men who have
been always accustomed to place thesreatesteonfidence
in their measures; and. whose opposition, on the pre-
sent occasion, could not possibly be consecte3 with any
party tindiug, or disposition to derogate from the just
splendour and dignity of the town. One circum-
stance we do regret—and that is, the abandon-
nunn of the treaty of marriage which was entered into
for the Duke of Clarereee but which, Lord Cnstlerea;:h
stated, his Rot-al Highness now telt himself obliged to
decline, as he did not conceive the sum allowed by the
House, to be eufficicest fn supporting the degree of
s.,ilendour tvlddit his rank and altered circumstances
would require. Now, we must sal that we are net
convinced that this is altoectlier correct, for if 60:101
were considered as sufficient r.,r the ether Royal Dukes,
why should it not be so tbr all ? This, of course, is
without reference to the id..sa or his Royal Highness
being entitled to additioaal consi:leration as Heir Pre-
itniptire. We cannot agree with the Opposition
their view of the state of the sueeessien. It is a
law fire, ns renittri:c.l liv Lord Liverpool, that mine of
hih children have. any imuc, and we think
that oa 1.111.0 al.-..:01:111, the marri.sges of C. 1% noyu