The Sun.
London, England, 1827-02-17 00:00:00

that he has any enlarged state to keep up, any dignity to sup-
port now, as Heir Presumptive to the Throne, which he had not
to keep up as one of the Illustrious Princes of the House of Bruns •
wick—if, it can be proved that the scale of his expenditure for
which provision was made before by Parliament, must of necessity
—or I will even go farther—must fairly and reasonably be consi-
derably enlarged now, then the question would rest upon a different
footing. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer took no such
ground, he made no such statement; but he rested the preposition
upon what •I am satisfied will turn out to be a mere misconception,
or misrecollection of facts. The Right Hon. Gent. has said, that
on all former occasions, in making provision for the younger
branches of the Royal Family, regard was had to their proximity
to the Throne. Now no such distinction was made in the last ad-
dition of 6,0001. a year to the income of all these illustrious per-
sons, with the exception of the Duke of York, who had been pro-
vided for before. The Right Hon. Gent. argued, that as often as a
person became heir apparent or presumptive, his income was aug-
mented. This was not, however, the case; for when the Duke of
York became heir apparent, upon the death of the Princess Charlotte,
not one farthing was added to his income. But then it may be said
that this has been done often enough before. When has it been
done before ? Was the provision granted to the Duke of York
on his marriage in 1792 granted to him as heir presumptive ?
No such thing. The Duke of York was not heir presumptive,
for there was an heir apparent to the Throne--his present Ma-
jesty, then Prince of Wales. The allowance to the Duke of York
on his marriage, he it too much or too little (and I will say a
word or two on that subject presently), was not made to him
as heir presumptive, nor because he was the elder of the
younger branches of the Royal Family. No distinction what-
ever was made between one Prince and another, nor any
preference shewn to one of the younger branches of the Fa-
mily because he was older than another. This proposition
I take to be demonstrated by the conduct of the Govern-
ment in MG, as well as by the course taken on all pre-
vious occasions. With regard to the Prince of Wales, as heir
apparent to the Throne, a distinction has always been taken,
and most justly, for he stands in a peculiar situation. He en-
joys by law certain ample rights and privileges, which belong
to the station he occupies in the kingdom. The King, tl4t
Queen Consort, the Heir Apparent, and the Princess Royal,
stand in a peculiar situation, distinguished by law from that of
all the other branches of the Royal Family. Every one feels,
that when the law raises a man to an eminent dignity, and puts
upon him the expence inseparable from an eminent station, it
is fitting that Parliament should provide the means of defray •
ing that expence. The constitutional principle has always
been, that as the law places the Queen Consort and the Heir
Apparent in a different situation from that of the other branches
of the Royal Family, their dignity should be maintained by a larger
expence, and consequently a larger income. But the law recog-
nises no other distinction, and the Heir presumptive stands in no
other situation than that of any one of the junior branches of the
Royal Family. He is not called upon to incur any extraordinary
expence ; and when the Right Hon. Gent. attempts now, for the
first time, to make out a case for a larger allowance, it is incurn.
bent upon him to shew that there is, legally and constitutionally,
some difference in the situation of the Illustrious person in ques-
tion. This he has not done ; his reference to precedent, when
examined, however lightly, entirely fails. I, therefore, with
whatever reluctance, feel myself compelled to vote for further de-
lay, in order to inquire more minutely into the state of the case.
The Duke of Clarence is not called upon to incur any additional
expellee as Heir Presumptive to the Throne; and I look at the
case, without any reference whatever to the public conduct or
private virtues of the Royal Duke, simply as I would that of any
other Member of the Royal Family filling the station which he
occupies. The character and conduct of that illustrious person
are calculated to leave no other feeling in my mind than that of
deep regret at the course which my sense of public duty compels
me to take, and also of regret that this question should ever have
been brought under the consideration of the House.

Mr. Secretary PEEL was fully sensible that there
were no more unpleasant subjects of public discussion than that
now under the consideration of the House. It certainly did not
admit of rigorous demonstration that the sum of 9,0001. a-year
was exactly the sum which ought to be awarded to the Illustrious
Individual who filled the station of the Duke of Clarence. If the
subject were one which admitted of his going into minute details,
he believed such details would lead to the inference, that placed as
the Duke of Clarence was in the situation of Presumptive Heir to
the Throne, the addition of 3,000/. a-year to his income, and a
grant of 6,000/. a-year to the Princess, his Illustrious Consort,
was not an unreasonable proposition. Such, appeared to him,
would be the general impression. He was perfectly willing to
admit, that at this time, when considerations of expense were most
important, no unreasonable proposition for the maintenance even
even of the decent splendour of Royalty ought tp he made. But
he did not think the state of the country was such as to
preclude a reasonable addition to the income of the per-
son filling the station of Presumptive Heir to the Throne.
He could not help thinking that, although the precedent of the
allowance made to the Duke of York did not exactly apply in
point of law, it was practically a precedent precisely in point.—
He could not agree with the Honourable and Learned Gentleman,
that his Right Hon. Friend had overstated, in point of fact, the
example of the allowance made to the Duke of York. If, as the
Hon. and learned Gentleman had shewn, the Duke of York did
not stand in the situation of Presumptive Heir to the Throne,
this was a still stronger instance of the liberality of Parliament on
that occasion, and there was the less reason for objecting to a
mmlerate addition to the income of a person standing in a
nearer degree of proximity to the Throne than the Duke of York
did at that time. The Honourable Member opposite was mis-
taken in stating, that a much larger grant was now proposed
to the Duke of Clarence, than that which had been made to
the Duke of York. The difference did not amount to more than
fifteen hundred pounds ; the whole sum voted to the Duke of
York and his Duchess having been 37,000/. ; and that to the
Duke of Clarence and his Duchess being 38,5001. the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman was wrong in supposing, that on
former occasions, proximity to the Throne had not been taken
into consideration. When the grant was made to the Duke of
York, Mr. Pitt founded his application to Parliament on the
Duke's proximity to the Throne. Mr. Pitt, in proposing the
Grant on that occasion, declared in the plainest language, that be
did not consider it at all as a precedent to be followed with regard
to other Members of the Royal Family. He required, he said, that
the grant should he given solely on account of the proximity of
his Royal Highness to the Throne, and if similar settlements were
to be proposed to other Members of the Family, he would not
consider himself bound to regulate them by the example of the
settlement bestowed on the Duke of York. In Mr. Pitt's opi-
nion, therefore, the proximity was the ground of the grant
to hie Royal Highness the Duke of York, and the proximity,
notwithstanding what may be asserted respecting the legal part
of the question, was the ground in the present case. The
Hon. Member for Wincheisga (Mr. Brougham) had argued
that his Royal Highness was not the Presumptive Heir to the
Crown in the eye of the law, and he had unqueetionably stated
the point with great fairness and with perfect legal accuracy ; ti,)ut
although he admitted that the Duke of Clarence might not legally
be placed in that situation, it was not to be denied for an instant
that he filled the place of an Heir Apparent—that he would be
recognised in that situation for many important purposes—and
that, in point of expence, he would be subjected to all the claims
attendant upon it. If the Hon. Member for Aberdeen chose to
deal in expressions of exaggeration, and to meet the question by
details of the distress which unhappily prevailed, and. to say that
the nine thousand pounds then demanded for the establish-
ment of the Duke of Clarence might be much snore usefully
employed in purchasing bread for a starving people, be could
only observe, without in the slightest degree affecting indiffer-
ence to the sufferings of those to whom he alluded, that there
was no period, even of the greatest prosperity, when the
Honourable Member -might not be able to use the same
argument, and to say that they must not indulge themselves
iu the expence of any national object, because there might he
some persons unhappily placed in a state of distress, upon whom
the money might he bestowed. Nothing, however, of all that
the HonouraWe Member said, excited in him more surprise than
the assertion, that it was a disgrace to his Majesty's Govern-
ment to send that Circular Letter, which called upon the Bishops
to g. °licit relief for the distressed. That Leger had been written
by his ad,eief.. ; it bad been at his express solicitation that an at-
tempt had been ma).e to produce a fund for the relief of the
sufferers, through the aid of religious worship ; and so far from
the application having been made in Fain, and having produced
only six thousand pounds, he believed the Honourable Member
would find, upon ipquiry, that very nearly fifty thousand pounds
had been collected. He could not but regret that the Honourable
Member in the opposition he thought proper to give to the mo-
tion, had chosen to mix up topics which had no possible con-
nection with the question, and instead of following the steps of
the Honourable Member and the Noble Lord (Mr. Brougham and
Lord Althorp), who preceded him, and whose opposition and
whose protest were founded upon public grounds, had attached to
the question arguments and accusations which hi:ordered very
strongly upon invidiousness.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE said, the main point
rested upon public grounds, and must be dealt with, however
painful it might be to the feelings of individuals, by the conscien-
tious discharge of a public duty. The single question was, whe-
, tiler the income of the Duke of Clarence was to be increased