Star.
London, England, 1814-07-15 00:00:00

THE PRINCESS OF WALE&

Lord CASTLEREAGH moved the Order of
the Day for the second reading of the Princess of
Wales's Annuity Bill.
The Order of the Day was read accordingly.
Mr. TIERNEY said that he felt it necessary to
trouble the House with a few observations upon this
measure; but he begged to premise his remarks, by
stating, that in offering them he did not act either
with the knots ledge or the Princes of Wales, or
after consulting with any of the G:3ltlemen who had
been accustomed to advise her Royal Highness His
-
observations proceeded entirely from his own view
of the subject.—He was much surprised at the en-
actments of the Bill before the House : the preamble
stated, that it was to enable his Majesty to seta.: an
annuity upon the Princess of ‘Vales. In framing it,
the Noble Lord was authorized to go no further thanl
he was warranted by the terms of the Resolution of
the House, augmenting the income of the Princess
of Wales; bur the whole of this measure, two clauses
excepted, relAted entirely to transactions of the year
1809, regarding the arrangement then made between
the Prince and Princess of Wales. What relation
they had to the present Bill, Mr. Tierney could not
understand. The Bill, among Other things, recited,
that the Prince Regent was not, in future, to be lia-
ble to any of the debts of the Princess of Wales.--
Whether a provision, declaring, that 66 her Royal
Highness was under no legal obligation to pay those
debts," was sound law, Mr. Tierney was not compe-
tent to decide ; but it did seem as if the greater part
of the Bill had been framed to devise means to pre-
vent any liability by the Prince Regent. The main
objection he had to it was, that the Bill dealt most
unfairly by her Royal Highness, and perverted to
the most invidious purposes the arrangement of 1809.
One of the Papers brought down by the Noble Lord
purported to be an agreement between the Prince
and Princess of Wales. It appeared that in 1809
the creditors of the Princess of Wales represented to
Mr. Perceval and the Duke of Portland, that her
Royal Highness was indebted to them in the sum of
5E49,000, which circumstance Mr. Perceval stated
the Prince Regent, who took upon himseil the pay-
ment of that amount. In order, however, to guard
himself against future demands, he proposed to ob-
tain the sanction of an Act of Parliament, or of an
Order in Council to the citric effect. Of the list, he
was informed, that it was not customary to make
such a use ; and to the first, that it was not then
convcaient to resort, since it was 1111 L!eerned expe-
dient to come to Parliament at that time. The
House would bear this circumstance in mind, be.
cause it now was the duty of the Noble Lord to shew
why it was now more expedient and fit to resort to
Parliament than at the former period. What he
(Mr. Tierney) contended was, that nothing new had
occurred to justify such a proceeding. Since the
Prince Regent could be provided with neither or
these safeguards, a paper was signed by the parties,
which augmented the income of the Princess of Wales
£5OOO, and was deemed, under the sanction of his
Majesty, adequate to the pm [Joie which was given
in another document which was laid upon the table.
lie then read to the House an extract from this last
document, stating, that such a guarantee was ex-
tremely reasonable, and providing, that if the Prin.
ccss of Wales should again be found to hare incur.

v,

to Parliament, praying that
Regent from the payment of
those debts. Now he would
beapplication,ask what had happened
should
to Parliament for any
ed was to have been made
pear ,
since 1809 that could subject the Princess to the pm,
visions of the present Bill ? No
enactment to secure the Prince of Wales from debts
debts which she
)g
happened —o
had refused to discharge. Had this , ,
contracted by the Princess, unless she exceeded the
income settled on her, or contracted
due at the time
out of her income, a debt of 04600,
was it not herd, that at the
of the agreement. And
far from it, the Princess of Wales had discharged,
to do an act of
that tkey were obliged' to provide some security- fur
the debts of the PrincetF,
ltiibnelerawlitbye.ath the
e should mislead mwiaslsepadretfhees6cinoguntry into a. belief
the Prince of Wales against
and this, while at the same time, instead of asking
because her word or signature WAS not sufficient ?
for money, the Princess had been the first of the
Royal Family se:xi bad refused mousy—(hear 1)—
The Noble Led ( Lord Castlereagh) seemed to treat
this matter with great levity; but the Paper which
was before the House was drawn u, only becautt
his Majesty would not consent to bring the Princess
before the Parliament in 1809, while now she was
eroueht before Parliament as a person who had vio-
-1 :ted her word. He had thus stated his opinion on
the second reading, wet: the intention to go further
into the subject in the Committee. What he at pre-
sent wanted to know—Did the Noble Lord (Castle:
reagh) say that the Princess of Wales had departed
from the agreement of ISO 9, to bring her before Par.
dement as a person who had exceeded her income ?
If on this be could give him (Mr. Tierney) satisfac.
don, he should give him no further trouble, because
if the Noble Lou Lotti could prove that the Princess had
ever exceeded her income since the agreement of
1809, he should give him no further trouble.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that be had on a
former night distinctly disclaimed any belief that the
Princess had incurred any debts, and on that account
he bad not thought it necessary to put her Royal
Highness's proposed income under the regulations to
which the income of some other branches of the ,
Royal Family had been placed under. It was for
reasons perfectly distinct that he had proposed the
Bill as it stood. It was said that the title covered
nothing but a grant of money to the Princess, and
that the Resolutions of the Committee went only to
this extent. But he contended it was naturally open
to Parl ament, in granting any money, to accompany
it with any regulations which it might think fit.—
As to the title merely it would be open to the Right
Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) in the Com.
mince to propose an amendment, so that on the
technical ground nothing more could be sail. It had
been said that the papers %%Lich had been laid before
the House had nothing to do with the grant to the
I Princess. lie (Lord Castlereagh) apprehended that
they had most materially to do wall the grant, for it
would have been a reasonable ground of coinpla'int
if the Reuse had not been informed of Vie incompe-
tency; of the Princess's income, before any addition
to it was proposed. It was also most proper on ac.
count of the other provisions in sne Bill to know
what income the Princess derived from the Prince
of Wales. As to the agreement of 1809, the only
motive why it had not at that time been thought it
to come to Parliament (though a Perliamentary
enactment even then was thought the only meesere
which would be perfectly satisfactery) VIA`, that it
was deerisied most expedient, if it could be avoided,
that the concerns c the Royai Family should not at
all be entered into by Parliament. And as the
Prince of Weirs at that time had found means to
pay the debts contracted by the Princess, and to in.
crease her income, an application of the kind was
unnecessary. The Right lion. Gentleman i'ad said
that the Paper stated that tile Prince of \Vales was
not liaole to the debts of the Princes. As a general
principle, the contrary was stated in the Papers ;
but for the debts to the amount of £49.000. at that
time owing by the Princess, it was true that he was
not liable, because the creditors had not complied
with the regulations elthe Act 011)411i:emetic respect-
ing the PI lace's revenue. But as the Prince was
prospectively liable, it was then thought proper that p
he should be secured against any fresh debts. But, it
was said by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tier-
ney) why make a provision of that kind at present,but
to throw a reflection on the Princess ? The obvious
answer was, that by the Bill before the House a total
change was effected in the Princess of Wales's income.
The income of the Princess, or any part of it, was not
now at the discretion of the Prince Regent, but it had
been thought proper to give the whole income out of
the Consotideted Fund, and to take from the' Prince
the 1e12,000 a year, which he was in the habit of pay.
ing, to the Princess. At present, therefore, the stele
of the case was very different from that in which it
stood under the agreement between the parties. Por,
at that time, though the creditors of the Princess
might !Live made their claims legal chins of the
Prince, by complying with the regulations of the Act
of Parliament, yet not only might the Penne luxe
secured himself prospectively by an application to 3
Parliament, but he had in his power the rieetareo a • •
year, from whence he could deduct the debts con.
eacted by the Princess, for which he was made Gable. f
—( Hear, hear.)—As the Bill before the House took
trout the Prince all dominion over the Princess's re. •
venue,
to makeitwas any
but justllia ctaitm on thatthePrince of hisssshonld
enabled
th
htFt Rt' al
Hviieoisiisrgiicrthileginywetiaislioisleru.eHnidda:Stgb
ecuuhonrcnahtelovsjeasiuyinisevtedieci dependentirenat
octotheo
rhpneudtot
imputation
case
ittebe
between
ihtnw nature,w.tie
eanchseupst
oinsrhl,
eynui
there was no dependence on her part. The %h..
Hon. Gentleman (Mr. 'Tierney) might have knowe„
though not admitted to that intimacy with her !toy
Highness to which some other !Avower: were admit-
ted, that the Princess felt no such apprehensions on
t
n w: felt
taemst ic:icaeic
esftnohpesral
exist
dhbipaseindttert
not,
until
mentioned
public
sni
snln
itthhi eto
raee teithadrt
oledigu(uvt.igw;:i ohst;ch b
thent;
d.
repugnance
nmk:ereithattg (Lordnnahttetcnmjc
eHaCient
dn))e,i.
dni
reptigtimice to
sers
in that
ehdermhoeansonurre.ineiskineshisotepiettdatlitihti hue.oruri
letter she stated that there was nothing in the propose
Aol-.
dghrtbeltiehveer ra
the n kit' 141;111 dri
Hon. Gentleman from the tear lie entertained.
Mr. TIF.RNEY said, that the Noble Lord had rot

II

e-,* •

eonvinc+l him, and as he had not onvinced the Noble
Lord, he should not make anourr attempt at that
time. As to the letter of the Princess of Wales, it
was only an answer to a proposition of an additibn of
28 thousand a year to her income. She had then said
she'saw nothing in the proposition derogatory to her
rank or character (indeed it would have been a Won-
der if she had). He should feel it his duty in the
Committee to propose some clause to explain that it
was not understood that the Princess had exceeded
her income, if he could not, as he should endeavour to
do, reduce the Bill to a simple grant of money.
Lord CASTLEREAGH explained, that it was In
the answer of the Princess of Wales to his second
communication which contained a draft of the Bill,
shy had used the expressions he had mentioned.
The Bill was then read a 2d time, and ordered to be
*committed to-rnorro.—,Adiourried.