Star.
London, England, 1825-05-28 00:00:00

THE FQFAL FAMILY.

y.

On the motion of the Cnancat.r.os of the Excwitausa, the House ,
resolved itself Into a Committee of Supply.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then,
after some prefatory observations, stated, that at the
marriage of his Royal Highness the Duke of Kent,
in 1818, an addition of _6OOOl. a year was made to his '
income, and an annuity of 60001. a year was secured to '
the Duchess of Kent, in case of her surviving the Duke
her husband. That undoubtedly was a very liberal
and fair proposition, as it regarded the then situation
of her Royal Highness ; but it was not granted with
any view to a family ; for 60001. a year was obviously
not sufficient to enab!e her Royal Highness to main-
tain her state and dignity; and, at the same time, to
educate her children. Without going int& minute de-
tails, it would be clear to the House, that considering
the situation in which the young Princess stood to the
Crown, it was the duty, as it would be the inclination
of the House, to provide for her education. He had
not the honour of being connected with the Duchess of
Kent, but from the concurring testimony of all who
knew her, he could say, she was a most amiable lady,
and had discharged her duty in the education of the
young Princess in the most exemplary manner.—
He should therefore propose, that an addition of 60001.
a year should be made_to the income of her Royal
Highness. He next came to the situation of the Duke
of Cumberland. On his marriage an addition of 60001.
a year was proposed to his income ; but with that pro-
position of the Crown, the House of Commons had not
thought fit to acquiesce ; principally on the ground that
the marriage was not considered so satisfactory as to
induce the House to acquiesce in the proposed increase;
and afterwards, in 1818, the House, to a similar pro-
position, urged the same arguments; but the objections
then stated did not apply to the circumstances at pre-
sent, for the young Prince -was not then born ; but he
was now arrived at the age of six years, and though
not in the same position of proximity as the young
Princess Alexandrina, with respect to the throne, yet
the House would perceive that there was a great public
interest concerned, in giving the Prince an education
in this country. Though his Royal Highness had for
some time resided abroad—( Hear, hear)—yet he could
assure the House that it was from no distaste, but from
a feeling that he could not reside here on a similar foot-
iug with the other members of the Royal Family. He should
propose, therefore, an increase to the sante amount as that which
he had proposed for the Duchess of Kent.
Mr. BROUGHAM coincided with the Right Ron.
Gentleman as to the vote for the Duchess of Kent, but
with respect to the other vote he would observe, that
he believed the objections formerly urged against the
grant to the Duke of Cumberland, were not on account
of the marriage, which it might be presumed was not
exceedingly unsuitable, or the King would, as he might

igly ,
have prevected it. His (Mr. Brougham's) real belief
was, that from some rooted dislike on the part of the
people of the country, which was also felt by their Re-
presentatives, the refusal to increase his income might
be traced. In that dislike he would not say whether
he partook, but certainly it was a prejudice which pre-
vailed with every man, woman, and child in the country.
The Duke, though possessing no office like the Duke
Cambridge, still chose to reside abroad, and his in-
come at present of 19,0001. a year, was certainly equal
there to 25,000/. in England. The people had a right
to know why he did not reside here ? Let him do as his
brother the Duke of York, who, though crippled by
debts, to the diminution of the dignity, as he thought,
of the Royal Family, did not apply to that House for
the payment of them as otheri of the Royal Family'
had done once and again. Though so crippled (and
really he was ashamed.to mention it). as to have his
carriage taken in execution ; and what Honourable
Gentleman was there who would not think himself dis-
graced if he could not attend a Race C :urse wit' ont
a chance of such an accident ? yet no application had
been made • but he (Mr. Bropgham) would rather vote a grant to
pay those debts, than give it to another member of the Royal
Family, who, for aught they knew, might be wallowing in wealth.
Mr. HUME could not agree with his Learned Friend
that because an indi v id u.l chose to get in debt, it should
aerelore be ground for an application.to Parliamen'.—
He was very glad to accede to this proposition on be alf
of the Duchess of Kent, tl.ough he thought it was rasher
tat dy justice, and ought to have been proposed two or
three years ago. With regard to the vote of the Duke of
Cumbetland, if he would stand alone, lie was resolved
to take the sense of the House upon i:. Tie circum-

4.'Mllfi7TWWr

VPN'Tio

'stances were thesame, except this young Prncesi educa-*1
tion - but was 6.0001. a-year necessary tor that purpose?
He A4r. Hume) would undertake that for 1001. in the
Nei; College he would get a better education than if
6,0001. a-year WAS given for that purpose. With 19,0001.
a-year the Duke ontiht to educate his own children.—
He would object to this vote, if it were only on this ground, that it
placed the young Prince on a footing with the Heiress Apparent.
Sir I. COFFIN said. if the Heir Apparent was in such a state
of embarrassment as had been stated, he hoped the Crown would
take steps to have the debts immediately liquidated. lie knew that
to his tailor his Royal Highness was at present indebted 212,000.
Mr. MONCK thought the allowance to the young Princess too
much, hut he did not consider that the Duke of Cumberland was
entitled to any addition.
Sir CHARLES FORBES thought it a disgrace to
~the country that the Duchess of Kent had been so long
allowed to live on so inadequate an allowance as 6,000/.
Ile heartily agreed in the proposed addition. Ile should- also agree
in granting the additional allowance to the Duke of Cumberland,
which would enable him to live in this country. Ile thought it a
disgrace to the country that the Duke of Cumberland should be
condemned unheard.
Sir J. Al A RJORI BANKS would willingly support a grant to
the Duke of York, who had always been such a distinguished and
benevolent friend to the military.
Mr. T. WILSON said, if they sought to instruct their Princes
in what would promote moral good feeling and humanity, they
should do it at home. lie felt great pleasure in supporting the
grant to the Duchess of Kent, from The uniformly exemplary
manner in which she conducted herself—(lleat).
Mr. BERNAL WAS sorry that the second proposition
was brought before the House, as it was calculated to
excite feelings which ought not to be aroused. Ile ob-
jected to the grant of 6.0001. a year additional, because
he thought the income of 18,0001. a-year already en-
joyed by the Royal Duke (a sum equal to 25,0001. to
a person living in any part of Germany) was quite suf-
ficient. But the addifonal grant was said to be for the
education of his child. That was no fair ground for
the demand. Honourable Members had talked of in-
sinoations against the Duke of Cumberland. but he
, thougi t the proposition o: the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, which made the removing of the child from
the care of the father a condition of the grant, a more
severe insinuation than any that had yet been made. It might be
' said that the Royal Duke would come and reside here, but what
security had they that such would be the case, after this grant
were voted ?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER begged
distinctly to deny that he had said,or meant to convey any
insinuation that a condition of the present grant would
be the removal of the young Prince from the care of
his father. What he did say was, that it was the feel-
ing of Ministers, the feeling of the King himself, that
the young Prince should be educated in England. It
was with that view that the grant was made; he pro-
posed it on no other ground. But it did not follow
from this that he should be taken from his royal father.,
The Duke of Cumberland might; and probably uould,
come to reside in this country ; but the residence here
of the young Prince, his son, for his education, was par-
ticularly desirable. As to the objections which had
been urged on former occasions, when a grant was pro-
posed to the Duke of Cumberland, they were in general
founded on the disapproval of his marriage. Some few
Honourable Members might have objected to the con-
duct of the Royal Duke, but the main objection to the
increase rested on the disapproval of the Duke's mar-
riage. It was objected that the Royal Duke did not
reside in the country, and at the same time it was said
that he was generally unpopular. Now he thought it
was too hard for those who held (what he did not ad-
mit) that his Royal Highness was unpopular in this
country, to object at the same time to h:s residing out
of it. The fact was, he believed, his residence abroad
was occasioned by the delicate state of his Duchess's
health, which made a resort to some of the baths on
the Continent necessary. With regard to the compa-
rison which had been made as to the Duke of Sussex,
he thought it did not hold good. The Duke of Sussex
had no children—at least, he had none who were in the
situation of Princes of the Blood. His marriage was
not recognized, as being contrary to the Royal Mar-
riage Act of this country. His Lady did not live with
him—she enjoyed an allowance of 4,0001. or 5,0001. a
part of which was from the Government of this coun-
try. There was, therefore, no fair comparison between the situ-
ation of the two Royal Dukes.
Mr. J. MARTIN said he felt it necessary to oppose
the repeal of certain taxes-this year, because he did not
think the revenue of the country too greai: but he
thought, on the same principle, that no unnecessary ad-
dition should be made to our expenses. He did not
think the grant to the Duke of Cumberland necessary,
and would oppose it. He would support that to the Duchess
of Kent.
Mr. Secretary PEEL, alluding to the thin state of the
benches opposite, observed that they a ere nearly empty,
because Hon. Members felt that the p;oposition of his
light Hon. Friend was a fair one, and ought not to be
opposed. Upon the first proposed grant—that to the
Duchess of Kent—there seemed to be but one opinion;
but on the second, there was an objection—that the
House had already refused a similar application. The
refusal, he contended, was founded on objections to the
marriage of his Royal Highness; but since then he had
had a son born to him who might hereafter succeed
to the throne of these countries. His case, therefore,
was different now from what it was then. But
the Hon. Member, for Aberdeen, it seemed, was not
disposed to allow any sum for the education of the young
Prince. At least, he would limit it to 1001. a year, and
that in the intended London University, where he might
share the education of mechanics. He was rather bur•
prised that, as the Hqnourable Member was disposed to
favour a cheap.mode of education, he did not point out
another University, of which he was the Leared Rec-
tor, and where it might be had on terms equally rea-
sonable—(Hear). As to the general question, he thought
it would be but fair to place the Duke of Cumberland
on the same footing with his Royal brothers who were
married. They who objected to the residence of the
Royal Duke abroad ought to support this motion, be-
cause the proposed grant would remove one objection
to his not coming to live in England—namely, that his present al-
lowance was not adequate to support his rank in this country.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said he would support the grant, if he
had any assurance that the young Prince of Cumberland should re-
ceive his education in England.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was sorry he
was misunderstood. He repeated' that the principle on which he
asked for the grant was, that the young Prince of Cuntberland
should receive his education in England. If he did not ask it on
that ground, he would not ask it at all. At the same time he did
nut think it would be fair to accompany the grant with a clause that
the Duke of Cumberland should in future reside in England.
Sir E. KNATCH BULL asked—Suppose this grant carried, and
the young Prince was kept on the Continent for five or six years
longer, would the object of the grant be answered?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, he had no
hesitation in saying, that in such case the object of the grant would
not be answered, and he 'Wild be deceived.
Mr. DENMAN said. he was certain there was no
second opinion in the House on the propriety of the
grant to tie Duchess of Kent ; but he, for one, would
not agree to a grant of one shilling to the Duke of
Cumberland. It Made a precethnt for similar grants,

.
.

to other Princes, and accordingly, even befo:e it was
disposed of, they were asked to pay the Duke of York's debts ;
the mom given for which was, that he owed his tailor 12,11001..—
(Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. Secretary CANNING protested against the
course adopted by several Me sobers, of discussing the
rights of persons hypothetically. He thought that aft
Illustrious Person (the Duke of York) had been most
ufrnofmairblyrindgealt bringing his
prUiviftleloayeal airsHbiegihonreesps had abstained
arliament
Parliament, and
it was a most unkind reward for such forbearance, to
moot the point by supposititious arguments,whether, if
he did apply to the Hous, he would be deemed a fit
object of relief? It was not by any person professing
friendship for the Duke of Cumberland that his nanie
had been introduced, and yet the conduct of his Ito) al
Highness had been discussed as freely as if he had
brought himself in forma pauperis to sue for relief.
With reference to the Duchess of Kent, all parties
agreed in the propriety of the giant, and if Govern-
ment had anything to answer for on this point, it was
for having so long delayed bringing it before the House. ,
There could not be a greater compliment to her Royal
Highness than to state the quiet unobtrusive tenour of
her life, and that she had never made herself the object
of public gaze, but had devoted herself to the education
of her child, whom the House was now called upon to
adopt. With respect to the vote to the son of the Duke of
Cumberland, he begged the House to consider, that this
child stood next in succession to the Crown after that
person, for whom, on account of his proxiniity, the
House had made a more than ordinary prevision. It
had been said, that by a residence abroad, the child
might have its morals, habits, and notions conta-
minated, and be unfit to perform the duties of a
British Prince; but the object of the vote o
to secure the residence in England of the son,
and this not because the child was the um of the Duke
of Cumberland, but because he was to the throne
longiore proxirnus interoako. It was the duty of the
Government not to allow any person standil4 in such
a relation to the Crown, to be educated nut ofgEngland,
and not one shilling of the present grant ought to be
issued, if this child were not brought up in this coun-
try. The original refusal to grant to the Duke of
Cumberland an allowance equal to those of his Royal
Brothers, was grounded upon "the disapprobation ex-
pressed against his marriage. The second re usal to
make him any such allowance was expressly founded
upon the same grounds. After two such refusals, and
if there were any deeply-rooted dislike to his Royal
Highness lurking, not only in that House, but through-
out the whole nation, was it not natural that he should
seek a retirement in a country where he could asso-
ciate with the relations of his wife? In this situ itian
we now find him, with a son born subsequently to
these refusals, and that son at an age at which educa-
tion ought to commence. lithe Duke of Cumberland
had good reasons for residing abtoad, surely the House•
ought to rescue the child that might be the future
King. The responsibility for the application of this
,grant, lay in the advisers of the Crown.
Sir C. FORBES thought that the chief source of the
violent animosity that existed against the Duke of Cu tn.
berland was his having ousted " the Talents." He thought the grants
of the*House to the Royal Family extremely niggardly.
Mr. JOHN WILLIAMS should waive all consi.
deraion of the grant to the Duchess of Kent, on the
propriety of which every person seemed to agree. Con-
, fining himself, therein., to the Duke of Cumberland.
he strongly objected that his allowance should be more than treble
that of the Duchess of Kent's, and yet the grant to Ids-child was
equal to that proposed for the child of the Duchess.
The CHAIRMAN now put the proposition of granting 6,000/.
per annum for the support and education of Alexandrina, ViCtOti3,
daughter of the late Duke of Kent, which was carried unanimously.
Upon the CHAIRMAN proposing the vote of 6,0001. a-year, for
the education of George Frederick Alexander Charles Ernest Au-
gustus, son aids Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland—
Mr. CRIPPS rose, and moved that the words" in Great Bria
tale,' be inserted after the word education.
The CHA NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER strongly objected
to the Amendment, after the unequivocal assurance he had given on
the part of Government, thattite money was bona fide intended for
the education of the child in England, and in England alone.
Mr. J. P. GRANT said, if the Amendment were not carried, the
pledge new given to the House would not be recorded at all, and
could not in future be acted upon, if the present Administration
were dissolved. He should therefore support the Amendment.
Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) would vete for the grant without
any ouch condition as that expressed in the Amendment; he would
support the grant with a view to augment the income of the illus-
trious individual for whose advantage it was designed. •
Lord BINNING said the object of the grant was to enable hi.
Majesty to support and educate the child. He strongly objected
to the amendment.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT placed every reliance on the declare-
don of Ministers, but the object was, that the child should berths-
elated in &kiln, and the House could consent to the augmentation
on no other ground.
Mr. HUSKISSON said this was not a vote for the
Duke, but for the Prince of Cumberland. That Prince
was not far remote from the succession, and might in
course of events be the person on whom the clown
should devolve. This was a sufficient reason why his
education ought to be liberally provided fop. If the
amendment were carried it would become part of the
law of the land, and the Child could not go abroad for
a month or six weeks, even for the sike of health, or if
he did, the Exchequer would not be justifi:d in issuing
the payment of the grant. He was as anxious as any
person that the purposes for which the grant was voted
should be effected, and he cohld not think it consistent with the mode
in which affairs were conducted in this country, that the intentions
of Parliament should net be attended to.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, his objection was to
making this grant to the Duke of Cumberland. He would
cheerfully vote it to his Majesty for the education of the
child in this country, which he considered to be a great
national_ object, but he felt no confidence in the Duke
of Cumberland, and would not consent to place the
money at his disposal, to be doled out as he should think
fit. It was very natural fot the Duke of Cumberland
to wish to remain abroad, and he would not vote one
shilling that was likely to bring him back again.---If
the resolution were not worded so as to prevent the result which
be apprehended, he should vote for the amendment.
Mr. THOMAS WILSON said, from tie best consi-
deration which he could give the question, it appeared
to him . that unless the object of the vote were more
clearly defined in the resolutionialrey should be declir-
ing the House of Commons of let 5, to have been wrong, without
being certain that they were themselves right.
Mr. C. WYNN said, there would be no inconsistency
between the proposed vote and the former conduct of
Parliament in relation to the Duke of Cumberland.
On the contrary, when the increase of allowance was
le used, one ground for the refusal was, that if *Ay
children resulted from the marria.e, they must he pro•
vided for by the State. That case had arisen, and they were now
called upon to act upon it. •
Mr. W AARE said, that he had heard nothing in tl:e
course of the rebate which relieved his mind lion) the
apprehension that, unless Parliament explicitly declared its resolu.
non, this child would be educated out of England.
Mi. Secretary PEEL suggested, the ohjcct i f
skin ing the education of the child in England could
be as well secured by in-erting a declaratory t“:C. CC