Star.
London, England, 1821-06-19 00:00:00

the House upon his Amendment, but he would take
the sense of the House in the Committee.
Mr. BROGDEN then brought up the Report and
the Resolutions were read a first time.
Mr. HUME wished to know from the Speaker how
he might take the sense of the House separately upon
each of the two propositions embodied in the Reso-
lution—first the amounts, and next the arrears ?
The SPEAKER explained, that the lion. Member
might propose any Amendment he thought fit upon
the first part of the Resolution, and as to the next,
it would be competent to him to make any propo-
sition for altering the date, by which his object would

be gained.
Mr. CURWEN then moved that the first Resolu-
tion be read a second time that day three months.
Mr. J. MARTIN opposed the Resolution.
Mr. BLICCHZIIg Mr. ASERCAOI4IIY, Mr. RICARDO,
and Lord Mitrosf, severally stated their intention to
vote against the Amendment, because they were wil-
ling that the annuity'should be granted, whilst they
were determined to vote against the arrears.
A division then took place upon the Amendment,
when there appeared—
For the Amendment, Ayes -
Noes
Majority for Ministers - - —126
Mr. HUME objected to the whole of this sum be-
ing charged upon the Consolidated Fund. That
Fund was already too much overcharge.l. His Ma-
jesty had the Pension List at his disposal, from which
a compensation to his Royal brother would more
properly come than from the Consolidated Fund.—
Many names upon the Pension List might be made
to give place to that of the Royal Duke; for at pre-
sent there were to be found amongst the Pensioners
the sisters of some of the first Peers in the land.—
What he proposed, therefore, was, that the House
should vote only £3,500 of the grant, leaving it open
to his Majesty, if he pleased, to make up the diffe-
rence to his Royal brother from the Pension List.—
There would be thus a saving of £2,500 to the coun-
try. In the view which he took of the subject, and
considering the embarrassed state of the I'ublic Fi-
nances, the Consolidated Fund was unable to bear
this additional load. He therefore moved, as an
Amendment, that instead of a sum of £6,000 being
charged upon the Consolidated Fund, that sum should
be reduced to £3,500.
Mr. ELLICE' had no objection to the grant of
£6,000, provided no more than £3,500 was charged
upon the Consolidated Fund, leaving it to the Crown
to make up the deficiency from the Pension List.
Mr. BERNAL said, that his Hon. Friend had
properly looked to the Consolidated Fund alone, for
that was the Public Money; but the Pension List
was a fund of which the Crown had the disposal.—
His lion. Friend's argument, therefore, was, that
0,500 was enough for the People to pay the Royal
Duke, but if the King thought fit to increase the in-
come of his Royal Brother beyond that, he might
do so, if he pleased, from the funds at his disposal.
Mr. P. MOORE objected to the grant, as coming
in a crooked and underhand way—(.4 laugh).—There
was no instance of this House following up in one
Session what had been imperfectly done in the pre-
ceding one. This grant ought to have been intro-
duced in the usual way, by a Message from the
Crown. An Election Petition presented in the Ses-
sion of 1819, would be disregarded in the Session of
1820. The whole proceeding should be begun anew.
So it was with every unfinished proceeding which
stood over from one Session to another. Whatever
would be the result of this motion, the Royal Family
could not complain of illiberality on the part of the
House, for in the late reign their debts had been more
than once paid off, to the amount of £10,000,000,
and their incomes had been increased in the most ele-
gant manner—(ol laugh).
Mr. CALCR AFT thought the House had given a
pledge, three years ago, which they were now called
upon to make good. With regard to the objections
taken on the ground of form by the Hon. Member
for Coventry, there did not appear to be much weight
in them ; for, as the proceeding stood upon the Jour-
nals, it was open to any Member, at any time, to
move that the sum voted by the House should be
made good, and it only required his Majesty's sanc-
tion to complete the transaction. Considering the
rank of the Royal Duke, the grant did not appear
extravagant; and, indeed, far from its being asked
for now to make a purse for the Royal Duke's chil-
dren, it appeared to him that it would confine that
Royal Person to a very straitened expenditure.
Mr. CREEVEY supported the Amendment, on
the ground that the Royal Duke derived £2500 from
the Consolidated Fund, more than any of his bro-
thers. The Crown might make up the deficiency
from the funds at its disposal.
Mr. DENMAN thought there ought to be a Mes-
sage from the Crown, otherwise the House did not
know whether they were granting the money with
the sanction of the Crown, or not. He contended,
that the Resolution entered on the Journals on the
17th of April, 1818, voting £6OOO to each of the.
Royal Dukes, wai the Resolution of a Committee,
snot one of the House. The House could not take
cognizance of any proceeding which took place in a
preceding Session, unless there was a Message from
the Crown to receive it.
The SPEAKER said, there was no difference in
this from any other entry on the Journals ; but that
being a money grant, the sanction of the Crown was
necessary to make it complete. The Right Honour-
able Gentleman then stated, that when the Queen, in
1814, accepted 1.35,000 instead of £50,000, the
House proceeded to vote the money without a Mes-
sage from the Crown, but simply a recommendation.
In 1815, a Message came down, desiring the House
to make provision for the Duke of Cumberland on
his marriage, which was lost. In 1818, however,
when grants were making to the other Royal Dukes,
a proposition was made for the £6OOO to be given the
Duchess of Cumberland, if the survived the Duke,
and this not by Message, but by a reference to the
former proceeding of the House in 1815. He was,
therefore, correct in assuring the House that its, forms
bad not been at all trespassed upon, and that no step
was taken in this transaction, which was not war-
ranted by the practice in the cases to which he had
just referred.
Mr. MAXWELL spoke in favour of the original
motion, but said he would oppose the arrears.
The House then divided, when there were—

For Mr. Home's Amendment -
Apinet it.

30
167

brsiority for the whole being charged on
the Chheotirlated Pun& . - 137