sideration on the following day: the address in reply to it was voted unanimously in the House of Lords, but encountered considerable opposition in the Commons. The chancellor of the Exchequer proposed a resolution, by which 3,000l. per annum were to be added to the income of the duke, and 6,000l. per annum to that of the duchess. He said, that whenever parliament had been called upon to provide for the due maintenance of any member of the royal family, the degree of proximity in which the individual might stand to the throne had always been a material ingredient in the inquiry. This principle had been applied in the case of the duke of York, even before the course of events had advanced him to that point in the line of succession at which the duke of Clarence already stood: even before his present majesty had ascended the throne, and while the princess Charlotte was still alive, he had enjoyed a higher income than his younger brothers. The condition of the duke of Clarence at present was the following. He had, charged upon the consolidated fund, an income of 26,500l.; but there was no separate allowance to the duchess, as there had been in the case of the duchess of York: all that their royal highnesses possessed conjointly, was this annuity of 26,500l., which had been granted in different portions at different periods. An addition of 3,000l. a year had arisen from the death of the duke of York. In the earlier part of the year 1820, until the civil list should be settled, which did not take place until some months after the death of his late majesty, the allow ances to the different younger branches of the royal family had

been charged upon the hereditary revenue. But in the month of July an act had been passed to regulate these allowances; it reenacted those provisions with regard to the duke of Clarence and his younger brothers, which had expired upon the death of George 3rd; and it also contained a clause, giving the members of the royal family the benefit of survivorship which they had enjoyed under earlier acts.

In consequence of this, the duke of Clarence enjoyed an additional sum of 3,000l. a-year by the death of the duke of York, which made the whole income, to which he was now entitled, 29,500l. ayear. But this was all; and there could be no more benefit of survivorship, as the law terminated the right to this advantage, when the shares of the royal brothers had been raised by it above 15,000l. ayear. There was no separate allowance to the duchess whatever. What was proposed to be done at present was, to place the duke and duchess of Clarence as nearly as possible upon the same footing, as to income, as their late royal highnesses, the duke and duchess of York, had been; with one difference which he should state in the suggested allotment of the fund. In the case of the duke and duchess of York, the whole income had been 37,000l. a year; of which the duke possessed 33,000l., and her royal highness the duchess, in her separate right, 4,000l.: what he meant to submit in the case of their royal highnesses the duke and duchess of Clarence, involved slight variation; he meant to add 3,000l. a year to the royal duke's present income, which then would be 32,500l.; and to grant to the duchess 6,000l. a year in her separate right, during the life of her

a

royal husband. He then moved a resolution to that effect.

The resolution was opposed by lord Althorpe, Mr. Hume, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. Abercromby. Lord Althorpe agreed, that, if it could be shewn that the change which had taken place would neeessarily involve his royal highness in additional expenses, it was fit ting that he should be enabled to meet them; but without some very good ground indeed, it would be wrong to add to the burthens of the people, among whom distress was already so prevalent. No case had been made out; nor had a single instance been produced in proof of the statement, that it was the constant custom of parliament to give the heir apparent a grant beyond that allowed to the other members of his family. It was true that the duke of York had possessed a larger income than his younger brothers, even when he was not heir apparent; but not a shilling had been added to it, when he became heir apparent ; and, therefore, that instance was no precedent in favour of the principle of the present grant. Mr. Hume contended that it was ungracious and inconsistent, to be proposing an additional burthen of 9,000l. a year, so soon after a royal letter to the bishops had exhorted them to use all their influence in promoting charitable contributions for the relief of the starving population. To support monarchy, he said, at such an expense, tended neither to do honour to the crown, nor to produce satisfaction with monarchy itself. He had but lately presented to the House a petition from the weavers of Black-. burn in Lancashire, praying that something might be done which would provide them with food even

of the vilest kind, and sufficient only to support nature, and the answer now given to their prayers, was a vote for adding 9,000l. a year to the income of the duke of Clarence. If, in the present situation of the country, parliament had money to spare, let it be given to those, who, by being absolutely in want of bread had a prior claim to their sympathy; and let them refrain from becoming parties to a measure which could only tend to render the royal family odious in the eyes of the people. How could any man, who looked at the misery prevalent over all the country, seriously venture to propose such an addition to an income which amounted already to 29,000l.; when tens of thousands of distressed operatives were dying for want, and yet had not been betrayed into violation of the laws. Unwilling to do any thing which might look like a reproach to the crown, he would not oppose to the motion a direct negative; but to give ministers an opportunity of withdrawing it, he would move that the chairman should report progress, and sit again for the further consideration of the proposed grant.

Mr. Brougham and Mr. Abercromby opposed the motion on the ground, that neither the custom nor the necessity on which it was justified, had been proved to exist; nor was there any principle for establishing a distinction resting merely on what was called proximity to the throne. The question rested plainly on this simple proposition-that the demise of the duke of York had imposed on the duke of Clarence, as a consequence, the necessity of incurring a greater expenditure in maintaining his rank; than he had been previously called upon to meet. But where was the

proof of this necessity? None had been stated, and the claim, in so far as it rested on that ground, must be given up as untenable. The assertion of custom was likewise incorrect; for it was not true that, on all former occasions of settling the income of the royal family, regard had been had by parliament to the consideration, whether or not the prince of the blood was in the immediate succession to the throne. Certainly no such distinction had been taken in 1806, when an addition of 6,000l. had been made to the incomes of all the royal princes (except the duke of York's, which had been settled long before), and no distinctive allowance had been demanded for the heir presumptive. Indeed, so far as the duke of York was concerned, the attempt to find in his case, as the chancellor of the Exchequer had done, a precedent for a higher in come for an heir presumptive must totally fail; for, at the time when these allowances were fixed, his royal highness was not the heir presumptive, the then prince of Wales, his elder brother, occu pying that high station; nor was the duke of York so elevated, until after the death of the prin cess Charlotte, when no claim of larger income was made in his behalf. The income of the duke of York was, therefore, not measured by his rank as heir presumptive, but was granted in the year 1792, upon his marriage, and with reference to the scale of his then necessarily increased establish ment. He received his increased allowance in 1792, not because he stood in a different relation as a member of the royal family from his younger brothers, not because he was heir presumptive, for he

held not that seniority, but solely on account of his marriage settlement. This was capable of demonstration, from a reference to the discussions upon the subject in the year 1792, and also in 1806. It was then quite clear that there was in fact no superior scale of income, established, or even recognized, by precedent, for an heir presumptive, as contradistinguished from the other princes of the royal family. Very different, indeed, was the condition of the heir apparent; in his case there was clearly, legally, and justly, a superior claim, for he was called upon to maintain a higher and more responsible station. The king and queen, the queen consort, the heir apparent and princess royal, were severally distinguished by law from all other members of the royal family. It was fit, then, when the law raised them to marked places of superior privilege and dignity, that parliament should give effect to the constitutional principle of such selection, by enabling them suitably to maintain their higher privileges. But no such distinction prevailed as to the heir presumptive: he was not called on to support more state than any other junior branch of the royal family-he was not called upon to undergo any extraordinary expenditure to support his rank; and the only question, then, ought to be, was he sufficiently provided for already? It was surely for those who called now for the first time for this increase, to make out a case, showing in what the difference consisted in the situation of the heir presumptive from that which he had previously enjoyed as a member of the royal family, and how far it involved an increase of expenditure? Viewing the question, therefore, in this light, it was

with great regret that he found himself compelled to call for further time, to inquire more maturely into the new circumstances in which the heir presumptive was supposed to be placed. It had been said that the difference was trifling, and would make no perceptible addition to the public burthens; that the public did not look very closely into these matters; and that the country would have preferred continuing to pay the larger income which had fallen by the decease of the duke of York, rather than have endured the calamity of his death. It was just and right that such should be the public feeling; but because this saving of income did in the course of nature fall in, was it to be squandered at such a crisis as this, when the national finances disclosed a deficit of so many millions over and above its resources-a crisis when distress pervaded all ranks of the community, and imperatively called upon the representatives of the people to save every shilling they could in the public expendi

ture?

Mr. Peel was ready to put the question on the ground called for by Mr. Brougham, and to say, that he honestly believed there would be the proposed amount of additional expenditure in the establishment of the duke of Clarence, consequent upon his occupying the rank of heir presumptive. He likewise believed, that, in that situation, his royal highness would be exposed to claims, which, it was desirable upon grounds of public importance, he should be in a condition to allow. It was, no doubt, difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that 9,000l. a year was precisely the sum which ought to be added to the income of the

present heir presumptive, that any thing more would be superfluous, and that any thing less would occasion embarrassment. Indeed, if the case admitted of so precise a calculation, the details must necessarily be of such a nature, that rather than enter minutely into them, he would prefer leaving every gentleman to form the estimate in his own mind, and apply his computation to the amount now called for. The precedent of the duke of York, it had been said, did not apply to this case, because, at the time when that arrangement was adopted, his royal highness did not stand in the situation of heir presumptive. Perhaps, arguing the point as an abstract question of dry law, that might be true; but practically the case was different; and, in point of fact, even supposing that the duke of York's larger income did not accrue to him as heir presumptive, the precedent a fortiori applied the more strongly in favour of the duke of Clarence; for, in the case of the duke of York, it appeared, that though he did not stand in the first degree, an income of a certain amount had been deemed necessary to support. his marriage establishment. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite was not accurate in his assertion, that, when the duke of York's income was fixed, and in the subsequent arrangements respecting the establishments of the members of the royal family, the proximity of his late royal highness to the succession to the throne, compared with that of his younger brothers, had not been taken into the consideration. Mr. Pitt had expressly said-" Do not think that this grant is an injustice to, or hardship upon, the rest of the royal family." What the learn◄

ed and honourable gentleman had said about the law recognizing only the heir apparent to the throne, and passing over heirs presumptive, was perfectly true. But why did the law not recognize heirs presumptive, and why had the House invariably considered them? Could there be any other reason, except that the claims arising from their proximity to the throne were equally well founded with those of heirs apparent? In this case, were not the claims of the heir presumptive, in all human probability, as well founded as those of any heir apparent could possibly be? The princess Charlotte, it must be recollected, was neither heir apparent nor heir presumptive; and yet her situation had induced the House to furnish greater resources for the maintenance of her rank and station. In discussing this subject, he could not dismiss from his mind that when 37,000l. was granted to the duke and duchess of York, the duke was in possession of other property arising, from other sources. The income of the duke of York was nearly 50,000l. a year; it was, as nearly as possible, 49,000l. Now the income of the duke and duchess of Clarence, who stood in precisely the same situation with the duke and duchess of York, would not, in the event of this grant being carried, exceed 38,000l. He must, therefore, say that he did not think this grant of 9,000l. at all too much. If Mr. Hume had thought proper to exaggerate all the eircumstances connected with this matter, and say that these 9,000l. would furnish bread for many needy and distressed persons, he (Mr. Peel) would answer "So would every other grant;" and would there not, in all probability, be found distressed objects, upon

whom such sums could be bestowed? Was not the honour and dignity of the crown to be considered, as well as the distresses of individuals? And yet every grant to the crown and royal family might be met by the honourable gentleman with precisely the same argument.

The original motion was carried by a majority of 167 to 65; and, a bill founded upon it having been brought in, another division of the House took place on the second reading, which was likewise carried by a large majority. On the motion that the House should go into a committee on the bill (16th March), Mr. Hume again brought on a debate, by opposing the Speaker's leaving the chair, and again inveighed against the inhumanity of not only giving the people a stone, in the shape of a denial of relief, when they asked for bread, but adding to that denial an additional grant to a member of the royal family, of 9,000l., which would have maintained twelve hundred persons for a complete year. Mr. Alderman Wood declared that he would oppose the grant, " because he was convinced that there was not a man who drank a glass of gin, or paid for a pint of porter, who would not have to contribute his mite to the payment of it." Mr. Tennyson supported the grant, but thought, that the whole system, on which we proceeded, in providing for the members of the royal family, was impolitic in itself, and invidious towards them. It was unfair, that, on occasions of this kind, when additional grants to them were proposed, they should be held up, as it were, for examination throughout the country. The grant was said to be founded on the altered situation of the illustrious indivi