PARLIAMENT AND THE PRINCE’S INCOME.
It has been stated that the Prince of Wales’s popularity had been
steadily growing ever since his marriage. It was much increased about
this time, just before the King’s return, by his determined action
at a fire which occurred near the Temple, the latter cluster of old
buildings being said to have been saved by his timely intervention,
which limited the loss to five or six houses.
He appears to have worked among the crowd, and to have excited its
admiration to a remarkable degree. Some unwise persons raised a cry of
“Crown him! Crown him!!” and this being duly reported to his mother,
the Queen, caused her the gravest anxiety, and the most unreasonable
anger.
Hervey, as usual, poured oil, not upon the troubled waters, but upon
the fire of her wrath; he suggested that owing to the King being so
much hated and the Prince so popular, the latter believed that his
favour with the people helped to keep his father on the throne.
To this the Queen replied bitterly that owing to the reports of the
Prince’s popularity--brought to her principally by Lord Hervey, who
was her news-carrier-in-chief--that popularity, instead of keeping
the King upon the throne, was likely to depose him. But a far greater
cause of dissension between the Prince of Wales and his parents was now
looming very near. It cannot be doubted that when Lord Bolingbroke, to
use his own words, “left the stage,” he gave to the Prince detailed
instructions for a move to be made in Parliament for an increase of his
income; that increase which he, together with the bulk of the nation,
considered he was fully entitled to under the settlement of the Civil
List on his father ascending the throne of England. The subtle talent
of the great diplomatist had mapped all this out long before he left
these shores, possibly as a Parthian shaft at his enemies whom he left
behind triumphant. Be this as it may, a glance at the Prince’s position
will, however, fully justify the course he took.
Before his marriage, it appears that he received from his father
£24,000 a year, not in any fixed or settled income, but as the King
chose to give it to him. It must be remembered that the cost of living
for royal personages was then much more than it is at present, the
expenses for dress and the _personnel_ of the Household were far in
excess of anything we know of in our day. In those times as much as
five hundred pounds were given for one court suit, and the ladies’
dresses were in proportion as regards cost.
On the Prince’s marriage, no jointure was settled on his wife, who
brought him a paltry dowry of five thousand pounds, but the King
increased his allowance to £50,000 a year.
This on the face of it appeared a wonderful addition, but it must be
remembered that the Prince was very much in debt, and that the expenses
of the marriage itself were enormous; they could not possibly have been
otherwise in the case of a Prince of Wales.
As regards the increase in his household, the expenses were at once
doubled, as the Princess had practically a new household of her own,
with ladies-in-waiting, gentlemen-in-waiting, women of the bedchamber,
gentlemen ushers, and a host of others required by the Court etiquette
of the time. What would have been a large income for a nobleman
was totally inadequate for the Prince of Wales, and as a result he
commenced at once to fall deeper and deeper into debt. It is not
surprising with these facts facing him, and with the knowledge that
his father--who most of this time was engaged in squandering enormous
sums of good English gold on German women--received from George the
First, the full sum of £100,000 per annum allotted by Parliament as
the income of the Prince of Wales. These thoughts, together with the
prospect of greatly increased expenses in the future must have been
very galling--for the probability of a child being born to them
must have been known to the Prince and Princess at this time, though
not disclosed until later. It is not to be wondered at then that the
Prince thought over Bolingbroke’s counsels, and eventually decided to
take a strong step to obtain that increase in his income to which he
was evidently fully entitled by Act of Parliament, and which he would
have received in the ordinary way but for the fact of the hatred and
meanness of his parents towards him. For the hatred at least a good
reason will be shown in its proper place.
The Prince then having consulted with his advisers--and the principal
of these were the Duke of Marlborough, Lord Carteret and Mr.
Pulteney--decided to appeal to Parliament to petition the King to grant
him that same income as Prince of Wales, which he himself received from
George the First.
* * * * *
The first sign of the King’s return home was a letter received on the
early morning of Saturday, January 14th, by express from his Majesty
stating that after a delay of five weeks at Helvetsluis, he had at last
embarked, and after encountering a contrary wind all the way, they had
tacked until at last they made Lowestoft, at which port the King had
landed about noon on the previous day.
The news seems to have been held back in the ante-room while the Queen
slept, and here Sir Robert Walpole and the Prince of Wales appear to
have met and had a two hours’ chat, whilst they waited for the Queen to
wake.
According to Hervey, most of the talking appears to have been carried
on by Sir Robert, who seems to have grasped the opportunity to lecture
the Prince in that fatherly manner adopted by old men towards young
ones when their pockets are not affected. As reported by Hervey,
Walpole’s discourse was a string of sleepy platitudes--he had been
roused out of his bed--peculiarly irritating to the Prince under the
circumstances, which he seems to have listened to with exemplary
patience, but the vital subject of the increase in his income does not
appear to have been touched upon at all. The next day the King arrived
at St. James’s Palace, and the Queen and the whole of the Royal Family
went down into the Colonnade to receive him.
Contrary to all expectation he was in an excellent humour, but
suffering from a terrible cold.
He kissed everybody, including the Prince of Wales, and was at once
marched off to bed by his solicitous spouse, to be doctored for his
cold, which by this time, from long neglect, required careful nursing.
Here in his bedroom he was kept a close prisoner by the Queen, and very
few people were allowed to see him; those that did, did not come away
with any great opinion either of his health or his temper, which had
not improved by confinement. Any allusion to his royal health irritated
him beyond measure. Lord Dunmore, one of his Lords of the Chamber,
offended in this respect, and was ordered out. To Lord Pembroke, whom
he called to take his place, he spoke of the erring nobleman as a
troublesome inquisitive “puppy,” a designation very much in the royal
favour at that time; he added that he and others were always plagueing
him about his health like a parcel of old nurses.
Sir Robert Walpole and others got very anxious about the King at this
time, mainly on account of the seclusion in which he was kept by the
Queen. He was certainly unwell, suffering undoubtedly from the reaction
after the excitement of his escape from shipwreck, and perhaps his
excesses in Hanover, for he was getting old; but his indisposition was
but a slight one, and when he came out from his apartments, which he
did just at the time it suited the Queen to let him, it was found that
his recovery was very rapid indeed.
It is more than probable that the Queen had a strong reason for keeping
up at this time the idea of his ill-health, and a reason may be easily
found for it, in the following incident.
There can be no doubt whatever, although, according to Hervey, she
strenuously denied it, that during the summer of 1736, the Prince of
Wales soon after his marriage appealed to his mother on the subject
of his financial position, and that at the same time he informed her
of his intention to seek the aid of Parliament to obtain his full
allowance of £100,000 a year as Prince of Wales, and a jointure for
the Princess. The circumstance is recorded both by Lord Hardwicke, the
Lord Chancellor, in his papers, and by Doddington in his diary.
The Queen affected to receive the announcement airily, and to laugh
it off, according to the Prince’s description of the interview, but
nevertheless she may have taken the matter to heart more seriously
than she pretended, and knowing that Parliament was to meet almost
immediately after the King’s return; it is quite possible that she
made the most of the King’s indisposition to keep the Prince and his
Party from bringing the matter of the income forward. If she did, she
made a miscalculation, for many votes probably went the Prince’s side
on account of this supposed uncertainty of the King’s life, and the
probable accession of the Prince to the throne.
It was, however, only a few days before the motion was made in the
House of Commons that definite information reached the Court, through
Lord Hervey, as usual, that the Prince intended to lay the dispute
between himself and his father concerning his income before Parliament.
Lord Hervey begged the Queen not to tell the King that night as it
might disturb his rest and set him fuming, but to break it gently to
him in the morning; this she did, when the King took the news much more
calmly than was expected, and in fact showed much less concern than the
Queen all through.
Then began a state of excitement which divided the country into two
great parties, those for the King, and those for the Prince, which
latter was by far the larger party.
But as in the present day, but still a great deal more so then, the
House of Commons was divided by many interests, principally the
interests of the individuals who sat there.
For a King to be sending about in the House, bribing members with
actual hard cash to vote for him, seems a very shocking thing in our
eyes, but it was not uncommon then. In addition there was a strong
party among the Tories--at whose head was Sir William Wyndham--who
regarded the Prince’s application to Parliament as a motion injurious
to the constitution, and who, while sympathizing with him and
determined not to vote against him, yet hesitated to commit themselves
by voting for him. But the Prince and his Party lost no opportunity
to secure votes; Mr. Pulteney, the leader of the Opposition was with
them hand and glove, and it certainly appeared, if the Tory party could
be counted upon, that the Prince would gain the victory, which would
have been a crushing blow to the Court and Walpole. So serious did
matters begin to look that Sir Robert counselled a compromise, and with
great difficulty persuaded the King--and Queen--to send a message to
the Prince offering to settle Fifty Thousand a year upon him certain,
instead of the present voluntary allowance and to give the Princess a
jointure--amount not stated. The following is the text of this document
with which the Lord Chancellor (Lord Hardwicke, who had only received
the Great Seal that morning, and who did not relish this message to the
Prince as the first act of his Chancellorship), Lord President, Lord
Steward, Lord Chamberlain, Dukes of Richmond, Argyll[40] and Newcastle,
Earls of Pembroke and Scarborough and Lord Harrington, were sent to the
Prince of Wales:
“His Majesty has commanded us to acquaint your Royal Highness, in his
name, that upon your Royal Highness’s marriage, he immediately took
into his Royal consideration the settling a proper jointure upon the
Princess of Wales; but his sudden going abroad and his indisposition
since his return had hitherto retarded the execution of these his
gracious intentions; from which short delay His Majesty did not
apprehend any serious inconvenience could arise[41]; especially since
no application had in any manner been made to him upon this subject by
your Royal Highness; and that His Majesty hath now given orders for
settling a jointure upon the Princess of Wales, as far as he is enabled
by law, suitable to her rank and dignity; which he will in proper time
lay before his Parliament in order to be made certain and effectual
for the benefit of Her Royal Highness. The King has further commanded
us to acquaint your Royal Highness that though your Royal Highness has
not thought fit, by any application to His Majesty, to desire that your
allowance of fifty thousand pounds per annum, which is now paid you by
monthly payments, at the choice of your Royal Highness, preferably to
quarterly payments, might by His Majesty’s further grace and favour be
rendered less precarious. His Majesty, to prevent the bad consequences
which he apprehends may follow from the _undutiful measures_, which His
Majesty is informed your Royal Highness has been advised to pursue,
will grant to your Royal Highness for His Majesty’s life, the said
fifty thousand pounds per annum, to be issuing out of His Majesty’s
Civil List Revenues, over and above your Royal Highness’s revenues
arising from _the Duchy of Cornwall_, which His Majesty considers a
very competent allowance, considering his numerous issue and the great
expenses which do and must necessarily attend an honourable provision
for his whole family.”
Such was the message which the Lord Chancellor, by command of King
George, read over to his son, in the presence of the nine other
noblemen who accompanied him.
According to the circumstantial account of the interview given by Lord
Hervey, the Prince stepped up to Lord Hardwicke, who had kissed hands
and been congratulated by him on his appointment as Chancellor, and
made the following communication in a “sort of whisper”:
“That he wondered it should be said in the message that he had made no
sort of communication to the King on this business, when the Queen knew
he had often applied to him through her, and that he had been forbidden
by the King ever since the audience he asked of his Majesty two years
ago at Kensington, relating to his marriage, ever to apply to him again
any way but by the Queen.”
Upon this communication being repeated to the Queen, she flew into a
violent rage, and called the Prince a liar!
To this she added, according to Lord Hervey’s account--which looks
very much like his own cooking--a great deal of special pleading to
endeavour to show that there were no witnesses to prove the Prince’s
assertion. But the plain answer to this is that it was hardly the
sort of communication, especially passing between mother and son, at
which the Prince would have been likely to have provided himself with
witnesses. Against the Queen’s denial, we have the record of such a
communication having taken place in the papers of Lord Hardwicke,
the Lord Chancellor, who gives circumstances and the nature of the
interview, and we have also the same fact mentioned in Doddington’s
Diary (Appendix). In the celebrated interview which took place between
Doddington and the Prince there recorded, it is clearly shown that the
Prince made this statement concerning the communication to his mother,
to Doddington on February 8th, 1737, long before the deputation of
his father’s noblemen waited on him, and that to Doddington he stated
that the interview with the Queen had taken place during the previous
summer. This seems to be a very strong piece of evidence that the
Prince was speaking the truth and his mother the reverse. In fact from
this time forth her hatred of him seemed to grow stronger day by day.
But to return to the deputation to the Prince with the King’s terms of
settlement.
If these had not been communicated privately to him before, Frederick
must have known that the King’s offer really meant very little, and
he seemed quite prepared with his reply. It was at once taken down as
he spoke it, and was as follows:--“That His Royal Highness desired
the Lords to lay him with all humility at his Majesty’s feet, and to
assure his Majesty that he had, and ever should retain, the utmost
duty for his Royal person; that His Royal Highness was very thankful
for any instance of his Majesty’s goodness to him or the Princess, and
particularly for his Majesty’s intention of settling a jointure upon
Her Royal Highness; but that as to the message, the affair was now out
of his hands, and therefore he could give no answer to it.” After which
His Royal Highness used many dutiful expressions towards his Majesty;
and then added: “Indeed, my Lords, it is in other hands--I am sorry
for it,” or to that effect. His Royal Highness concluded with earnestly
desiring the Lords to represent his answer to His Majesty in the most
respectful and dutiful manner.
There does not seem much in this answer to find fault with in the
direction of respect at any rate, under the circumstances. The
interview, however, ended there, and the Lords withdrew to convey the
Prince’s answer back to his Royal Father in another part of the same
Palace of St. James’s.
Both the King and Queen were enraged at the reply, and the former
commenced at once to abuse rather roughly Sir Robert Walpole for
persuading him to send it, but the minister sagely answered that he
expected the good result of it not that day but on the morrow--the day
of the Motion in the House of Commons. He was not wrong for he made the
utmost use of it himself on that occasion in his speech.
So the agreement between father and son having fallen through, and
everybody being worked up to the required pitch of excitement, the
matter went forward, and on the next day, February 22nd, Pulteney made
his motion before the House of Commons, for an address to be presented
to the King, humbly asking for a settlement of £100,000 a year on the
Prince of Wales and the same jointure on the Princess, as the Queen had
when she was Princess of Wales, giving the King the assurance that the
House would support him in this measure.
The strong points of Pulteney’s speech were, the claim the Prince had
to the increase of income, which he said was founded on equity and good
policy, and a legal right founded on law and precedent.
He contended that the revenue of the Civil List had been granted to
George the First, and afterwards added to in the case of George the
Second, on the express--or at any rate implied condition--that out
of the revenue a sum of £100,000 a year should be set aside for the
Prince of Wales. Pulteney is said to have spoken on the subject with
great ability for an hour and a half, Lord Hervey adding in his account
that in the speech there was “a great deal of matter and a great deal
of knowledge, as well as art and wit, and yet I cannot but say I have
often heard him speak infinitely better than he did that day. There was
a languor in it, that one almost always perceives in the speeches that
have been so long preparing and compiling.”
Sir Robert Walpole at once answered and, as might have been expected
almost at the commencement of his speech, conveyed to the House the
orders he had received from His Majesty to communicate to them the
message he had sent his son on the previous day. This of course was the
reason of his advising the King to send the message at all.
Sir Robert read aloud the whole of the King’s message to his son, this
magnanimous offer of something he could not get out of giving, and
after it the Minister made all he could of the Prince’s answer:
“Indeed, my Lords, it is in other hands; I am sorry for it.”
Walpole’s speech was an able one, and for the most part went to show
that the King could really not afford--out of an income of nearly a
million--to give his son the extra £50,000 per annum, and if he could,
he was not bound to give it by the Settlement made by Parliament of his
Civil List.
But of all the speeches that were made that evening, by far the most
telling was one by a supporter of the Prince, of which the following is
a summary:
“By the regulation and Settlement of the Prince’s Household, as made
sometime since by His Majesty himself[42] the yearly expense comes to
£63,000 without allowing one shilling to His Royal Highness for acts of
charity and generosity.
“By the message now before us, it is proposed to settle upon him only
£50,000 a year, and yet from this sum we must deduct the Land Tax,
which, at two shillings in the pound, amounts to £5,000 a year, we must
likewise deduct the sixpenny duty to the Civil List Lottery, which
amounts to £1,250 a year, and we must also deduct the fees paid at the
Exchequer, which amount to about £750 a year more. All these deductions
amount to £7,000 a year, and reduce the £50,000, proposed to be
settled upon him by the message to £43,000 a year.
[Illustration:
_National Portrait Gallery._ _Spooner & Co._
SIR ROBERT WALPOLE.]
“Now, as His Royal Highness has no other estate but the Duchy of
Cornwall, which cannot be reckoned, at the most, above £9,000, his
whole yearly revenue can amount but to £52,000, and yet the yearly
expense of his Household, according to His Majesty’s own regulations,
is to amount to £63,000, without allowing His Royal Highness one
shilling for the indulgence of that generous and charitable disposition
with which he is known to be endued in a very eminent degree. Suppose
then we allow him but £10,000 a year for the indulgence of that
laudable disposition, his whole yearly expense, by His Majesty’s own
acknowledgment, must then amount to £73,000, and his yearly income,
according to this message, can amount to no more than £52,000. Is
this, sir, showing any respect to his merit? Is this providing for his
generosity? Is it not reducing him to real want, even with respect to
his necessities, and consequently to an unavoidable dependence too upon
his father’s Ministers and servants.
“I confess, sir, when I first heard this motion made, I was wavering a
good deal in my opinion; but this message has confirmed me. I now see,
that without the interposition of Parliament, His Royal Highness the
Prince of Wales, the Heir Apparent to our Crown, must be reduced to the
greatest straits, the most insufferable hardships.”
However, despite this statement, after a few more speeches from Lord
Baltimore, Mr. Hedges--both of the Prince’s Household, and the Master
of the Rolls, who was neither one way nor the other, the House divided
at eleven o’clock, with the result that the motion in favour of the
Prince was negatived by 234 votes to 204. A very close majority
considering, and that was entirely owing to forty-five Tories rising
and leaving the House in a body without voting.
But the King and Queen were delighted and heaped renewed abuse
upon their son, the very mildest terms of which were “Puppy” and
“scoundrel.” Congratulations _poured_ in upon the Royal Parents from
the Court Party, not only upon the rejection of the motion, but upon
the small amount of money it had cost the King in bribes to the Members
of the House of Commons--the matter seemed to be quite public property,
for it was known that the King had only disbursed £900 in all; £500
to one man, and £400 to another, and this in any case would have had
to have been given them at the end of the Session--for selling their
constituents’ interests apparently--but they clamoured for it then. One
would have liked to have seen these two clamouring members of the House.
But the Prince nothing daunted, consented to the wishes of his friends,
and had the same motion made two days after (February 23rd) in the
House of Lords by Lord Carteret--who was a double-faced man, and
apologized to the Queen before he made it, urging that he was _forced_
to make it, which was not the truth. In the Upper House, however, the
Prince was even less fortunate, and the motion was lost there by a
majority of 103 against 40. But in all the excitement which prevailed
at this time we may be certain of one thing, and that is that the
victorious little King, with his strong German accent always spoke of
the sum asked for by his son as “dat Puppy’s fifty sousand pound.”
The Prince, on his part, however the adverse vote of the House of
Commons may have affected him, certainly did not desire the increase
in his income to come out of the pockets of the British Taxpayer, for
when a suggestion of that nature was made to him by Doddington at his
interview already referred to on February 8th, that the Fifty Thousand
Pounds should be voted by Parliament apart from the King’s income,
Frederick made the following fine answer:
“I think the nation has done enough, if not too much, for the family
already; I would rather beg my bread from door to door than be a
further charge on them.”
The following is the comment of Sarah Duchess of Marlborough on this
affair, written to Lord Stair at the time:
“1736. A great battle in the Houses of Parliament concerning the
revenue which the public pays to the King to support the Prince of
Wales. The Court carried it by a majority of thirty, not without the
expense of a great deal of money, and a most shameful proceeding to
threaten and fetch sick men out of their beds to vote, for fear of
losing their bread. But notwithstanding this, the minority for the
Prince was two hundred and four; and a great many other members who
would have been in it if they had been in town. A great many charming
truths were said on that side; no justice or common sense was expressed
on the other. The speakers on the majority were Sir Robert, Horace, Sir
W. Yonge, Pelham, and somebody of the Admiralty that I have never heard
of before. I am confident that though the Prince lost the question, the
ministers were mightily frighted, and not without reason, for it is
a heavy-weight two hundred and four, who were certainly on the right
side of the question--and I am apt to think, that men who have been so
base with estates and so mean as to act against the interests of their
country, will grow very weary of voting to starve the next heir to the
crown; since the generality of the majority has a view only to their
own interest, and it is apprehended that the King is in so bad a state
of health, that though he has got over his illness so far as sometimes
to appear in public, yet we shall not be so happy as to have him live
long; and everybody that sees him tells me that he looks at this time
extremely ill. The Prince in all this affair has shown a great deal of
spirit and sense, and the intolerable treatment which he has had for so
many years will no doubt continue him to be very firm, and to act right.
“House of Lords:--Proxies and all but forty for the Prince, and a
majority of near three to one on the other side. Nobody surprised
at that. I really think that they might pass an Act there, if they
pleased, to take away Magna Charta. ’Tis said they don’t intend to turn
out anybody in the King’s service who voted in this question for the
Prince in either House. If they don’t, I think _that_ shows some fear.
“I am never very sanguine, and for a long time could not imagine which
way the liberties of England could be saved. But I really do think now
there is a little glimmering of daylight.”
FOOTNOTES:
[40] Commander-in-Chief, husband of Mary Bellenden, who had died the
previous autumn.
[41] He was well aware the Prince was hard pressed for money, and he
was away from England eight months.
[42] This was denied afterwards, but it was probably the Household of
George the Second when Prince of Wales.