Consolidation of the Pension Lists. At this time, the three pension lists of England, Scotland, and Ireland, were consolidated; and the entire Civil Pension List for the United Kingdom was reduced from 145,750l. to 75,000l.; the remainder of the pensions being charged upon the Consolidated Fund. Regulation of 1837. "such Finally, on the accession of her present Majesty, the right of the Crown to grant pensions was restricted to pensions in 1200l. a year. Such pensions were now con. fined, according to the terms of a resolution of the House of Commons of the 18th Feb. 1834, to persons as have just claims on the royal beneficence, or who, by their personal services to the Crown, by the performance of duties to the public, or by their useful discoveries in science and attainments in literature and the arts, have merited the gracious consideration of their sovereign, and the gratitude of their country." " 1 At the same time an inquiry was directed by the House of Commons to be made into the existing Pension List, which resulted in the voluntary surrender of some pensions, and the suspension or discontinuance of others.2 The pensions thus reduced in amount, and subjected to proper regulation, have since been beyond the reach of constitutional jealousy. They no longer afford the means of corruption, they add little to the influence of the Crown, -they impose a trifling burden on the people, and the names of those who receive the royal bounty, are generally such as to command respect and sympathy. Such being the pecuniary relations of the Crown and royal family to Parliament, let us take a brief review of king over the the relations of the royal family to the reigning royal family. sovereign. Powers of the Among the prerogatives of the Crown is to be reckoned a more than parental authority over the royal family; and, 11 Vict. c. 2; Report on Civil List, Dec. 5th, 1837. Report on Pensions, 24th July, 1838. Marriage of Gloucester. in 1772, the king sought the aid of Parliament in enlarging his powers. The Duke of Gloucester had been married for several years to the Countess Dow- the Duke of ager of Waldegrave: but had not publicly acknowledged her as his consort, nor had she assumed his title. At court she was neither recognized as his wife, nor discountenanced as his mistress: but held an equivocal posi tion between these two characters. Of the Duke land. But in the autumn of 1771, another of the king's brothers the Duke of Cumberland, announced to the king his marriage with Mrs. Horton, whom he at once of Cumbercalled Duchess of Cumberland. By a singular coincidence, his bride was a daughter of Lord Irnham, and a sister of the famous Colonel Luttrell, whom the court party had put into Wilkes's seat for Middlesex. The mortification of the king, was only to be equalled by the malicious triumph of Wilkes. The family which had been made the instrument of his oppression, had now brought shame upon the king.2 The Duke and Duchess were not only forbidden to appear at court themselves: but their society was interdicted to all who desired to be admitted to the palace. At first the king was not without hope that the validity of the marriage might be questioned. It had been solemnized without the usual formalities prescribed by the law: but the royal family had been excepted from Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, by the express command of George II., who would not allow restraints, intended only for his subjects, to be imposed upon his own family. Such restraints might now have postponed, or even prevented this hateful marriage. The alliance of the Duke of Cumberland with a 1 Walpole's Mem. iii. 402, 408. 2 Walpole says, 66 Could punishment be more severe than to be thus scourged by their own instrument? And how singular the fate of Wilkes, that new revenge always presented itself to him when he was sunk to the lowest ebb!"— Mem. iv. 356. 8 Ibid. 362. 4 Walpole's Mem. iv. 359. subject, was followed by the public avowal of his marriage by the Duke of Gloucester, whose wife's position would have been seriously compromised by any longer concealment. The king was now resolved to impose such restrictions upon future marriages in his own family, as had never been contemplated for his subjects. And, in truth, if alliances with persons not of royal blood were to be prevented, the king and his brothers had given proof enough of the dangers to which princes are exposed. In his youth the king had been himself in love with Lady Sarah Lennox:1 the Duke of York had been attached to Lady Mary Coke; and now his Majesty was deploring the marriages of his brothers. The prerogative claimed by the Crown, in matters conKing's power cerning the royal family, was already consider over his grandchildren. able. In 1718, King George I., when in open enmity with his son, the Prince of Wales, maintained that he had power, by virtue of his prerogative, to direct the education of his grandchildren, and even to dispose of them in marriage, to the exclusion of the parental authority of the prince. A question was submitted to the judges; and ten out of the twelve, led by Lord Chief Justice Parker, afterwards Lord Macclesfield, decided in favor of the king's claim.2 Even the two dissentient judges, who were of opinion that the education of the king's grandchildren belonged to their father, yet held, "that the care and approbation of their marriages, when grown up, belong to the king of this realm." " It was now proposed to enlarge this prerogative, and extend the king's powers, by the authority of the law. On 1 Mr. Grenville relates in his Diary, that the king actually proposed to marry her, and that her engagement with Lord Newbottle was consequently broken off but she broke her leg while out riding, and during her absence, the match was prevented, by representations that she contin ued her intercourse with Lord Newbottle. Grenv. Papers, iv. 209. 2 St. Tr. xv. 1195. Lord Campbell's Lives iv. p. 521. 8 St Tr. xv. 1225. Royal Mar 1772. the 20th February, 1772, a message from the king was delivered to both Houses of Parliament, stating that he was desirous "that the right of approving riage Act, all marriages in the royal family (which ever has belonged to the kings of this realm, as a matter of public concern) may be made effectual;" and recommending to their consideration the expediency of guarding "the descendants of his late Majesty George II." (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families), from marrying without the approbation of the king. claimed in re On the following day, the Royal Marriage Bill was presented to the House of Lords. The preamble af- Prerogative firmed the prerogative, as claimed in the message, gard to royal to its fullest extent, and the wisdom and expedi- marriages. ency of the king's recommendation. The bill provided that no descendant of George II. (except the issue of princesses married into foreign families) should be capable of contracting matrimony, without the king's previous consent, signified under his sign-manual, and declared in council; and that any marriage contracted without such consent, should be null and void. There was a proviso, however, — which it seems had not been contemplated, when the message was delivered, enabling members of the royal family above twenty-five years of age, to marry without the king's consent, after having given twelve months' previous notice to the Privy Council, unless in the mean time, both Houses of Parliament should signify their disapprobation of the marriage. This concession, it is said, was caused by the resig nation of Mr. Fox, who intended to oppose the measure, and by the disapprobation of some of the advisers of the Crown. It was also provided that any person solemnizing, or assisting, or being present at the celebration of such prohibited marriages, should incur the penalties of præmunire. This was unquestionably the king's own measure, and was reluctantly adopted by his ministers. His views of preroga 1 Fox's Mem. i. 75 (H. Walpole) tive were exalted; and in his own family at least, he was resolved that his authority should be supreme. The absolute control which he now sought for, over members of his family of full age, was not a little startling. First, as to his claim of prerogative. Had it ever yet been asserted to the same extent? It had been recognized by the "grand opinion". as it was called, — of the judges in 1718, so far as regarded the king's grandchildren, but no farther; and it is impossible to read the arguments of the judges in that case, without being impressed with the slender grounds, strained constructions of law and precedent, and far-fetched views of expediency, upon which their conclusion was founded. As a matter of state policy, it may be necessary that the king should be empowered to negotiate alliances for the royal family, and for that purpose should have more than parental authority. But the present claim extended to brothers of whatever age, - to uncles, and to cousins. So comprehensive a claim could not be at once admitted. This question, Question to therefore, was put to the judges: "Is the king intrusted by law with the care and approbation of the marriages of the descendants of his late Majesty George II., other than his present Majesty's own children, during their minorities?" As this question extended to all descendants of George II., whether within this kingdom or not, nine judges unanimously answered it in the negative; and to another question, more restricted, they replied, "that the care and approbation of the marriages of the king's children and grandchildren, and of the presumptive heir to the Crown (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families) do belong to the kings of this realm; but to what other branches of the royal family such care and approbation extend, we do not find precisely determined." It was plain that the bill declared the prerogative to be much more extensive, than that allowed by the judges. Yet in spite of their opinion, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Apsley, with an the judges. 1 Parl. Hist. xvii. 387. |