Accordingly, next day, the House of Commons went into committee on the matter, and Lord Althorp (Chancellor of the Exchequer), in a short speech, compared the situation, as heirs to the throne, of the Princess Charlotte and the Princess Victoria. He pointed out that upon the birth of the Princess Charlotte, the Princess of Wales received £6000 a year for her maintenance; and that, in 1806, the sum was raised to £7000, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund. In addition to this, the Princess Charlotte was paid a sum of £34,000 out of the Droits of the Admiralty, and received £9777 from the Civil List. Upon the whole, the income received by the Princess Charlotte, from the tenth year of her age, amounted to £17,000 a year. In 1825 the sum of £6000 was granted for the support of the Princess Victoria, and that was all that had been voted by the public for her maintenance. It was his duty to make a proposition for the future support and maintenance of the Princess Victoria, and it was his intention to follow the precedent of 1825, and to vote the money to her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, to be by her applied to the support and education of her daughter.
The amount of income received by the Duchess of Kent was £6000 a year, an allowance settled upon her at the time of her marriage, and a further sum of £6000 which she received on account of the Princess Victoria. He proposed that £10,000 a year be added to this income, which would make the whole allowance received by the Duchess of Kent, £22,000; namely, £6000 for the Duchess herself, and the remaining £16,000 for the maintenance of the Princess Victoria. He, therefore, proposed the following resolution:—
"That it is the opinion of this Committee, that his Majesty should be enabled to grant a yearly sum, not exceeding £10,000 out of the Consolidated Funds of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, for a more adequate provision for her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and the honourable support and education of her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandrina Victoria of Kent; and the said yearly sum to be paid from the 5th of January, 1831."
To this there was no objection made by any member of whatever shade of politics he might be; indeed all said they would heartily support it, save one. Henry Hunt, the radical member for Preston, who, "feeling that he should not do his duty to his constituents if he did not oppose every kind of extravagance, he moved, as an amendment to the resolution, to substitute £5000 for £10,000." But in the end, on a division of the committee on this amendment, the numbers were—Ayes, 0; Noes, 223; majority, 223. The Bill received the Royal Assent September 6th, 1831, and is known in the Statute book as 1 and 2 Gul. IV. c. 20.
Apropos of this, there was a little joke, in the shape of a drawing by H. B., which can neither be placed as a satirical print, nor a caricature, but is a simple bit of pure fun. About the time of this discussion, the Bishopric of Derry was vacant, value about £11,000 a year, and it was humorously suggested that, to save the nation the £10,000, the Princess Victoria should be made
The New Bishop of Derry.
On the 17th of August a bronze statue, by Chantry, of William Pitt, the statesman was erected in Hanover Square, where it now stands.
On the 19th of August there were sold, during the lifetime of their writer many manuscripts of Sir Walter Scott's novels. The auctioneer was Mr. Evans of Pall Mall, and the prices they fetched were as follows: "The Monastery," warranted perfect, £18. "Guy Mannering," wanting a folio at the end of the second volume, £27 19s. "Old Mortality," perfect, £33. "The Antiquary," perfect, £42. "Rob Roy," complete, but the second volume wrongly paged, £50. "Peveril of the Peak," perfect, £42. "Waverley," very imperfect, £18. "The Abbot," imperfect, £14. "Ivanhoe," £12. "The Pirate," imperfect, £12. "The Fortunes of Nigel," £16. "Kenilworth," imperfect, £17. "The Bride of Lammermoor," £14 14s. In all, £316 4s.
But the topic of conversation for the year was the coronation, and much was the gossip and town talk thereon. It was to be nothing as grand as that of George the Magnificent, the amount voted by the House of Commons, on September 1st, to be expended upon it, being only £50,000. There was to be no banquet in Westminster Hall, no Champion; and the people satirically called it a "half-crownation." But the spirit of economy was abroad, and the tastes of the bourgeois monarch were simple. And the outlay was well within the sum granted, the actual expenditure being—