vote for the payment of any of this debt without a previous inquiry. He said, that although it was distinctly admitted that the increased expenses were not in his majesty's household, yet he thought it well to apprize the house, that if the civil list had not increased of late years like the estates of private gentlemen, yet his majesty was not liable to the income tax, assessed taxes, and many others that fell upon the fortunes of private gentlemen. The fact was, that this debt principally arose from what ministers had classed as OCcasional payments," and of which they did not appear much disposed to render any account. He thought this account was due to parliament, and he saw no reason why, as in the case of the prince of Wales, a sinking fund should not be created, out of his majesty's income, for the payment of his debts.

Lord Moira spoke very eloquently on the necessity of supporting the crown in its proper splendour, and against the popular opinion, that royalty was the most expensive form of government. He, however, disapproved of the large sums given under the head of "occasional payments," and in voting for the address by no means intended to preclude himself from future inquiry.

Lord Caernarvon also spoke at great length in favour of an inquiry, previous to voting a sum for the payment of this debt. Besides the " occasional payments," which amounted to so large a sum, he objected to the salary of a third secretary of state, which was chargeable on this fund.

Lord Westmoreland compared the civil list at present, with what had been the establishment for the sup

port of royalty during the last century, and showed that the present income of the crown was less than it had been (when the present value of money was considered) for a great number of reigns. King William the Third had an income of 700,000%. per annum clear; and if his majesty continued to possess the hereditary revenues of the crown, which had been given in exchange for this annuity, he would be richer than he now is, by eleven millions. As he supposed it must be the wish of the house to support the crown in the saine splendour as in former reigns, he supported the address. The house then divided, when there appeared For the address Against it

Majority

56

In the house of commons, on the same night, the debate was opened by

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who began by observing, that though he had no doubt of the loyal attachment of the house to the person of their sovereign, and that they would be readily induced, by motives of generosity and affection, to vote chat his establishment should be freed from all incumbrances; yet upon the present occasion it was not to their generosity, but to their justice, he meant to apeal. He trusted that the most diligent inquity which could be made on this subject, would only tend to prove that his majesty did not receive out of the civil list that enorinous sum, which many ignorant persons supposed, for his private expenditure. On the contrary, his majesty did not now possess a greater, or hardly an equal, income to that of any other sovereign who ever sat on the British

throne.

throne. In ancient times the income of the kings of England was so great, that they had hardly any occasion to call upon their people, and could even spare large sums for the oppression of their people. In the reigns of Charles the Second and James the Second, the revenue of the crown amounted to near two millions annually. But to come nearer to our own times, neither George the First nor George the Second had a less income than 800,000l. annually. His present majesty, notwithstanding the great increase of the prices of every thing, had only the same annual sum settled on him at his accession. The consequence necessarily was, that from his accession to the year 1786, debts had been incurred to the amount of a million and a half, which parliament then provided for. For the debts which had unavoid ably been contracted since, he trusted parliament would now provide with equal alacrity. Having touchon the necessary increase of the expenses on the civil list, in consequence of the increased allowance to foreign ministers, to the expenses of the younger branches of the royal family, and the increased expense of his majesty's household, he said he felt perfectly convinced that parliament would be surprised at finding the debt was not greater, and that the splendour and royal munificence which became the throne, had been supported at so small an expense. He then threw out an idea, which he allowed the present was not the time to discuss, that very probably the sale of the crown lands in the West India islands might be applied to the purpose of contributing to the sum he now demanded. He concluded with moving, "that it is the

opinion of the committee, that a sum not exceeding 990,0537. be granted to his majesty, to discharge arrears and debts due and owing on the civil list, on the 18th of January 1802."

Mr. Fox rose, and made one of the most cloquent and able speeches that he had ever delivered on any occasion. He declared, that so far from wishing to scrutinize with severity all the minute expenses of the royal family, he felt as strongly as any man, that the splendour of the throne should be preserved, and he wished as much as possible to relieve the sovereign from any difficulty or embarrassment, but he could by no means allow that the comparison which had been made between his majesty's income and that of former kings of England was at all fair. The times had completely changed; and the history of the ancient kings of England had no bearing upon the case of the present kings. If before the revolution, the kings were possessed of immense hereditary revenues, those revenues were in fact the resourses of the nation and held in trust for them. It was from those revenues that the defence of the country, and all the ordinary expenses of government, were maintained. But, since the revolution, the case is altered: now it is the parliament which provides means for the defence of the country, and for the payment of its armies. The civil list establishment is now a mere annuity for the support of the splendour and comforts of the throne. Neither would he allow that his majesty's income was less than his predecessors in any respect; besides the sum of 800,000l. annually, which was the income at his accession, parliament had not only discharged

debts and incumbrances at different times, but in 1777 an additional 100,000l. per annum was granted. Since that time, in consequence of Mr. Burke's bill, places to the amount of 30,000l. per annum had ceased, which acted as an increase to the civil list. He was always of opinion that the civil list should be voted at the commencement of every reign, and that when a certain sum, namely 900,000l. annually had been granted, ministers had no right to let the expenses be 950,000l. above that income, and then call upon parliament for the difference. He thought the proper plan would be to pay the debts of the civil list by future savings, as had been done in the case of the prince of Wales. He thought the proper address for the house to present to his majesty on the occasion, would be to suggest to him, with all possible respect, that he should distrust those ministers who lead him into unnecessary expense, and that he ought in matters of finance to comply with the restrictions of parliament, and that he should square his expenses by the rules which they in their wisdom had prescribed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer shortly explained. He said that Mr. Burke himself, who had brought in the bill, did not object in 1792 to a statement of debts subsequently contracted.

Mr. Pitt replied with the most pointed sarcasm to a part of Mr. Fox's speech, in which the latter had said it would be a great hardship on the people to pay the law expenses that had been contracted by the arbitrary imprisonments and other strong measures (as they were called) of the late administration. He denied that those cases which VOL. XLIV.

had been cited by that honourable gentleman, had any bearing on the present case, or in the least warranted the conclusions he had drawn from them; but he would appeal, not to ancient history, but to the records of the journals of that house, that in 1783, at the time when the honourable gentleman (Mr. Fox) was secretary of state, Mr. Burke paymaster, and lord George Cavendish chancellor of the exchequer, there was an exceeding upon the civil list equal to that of 1784. The honourable gentleman certainly could not show a precedent of a similar case being stated to parliament, where the application was refused, and certainly he could not show a case which was ever more fairly laid before parliament. Some of the increased expenses necessarily grew out of the war; for instance, the increased number of foreign messengers, and of some extraordi nary ambassadors. He also justified a measure which had been objected to in both houses, namely, the appointment of a third secretary of state. He said the times required extraordinary vigilance, and this measure became necessary. After answering a number of more minute objections, he contended that it must be obvious, that the increase of the expenses of the civil list, from his majesty's accession to the present moment, which had been only in a proportion as from 8 to 94, was by no means equal to the decreased value of money since that period. There was another circumstance which also deserved the most serious consideration. The hereditary revenue, which had been given up to the nation in exchange for the civil list, had increased to the value of 1,800,000l. annually, and was now

one of the great sources of wealth which the country had derived under the present reign. He concluded a very able speech by voting for the address.

Mr. Tierney entered into a pretty full examination of the accounts presented on this occasion, and of the classes under which they were arranged. He objected to the large payments which were stated generally, as occasional payments." He also objected to the enormous expenses charged as law expenses: he knew that in the beginning of the war fourteen or fifteen counsel were employed on the part of the crown in the state trials. This was, in his opinion, a wanton waste of the public money. The creation of the place of third secretary was, he thought, unnecessary, and the expense enormous, amounting to no less than 26,000l. per ann.

After some observations from other gentlemen, and after the amendment was put and negatived, the question on the original address was put, and the house divided,

Ayes Noes

Majority

226

51

175

On the 31st of March, being two days after the debate on the civil list, a very serious debate took place in the house of commons, with respect to the claims of the prince of Wales on account of the arrears due from his revenues in Cornwall.

Mr. Manners Sutton rose to make his promised motion upon this subject; the motion was, that a committee be appointed to inquire what sums arising from the revenues of the dutchy of Cornwall had been received, and under what authority, since the birth of his royal highness,

till the period of his arriving at the age of twenty-one years. He also wished to inquire into, what sums had been advanced towards the payment of his royal highness's debts up to the 27th of June 1795. If the house should resolve upon the appointment of the committee, there would be two questions for their consideration: 1st, Whether his royal highness be or be not entitled to the arrears of the revenues of the dutchy of Cornwall? and whether, if he be, those arrears have not been expended for the public service? He then proceeded to the claims of his royal highness. In the first place, this claim was founded upon a grant of Edward the Third, to his son the Black Prince. He conveyed that dutchy and its revenue to his son for his maintenance, when that prince was but eight years old. The object of this grant was to secure the heir apparent an income independent of the crown, and the consequence of it has been to vest the dutchy in the prince of Wales for ever since, from the moment of his birth. The prince of Wales was therefore entitled to the revenues of it from the moment of his birth. It therefore would be an extraordinary thing to assert, that the king had a right to hold those revenues till the moment of the prince arriving at the age of twenty-one, and without rendering any account of them. When he said, his majesty had retained them, he by no means meant that he had retained them for his own use; those revenues were otherwise applied. Great doubts had been entertained on this subject, and by high legal authorities: the first doubt was, whether the king had not, as guardian to his children, a claim on those revenues. This doubt was

however

however soon got rid of, it being clear that this oppressive sort of guardianship was got rid of entirely by the act of king Charles the Second. Another doubt was whether the king had not, by some sort of prerogative, a power to claim those revenues. This doubt was also disposed of, it being clear that his prerogative was limited by the grant itself. The learned gentleman then mentioned the many princes of Wales who had been formally invested with this dutchy when under age; among the rest, Henry the Fifth, who received it at ten years of age. Prince Arthur, son of Henry the Seventh, was invested immediately upon his birth, and after his death his brother, afterwards Henry the Eighth, succeeded him. After stating all the cases of former princes of Wales, who were acknowledged dukes of Cornwall from their birth, he cited, as the most modern and recent that could be produced, that the father of the present king, being under age at the accession of George the Second, had an account rendered him, at the time of his coming of age, of the revenues of that dutchy from the day of his father's accession to the crown. The same rights were evidently vested in his royal highness from his birth; and the late chancellor of the exchequer must admit, that the surplus revenues of the dutchy of Cornwall had been applied to the aid of the civil list. The principal motive which induced his royal highness to bring this question forward, was an anxious desire to stand well in the eye of the public, and to prove to them, that if his rights had been duly acknowledged, he should have been no burden to the people, but that all his expenses, whether incurred prudently or not,

Sir Ralph Milbank seconded the motion, and expressed the firmest conviction of the justice of the prince's claims.

Mr. Fuller quoted precedents from the journals of the house, to prove that the dutchy of Cornwall was considered independent of the crown, and belonging to the prince of Wales. He thought the house even bound by the precedents in the records of their journals.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed this subject at very considerable length: he confessed that the claim of the prince by no means appeared to his judgment to be so clear and indisputable as had been stated by the learned gentleman who moved the present question; and highly as he respected the legal knowledge and great talents of the honourable mover, yet there were other professional gentlemen, whose learning and talents he was also bound to respect highly, who entertained an idea very different on the point of law, from that which had been expressed by the learned gentleman. The point of law, which had been stated as clearly with the claim of the prince, was, that the statute of Charles II. abolishing military tenures, services, &c.abolished generally the old right of ward existing in the guardian, and which applied to the present case. There had

I 2