majesty's affairs by a permanent settlement. To that period he wished to call the attention of the committee; and he would show that what he now proposed was not the infamous measure which the noble lord represented it, but was one which had been already recognized by the three branches of the legislature. By the act then passed, three commissioners were appointed, in whom was vested the entire property given by the act of the 39th and 40th, without reserving to parliament any right to interfere with it. But then the privy purse remained to be regulated for the future, and was not treated like the property vested in the commissioners. The committee would see how differently the privy purse was regarded both in the 51st and 52nd of the king, from the property, the result of former accumulations, which was held thus sacred. The act recited, that whereas it was expedient to defray the charge of medical aid and advice, and whereas it was "reasonable that those expenses should be paid out of the privy purse." Now, he would ask how any gentleman could say that it was reasonable to burthen the privy purse for one purpose connected with the care of his majesty's person, and infamous to burthen it for another.

After the expense of the physicians had been defrayed, it was directed that the surplus, if any, should be vested in the commissioners for the care of the king's private property. If any, was the expression, so that parliament then thought that it had taken the whole fund. But so closely

did parliament follow this privy purse, of which it conceived that it had the whole dominion, that it directed that if the expenses of one year should absorb more than the fund of that year supplied, those commissioners should repay the surplus of former years which had been entrusted to them. The other acts which he referred to only required common sense to interpret them, and showed plainly that parliament had conceived this privy purse to be subject to its entire control. The noble lord had asked whether, in giving the allowance to the duke of York, they would treat him as a nurse attending a sick bed. For his part, he would do no such thing. He would give to his royal highness every penny of the expense to which, as custos persona, he would be put; but he would give it from that fund from which alone it should be taken. The only argument he had now to make out was the propriety of taking the sum mentioned from the privy purse. the privy purse. He wished to know from the noble lord whether he was right in understanding him thus, or not. A voice from the ministerial side of the House replying, No, That being the case (said Mr. T.), I shall feel it my duty to propose an amendment to the noble lord's first proposition, namely, that after the words 50,000l. it should be inserted as follows:-"That any surplus arising out of the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the sum of 60,000l. a year granted to the throne as a privy purse, according to the act of the 52nd of the king, should (after payment of the sums already [C 2] charged

charged thereon) be applied to defray the expense attending the care of his majesty's royal per

son."

Mr. Peel, after various compliments to the last right hon. gentleman, said, that he still retained the opinions with which he came down to the House, namely, that the privy purse could not with propriety be applied to defray the expenses of the custos of the king's person. The right hon. gentleman had truly said, that for the purposes of his argument it was necessary to define what was called the privy purse, but in his statements it would be shown that there were several misrepresentations of facts. These were dwelt upon with considerable force by Mr. Peel, who affirmed that a head of expense, under the title of privy purses was distinctly recognised in Mr. Burke's bill passed in the year 1782, as well as in that passed in 1811.

A considerable number of persons rose on different sides of the question. after this introduction; but at length the House exhibited considerable marks of weariness; and upon the division of the committee, there appeared for Mr. Tierney's amendment 186; against it 281: Majority 95. On February 25th, Lord Castlereagh moved the order of the day for receiving the report on the Royal Establishments at Windsor. The report was brought up, read, and the first and second resolutions were agreed to. On the third resolution being read, viz. "That the annual sum of 10,000l. be issued out of the civil list revenues to his royal

highness the duke of York, to enable his royal higeness to meet the expenses to which his royal highness may be exposed in discharge of the important duties confided to him by parliament, in the care of his majesty's person,"

Mr. Curwen said, that he could not but consider it as a matter of deep regret that his royal highness had made it a subject of more difficulty and delicacy to take any allowance from the privy purse, than from the people at large.

Mr. Robinson said, that after the decision that this allowance ought not to be paid out of the privy purse, he did not see upon what principle it could now be maintained that his royal highness ought not to receive any allowance whatever. Every sound principle of policy and justice, therefore, ought to induce them not to agree with the hon. gentleman.

After several other members had spoken, Mr. Tierney rose, and began by assuring the House, that in the few observations he had to make, he was anxious to set himself right with those hon. members who had appeared to think that in his speech, on a former night, he had allowed the propriety of the grant, and had merely disputed about the fund from which it ought to be taken. He had made no such admission; having then no other object than to record a principle, that the privy purse should be charged with what he could not but consider as a private expense appertaining to the king. That principle having been negatived by the House, there still remained a question, whether any farther

expenses

expenses than those were necessary in consequence of the office of custos. A bill was already in operation, appointing the duke of York custos. He had already entered upon his office, and yet the bill which settled the appointment had not said a syllable about any salary, nor had the duke himself applyed for any. Not merely the Lords who sent down the bill, but even the Commons, had not, in any stage of the business, given a hint of the necessity of any remuneration. The House had a right to be strictly informed as to the reasons of such an informal and anomalous proceeding. It was not from the feelings of the royal duke that this application originated; for in the communication which he had made to the House through the noble lord, he had expressed his willingness to fulfil the duties of his office without any compensation, though, if one should be voted, he would not accept it if it were to be charged on the privy purse. The House, then, had no information to guide them, either with respect to the motive or the amount of the grant now called for, and in the absence of such data, they must look to the nature of the office itself. To come, then, to the estimate of the expenses which his royal highness might probably incur in consequence of this new office. The only sort of attention which the royal duke could pay to his afflicted father would be that of visiting him once or twice a week at the most. Would any man rise up and say that ten thousand pounds was not too large a sum for the hire of post-horses from Oatlands or

London to Windsor. Was it not obvious that a tenth part of the sum would be enough to cover such an expense. What was the real state of the case? Was the duke of York in want of 10,000l. a year? If so, let ministers speak out, and not come to the House in this sneaking paltry manner, to shuffle them out of their money under false pretences.

The right hon. gentleman went on in this joco-serious strain for some time. At length he said, He had deprecated and lamented this discussion as much as any man, and he thought that ministers would have reason to lament the result; though he had little doubt that, by the united efforts of themselves and their new coadjutors they would gain their object that night. They would, however, soon see that the minority, though branded with the title of infamous, would carry great weight throughout the country.

Mr. Canning then rose, and after attacking the last speaker with considerable severity, he summed up his argument in the following brief statement. Originally, he said, the privy purse was a part of the civil list, and at the commencement of the present reign no character of sanctity was attached to it. But in the exact proportion in which parliament interfered with the other parts of the civil list, they had recognized the privy purse as the property of the sovereign. It had been first so recognized in the proceedings of 1780, of which Mr. Burke was the mover. Secondly, in the bill founded upon that proceeding, which was

brought

brought into the House in 1782, but not carried into a law. Thirdly, in the act which passed in 1786, embodying and enacting all the system framed by Mr. Burke. In all these cases the whole of the civil list was brought under the control of parliament, except the privy purse, which was specially exempted from it; and in the last case, which gave to these arrangements the form of law, the amount of the privy purse was specifically stated, as at present, at 60,000l. Fourthly, the Regency bill of 1788, secured the privy purse, its profits and savings, to the king. Fifthly, by an act passed in 1799, the power in the king of bequeathing those savings as private property was distinctly recognized. Sixthly, by the act of 1811, which set apart the privy purse as the indubitable property of the crown, as it had been set apart by the Regency bill of 1788. And lastly, the act of 1812 completely set the question at rest.

After some further speaking, the question being put, That 10,000l. stand part of the resolution, the House divided: Ayes 247; Noes 137: Majority 110. The resolution was then agreed

upon the clause in the bill relative to the grant of 10,000l. a year to the duke of York. He said, it was impossible consistently to agree to this clause in the terms in which it stood at present, for it assumed that the same sum was allowed to her late majesty as a remuneration for the expenses to which she was liable on her appointment to the care of the king's person, as was conferred on the duke of York upon undertaking the same appointment. Now it was clear that the annuity was not granted to the queen for the care of the king's person, but on a different account; consequently to state that the same sum should be granted to the duke of York for that purpose, was a direct falsehood. It could not be pretended that the duke of York from his appointment of custos regis, would have to incur more expense than that of paying for four horses for travelling once a week to Windsor; and would it be maintained that 10,000l. a year was necessary for such a purpose? At all events, he felt that the House should not adopt a clause which contained a palpable falsehood; and upon that ground he should move that the clause be expunged.

The Speaker stated, that the question to be put was, "That the said clause stand part of the bill."

The Hon. Mr. Lyttelton observed, that the reception which the remarks of his noble friend had met with, and the little attention which ministers seemed disposed to show them, held out but a slender encouragement to him to address the House on this

occasion.

occasion. But still he felt it his duty to say, that if the grant alluded to was made, it would be quite scandalous to vote that grant upon false pretences. The hon. gentleman made a variety of other remarks, some of which were in a strain of considerable severity.

The question being put, "That the said Clause stand part of the bill," the House divided; Ayes, 156; Noes 97: Majority 59.

In the House of Lords, the Earl of Liverpool, on March 26th, moved the second reading of the Royal Household Bill. He said, he understood that no opposition was intended to be made to the principle of the bill. After having just touched upon the main circumstances of the bill, he alluded to the grant of 10,000. per annum to the duke of York, which was the same amount as had been granted to the late queen. He owed it to the duke to state that he had not sought for any such allowance; but parliament having thought it right to give the queen 10,000l. per annum as custos persona, there could be no question that the duke of York was fully entitled to the same allowance.

Earl Grey said, with regard to the allowance of 10,000l. to the duke of York, it was a subject to which he adverted with very considerable pain. He highly respected the duke for his public services and private virtues; but no consideration should induce him to shrink from the discharge of a public duty; and that duty compelled him to oppose the allowance. Nothing had been urged by the noble earl that

could in any way justify such a grant, and he could not but view it as obtaining a grant of 10,000. a year under a false pretence. He must regret that such a measure had been at all brought forward; and he could assure the noble earl that in the country the impression was the most unfavourable that any proposition could give rise to.

The bill was then read a second time.

March 30th. The Earl of Liverpool moved the order for committing the bill for the regulation of his majesty's household. The House immediately went into the committee.

On the motion for reading the preamble of the bill, Earl Grey rose and said, that having already declared that it was not his intention to make any opposition to the principle of the measure, it might be expected that he would reserve himself for another part of the bill; but notwithstanding his approval of the principle, he had some general observations to offer, which appeared to him particularly applicable to the present stage of the committee. In considering the preamble of the bill now before their lordships, he found that, in addition to the provision requisite to the due care of his majesty's person, there was also an intention declared of making such reductions, in the expense of the establishment, as might not be found inconsistent with the principle on which the bill was founded. This, which was the principle of the bill, he also maintained, and should continue to maintain, notwithstanding the indignant