attendants; but with respect to her state officers, the same precedents seemed to them not obligatory. Having, therefore, examined into the claims of her majesty's servants, they made a deduction of those salaries which were paid to persons of a more elevated rank in life, amounting to between 6 and 7,000l. a year, thus reducing the sum to between 18 and 19,000. a year. His majesty's government, therefore, did not feel themselves authorized to propose a larger sum than the above, to the servants of her majesty.

On the third resolution, respecting his majesty's private purse, the noble lord most strenuously contended, that it was a private fund, which ought not to be touched at all. It was a fund with which parliament could not interfere, unless they were disposed to over-leap all the boundaries of law and equity. After dwelling for a considerable time upon this idea, he was proceeding to move the resolution in question, when, after a short pause, he rose again, saying, that he should have omitted a principal part of his duty, had he not called the attention of the House to the situation of the royal duke. On this subject he was authorized to declare, from his royal highness, that no consideration could induce him to accept of any sum out of the privy purse of his majesty. He (the duke) should, in any event, be happy to discharge the duties which his situation rendered necessary towards his royal father and his country; but as to taking any part of the private property of his father, he desired it to be stated, that it was a measure

VOL. LXI.

to which, directly or indirectly, he never would consent.

The noble lord concluded by moving, "That in lieu of the sum of 100,000l., directed to be issued and paid by an act made in the 52nd year in the reign of his present majesty, the annual sum of 50,000l. shall be issued and paid out of the Civil List revenues, and which shall be paid in like manner, and be applied to the same uses and purposes as are directed by the said act, with respect to the said sum of 100,000l.”

Mr. Tierney said, that he should follow the noble lord's example, in dividing into three heads the observations he had to offer; the first, as to what should be the reduced amount of the future Windsor establishment; the second, as to the allowances made to the servants of her late majesty; and the third, which was the greatest and most constitutional part of the question, from what, if from any fund, the sum to be paid to his royal highness the duke of York, as guardian of the king's person, should be taken. With respect to the Windsor establishment, he acknowledged that a second consideration concerning the expense belonging to Windsor Castle, had so far converted him, that he was ready to give up his opinion; and as to the allowances proposed for her late majesty's servants, he lamented that the subject had been referred to the committee, but thought that it had endeavoured to strike out the proper line. With respect to the great question, namely, out of what fund the guardian of the king's person was to be remunerated ? he was told, in the eloquent de[C] clamation

clamation with which the noble lord concluded, that if he (Mr. T.) succeeded in inducing the committee to agree to his proposition, he would heap infamy on a new House of Commons. But, with deference to the opinion of the minister, he thought that any sum which parliament chose to offer, out of any fund, for the performance of a public duty, the proudest royal duke might be proud to receive. The argument of the noble lord was, that the privy purse was private property. The construction of the different acts of parliament would prove, that this argument was erroneous. At the commencement of his majesty's reign, it was enacted, that a certain sum should be settled upon his majesty for the maintenance of the royal household, and the due support of the royal dignity. This was not to be at the absolute disposal and control of his majesty, but was to be applied to certain purposes; and if it was more than sufficient to answer those purposes, the surplus became the property of the public: It was then to the support of the royal household and the maintenance of the royal dignity, that the sum was granted, and not any mention was made of the privy purse. The sum granted by the act was 800,000l. per annum, and the king was to take charge of all expenses which might come under the head of civil list, under the responsibility of his ministers, who were subject to the same responsibility to parliament. It was not till the 39th of the king that savings having grown up out of the privy purse and the duchy

of Lancaster, his majesty was empowered to dispose of them by will. The act was purposely intended to enable his majesty to dispose of sums which had been issued out of the privy purse, and were vested in real or personal property; but the privy purse was not there mentioned as a particular limited sum. Whatever the king had saved up to the period of his illness was, indeed, private property under that act, and might be disposed of at his pleasure.

He should now consider the manner in which the privy purse was regarded in the 51st and 52nd of the king; and to this part of the subject he begged the particular attention of the committee. At the time of passing the first of those acts, there seemed a reasonable prospect of his majesty's speedy recovery, and the object was, that at the time of his majesty's convalescence, he should find every thing about him in the same situation as before his illness. Now, if the privy purse had been, as it was contended to be, the private property of the king, as sacred and inviolable as the estate of a private gentleman, why was any separate arrangement made concerning it, different from that concerning private property in general? Why was it thought necessary to have an act of parliament on the subject. This act, however, recognized the principle of disposing of this fund. Then came the more melancholy year, in which all prospect of his majesty's recovery was contemplated as a mere possibility. It then was necessary to provide for his

majesty's

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 commissionThe 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

ers.

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.

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 wea-. riness; 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. condly, in the bill founded upon that proceeding, which was

Se

brought