§ Mr. Whitbreadinquired, whether the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to lay before the House, a copy of the commission granted to lord Yarmouth, Mr. J. Nash, and Mr. C. Bicknell, relative to the Royal Parks, for which he had moved on the preceding evening, and relative to the legality of which some doubts, it appeared, had arisen in the minds of the Lords of the Treasury?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it would be improper to lay it before the House, as it was at present under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. He hoped he should be able in a few days to acquaint the House with the result.
Lord Yarmouthsaid, it was perfectly well known that for a number of years his present Majesty had set an example of farming to the country, which example was followed by the duke of Bedford, Mr. Coke, and others. The King farmed a part of the Royal Park by way of recreation; and the management of it was under different men at different times. Three gentlemen were appointed commissioners, of whom he was one, under a power of attorney. They had done no act which was not done by the former commissioners, and if it pleased God to restore his Majesty, he would receive back his farm in exactly its former state. He considered that an inquiry of this kind was prying into the private concerns of the Sovereign. His Majesty had always kept the wardenship of Windsor Forest unnamed, that the office might not be filled up by ministers. He could not help thinking this sort of prying into the private concerns of the King was rather indecorous. The only expense of the commission was a clerk of the lowest description.
§ Mr. Tierneysaid, according to the account of the noble lord, all the forests and parks might be divided into farms. This had never been the case in former times, and he should be glad to know why this new practice had prevailed. By the old practice, his Majesty had been always in the habit of appointing wardens, and there might be some reason for appointing 846 commissioners. He wished to know whether this was really a power of attorney or a commission. There might be very good reasons for putting the matter under the consideration of the law officers, for it would require to be known whom these commissioners were to be responsible to. He knew no reason why Mr. Bicknell or Mr. Nash should devote their time without being paid for it. If there was no salary attached to their offices, it made the case more extraordinary; and he should like to know what an architect had to do with parks. If the noble lord wanted a legal adviser, he could not have a better than Mr. Bicknell; but he could not understand what assistance Mr. Nash could render him. It would be proper, therefore, that the power of attorney should be produced.
§ Mr. Whitbreadthen moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, a copy of any commission or instrument, purporting to vest certain powers and authorities in the earl of Yarmouth, John Nash, esq., and Charles Bicknell, esq. respecting the Royal Parks."
Lord Yarmouthsaid, there had been no ranger of the Great Park since the time of the late duke of Cumberland; and the King would not appoint a ranger or warden, in order that his amusements might not become a subject of inquiry before Parliament.
Lord Castlereaghapprehended, that the hon. gentleman did not consider the question as one of mere curiosity; but as no abuse had been alleged, and it had not been shown that the Treasury had been negligent, he did not consider it a subject for the control of Parliament. If his Royal Highness was not so fond of farming as his Majesty, it was not extraordinary that he should appoint persons to superintend the management of the parks. If it should appear, after inquiry had been made, that the Treasury had acted improperly, then the hon. gentleman might interpose.
§ Sir John Simeonopposed the motion.
§ Mr. Whitbreaddid not wish to pry into the amusements of the Crown. He had conceived that the power vested in the commissioners was greater than it now appeared to be; but he wished to know why no ranger, who was the old constitutional officer, had been appoint to Windsor park?
§ Mr. Tierneydenied, that by the Act of the 53d George 3, it was intended to give the King a power to break up the parks that were given as a part of the royalty to maintain the dignity of the Crown. No answer whatever had been given, why a ranger of the parks had not been appointed; and he had not heard any thing to prove, that any direct advantage had been gained by a commission.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotthought, that what his noble friend had stated, namely, that his Royal Highness wished all the farms to remain in the same state as his Majesty left them, was a sufficient reason why no ranger had been appointed.
§ Mr. Tierneybegged to be informed what was the point of law that had now been referred to the Crown lawyers, and why it had not before been decided, when the commission had been so long in existence?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown was required as soon as the point was regularly raised.
Mr. Bennetasked whether there would be any objection made to the production of the expenses of the erection of the Thatched Palace in Windsor Great Park?
§ Mr. Huskissonreferred the hon. gentleman to the Treasury, which had issued warrants for the money which had been paid in his department.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeradmitted that there would be no objection to complete the accounts already upon the table, to a certain date, regarding the erections in Windsor park.
§ The question was then put, and negatived.