CIVIL LIST. (Hansard, 26 June 1815)

§ Mr. Tierney
took occasion to observe, that this subject was, as he had apprehended long since, brought forward at too late a period of the session to undergo any due dicussion. Such a discussion could not indeed take place, as the House knew scarcely any thing of the items of the account to which this Resolution for 534 713l. referred, in consequence of the refusal to have the papers respecting it printed. He should not, however, oppose the motion, as it was not, he understood, the intention of the right hon. gentleman to propose any legislative measure upon the subject this session; but he should reserve himself for the occasion in the next session, when he trusted this business would be fully discussed, and he hoped that by that time gentlemen would en- 1000 deavour to make themselves acquainted with this account. But without going into any discussion at present, he must observe upon the impression produced out of doors in consequence of a strong assertion in that House, that by the arrangement of the Civil List his Majesty was a loser, and the country a gainer, because the produce of the hereditary revenue would be truly more productive than the revenue of the Civil List. This assertion, however, he directly denied; for he could not suppose it was meant to include in the Civil List the occasional grants made to George 2, which grants ceased with that monarch's life. But he wished that gentlemen on the other side would state what they meant by the hereditary revenue; and he hoped the right hon. gentleman would come forward with some distinet statement on the subject before the close of the session.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that this vote was brought under the consideration of the House as soon as it was practicable, quite as soon indeed as it could have been if the Bill had been adopted, for which the right hon. gentleman was an advocate, at an early period of the session. For the accounts respecting the Civil List were laid before the House as soon as that Bill required, and these accounts were immediately referred to a committee, upon whose report the present was founded. He should not enter into the general discussion at present, as he did not mean to propose any legislative measure until the next session but he hoped that during the recess, gentlemen would thoroughly examine the Report of the Committee, and upon such examination he was persuaded they would come to a conclusion very different from that stated by the right hon. gentleman. It would be seen, indeed, that this Report made an accurate distinction between the hereditary and the temporary revenue of the Crown. The hereditary revenue was in fact the grant made upon the abolition of the feudal rights of the Crown, and he was fully prepared to maintain the assertion, that his Majesty was a loser by the commutation of that revenue for the produce of the Civil List.

§ Mr. Tierney
contended, that the hereditary revenue ought to have been distinguished from the temporary.

Lord Castlereagh
said, that if the Crown had possessed an improvable revenue instead of a fixed one, as was the case with 1001 George 2, it would not only have been prevented from ever coming to Parliament to make good deficiencies, but it would have been left in possession of an aggregate sum of 6,000,000l. more than it ever had received since his present Majesty's accession. his opinion, indeed, remained unchanged, that no income in the empire had been so little increased, in proportion to the progressive increase of other incomes, as that of the Crown.

§ Mr. Tierney
observed, that it did not require the Report of the Committee to prove what the noble lord had said.

Mr. Wynn
denied that the hereditary revenue of the Crown was beyond the control of Parliament. If the amount of that hereditary revenue exceeded what Parliament might think necessary for the expenditure of the Civil List, the Crown was bound to apply the surplus towards the payment of the army, navy, or any other branch of expenditure which Parliament might propose; and he would instance, as a proof, "he case of king William, whose hereditary revenue was charged with an additional expense of 100,000l. a year by Parliament. The revenue of the Crown, whatever might be its nature, was the revenue of the people, and as such, subject to the control of Parliament.

Lord Binning
vindicated the Report of the Committee, as being drawn up in the only way that could render its inquiries useful.
The Resolution was then agreed to, as were the other resolutions of the committee.