HC Deb 31 May 1815 vol 31 cc531-54
Lord Althorpe

felt that, in rising to call the attention of the House to the motion he was about to make, he ought to intreat their pardon for having undertaken a question of such weighty importance. He had hoped that it would have been undertaken by some person of talents more commanding than he could boast; but thinking it a case which could not be neglected, he trusted that the House would meet his exertions with indulgence. He felt how unequal he was to the task; but the question lay in so small a compass, and was in its nature so plain and so distinct, that he thought it impossible he could express himself so ill as not to make it intelligible to the House. The motion he intended to make was, that a committee be appointed to inquire into the mode in which the 100,000l. granted by the House to the Prince Regent for the equipment of his Royal Highness, on assuming the Regency, was disposed of. He fancied that he should establish a sufficient ground for acceding to this proposal, if he could show a well-founded cause for suspecting that an act of parliament had been violated, and that, too, in a case of money, on which that House always entertained a just and constitutional jealousy. When his Royal Highness took the Regency under certain restrictions, it was said that he did not wish to accept of any money for an outfit; but in the following year, on the expiration of those restrictions, ministers came down to the House, requiring 100,000l. for that purpose. General resolutions were at first proposed, and afterwards, in the committee of supply, others were agreed to of a more particular nature. An act of parliament was then passed, assigning that sum for an especial purpose; and his object would be attained by showing that the money was applied in a manner essentially different from the spirit of the Act. The noble lord then proceeded to argue, that an improper use had been made of the grant. He meant not to press on the House the observations which had been made, when this grant was originally voted. But if nothing was said in the course of the debates on the subject, in the smallest degree recognizing a right to appropriate this money to any other purpose than that for which it was specially voted, he certainly should place some reliance on this negative evidence, in favour of its being appropriated in a particular manner. Nothing appeared in the different discussions, which could for a moment authorize the grant being applied to any other expenses than those incidental to the outfit of the Prince Regent. How, then, was the money laid out? By a paper recently laid before the House by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it appeared, that part of the sum voted by the House, for the mere purpose of outfit, had been placed in the hands of the commissioners for the liquidation of his Royal Highness's debts, and that by them it had been appropriated to the dis- charge of such burthens as they deemed it proper to remove. Could any person, looking at this fact, deny that the act of parliament had been violated? It was said in answer to this, that the money having been paid, and a receipt given for it, Parliament had nothing farther to do with it—they had no right to inquire into its appropriation. But he denied this principle. He contended, that when the Legislature voted money for a specific purpose, they ought to be well assured that their intentions were complied with. The resolutions of the committee stated, "That a Sum not exceeding 100,000l. should be granted to his royal highness the Prince Regent, to defray the expenses attendant on his assumption of the regal authority;" and, however that resolution might be quoted as admitting of such an appropriation of the sum granted, as was understood to have taken place, he could not see how it explained away, or trenched upon, the words of the act of parliament. He considered the resolutions (an act of parliament having been subsequently passed on the subject) as nothing more, in point of law, than the debates which had taken place on the question. To place the matter in a clearer point of view, he would put it thus:—Suppose a father allowed his son a sum of money, for a certain purpose, and that he employed it in liquidating debts, of which the donor knew nothing, would that be considered a fair appropriation of the gift? The letter connected with this subject, which the right hon. gentleman had, on a former evening, laid on the table, was dated (and the circumstance was worth observing) on the 20th of May. The answer, from Mr. Gray, was of the same date.* Now, he * Copy of a Letter, dated 20th May 1815, from the right hon. Nicholas Vansittart, Chancellor of his Majesty's Exchequer, to Robert Gray, esq. Secretary to the Prince of Wales's Commissioners. Downing-Street, 20th May, 1815. Sir; Having received the commands of his royal highness the Prince Regent, to lay before the House of Commons an explanation of the manner in which the sum of one hundred thousand pounds, granted to his Royal Highness by the Act of the 52d Geo. 3, cap. 7, has been applied; I request you to furnish me with such information as it may be necessary to lay before the House of Commons ac- lord Althorpe) had given notice of the present motion on the 18th of May, and therefore it would appear, that both the application of the right hon. gentleman, and the answer of Mr. Gray, were the result of that notice. Mr. Gray, in his letter, stated, that he sum of 100,000l. granted to his Royal highness, was placed in the hands of the commissioners appointed, in 1812, for the payment of his Royal Highness's debts; or the discharge of which, certain funds were made over to them; and, amongst he rest, this sum of 100,000l. With these sums, it was directed, that all debts contracted up to the l8th of February 1812, should be paid. Of course, this must include every claim which had originated since the year 1795, at which time all the debts of the Prince of Wales were paid by Parliament. In the next paragraph of the letter Mr. Gray observed, that the greater part of the debts to which this sum was appropriated, were contracted in the year of restricted Regency—and this, alone, he (lord Althorpe) considered sufficient to call for parliamentary inquiry. The noble lord opposite (Castlereagh) had, on a former night, stated, that this sum of 100,000l. was not to be added to what had been granted for furniture, but ought, in fact, to be deducted from it—but this was directly contrary to what Mr. Gray set forth in his letter, if he rightly understood what that gentleman had written. He did not know whether he had proved, technically, that the sum of 100,000l. voted by Parliament, had been misapplied, in this instance; but he thought he had proved, to the common sense of the House, that the Act of Parliament had been violated. He really believed, that, when the vote of 100,000l. cordingly. I have the honour to be, Sir, &c. N. VANSITTART. Copy of a Letter, dated 20th May 1815, from Robert Gray, esq. to the right hon. Nicholas Vansittart; respecting the manner in which the sum of 100,000l., granted to his royal highness the Prince Regent, by the Act of the 52d Geo. 3, cap. 7, has been applied. "Somerset-Place, 20th May, 1815. Sir; In reply to your letter, signifying that you have received the commands of his royal highness the Prince Regent, to lay before the House of Commons an explanation of the manner in which the was applied for, it was intended to be appropriated to a different purpose from that to which it appeared to have been directed. For, he was convinced, that any person who looked to the debates of the time, would at once see, that, if the amount of the debts of his Royal Highness had then been laid before the House, provision would have been immediately made for their liquidation. This would have been the wisest and the most constitutional mode. Instead of which, ministers came down, and, having called for a grant of money, permitted it to be laid out in a manner utterly at variance with its original destination. His lordship concluded by moving, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the application of the sum of 100,000l. granted to his royal highness the Prince Regent, by an Act of 52 Geo. 3, c. 7, for defray- sum of 100,000l. granted to his Royal Highness by the Act of 52 Geo. 3, cap. 7, has been applied; and desiring to be furnished with such information as it may be necessary to lay before the House of Commons accordingly; I have the honour to state, that the commissioners appointed by his Royal Highness, under his privy seal as Prince of Wales, dated 11th February 1812, were authorized to ascertain and settle all claims and demands upon his Royal Highness to the 18th day of the same month; for discharging which, there were certain funds made over to them, and amongst others, the before mentioned sum of 100,000l.; but the commissioners were not instructed to observe any particular course in apportioning that sum amongst the creditors, nor was it ever intimated to them by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, nor by any other person, that a separate account was to be kept thereof, or of the expenses specially incident to his Royal Highness's assumption of the personal exercise of the royal authority. The general amount of the claims outstanding on the 18th day of February 1812, comprised not only the greater portion of the expenses that had arisen during the past year of restricted Regency, but also a variety of debts previously incurred for articles actually used or consumed in that same year, and which must then have been provided, if they had not been already in use, or in store; yet the difficulty, and in most instances the impracticability of determining what ing the expenses incident to the assumption of the royal authority, and that they have power to send for persons, papers, and records."

Lord Castlereagh

began by explaining why the letter of Mr. Gray bore date the 20th of May, because at that time it had first been thought proper to embody the information (which had been before contained in a memorandum) in such a shape that it might with propriety be laid before the House. He begged the House not to be misled by that favour which it usually extended to a motion for inquiry, to pass a direct censure on the advisers of the Crown, because, unless a presumptive proof of a breach of the law was made out, the appointment of the committee would be unwarrantable. The breach of law, if it could be made out, would be even criminal; but before the House was to be deemed applicable to his Royal Highness's use as Regent, and what as Prince of Wales, is sufficiently obvious; and indeed it never occurred to the commissioners to attempt any separation of the accounts for that purpose. It may be proper to add, that the commissioners are not empowered or authorized to discharge any claims, other than those made up to the 18th day of February 1812; and that the claims then made up included all for which his Royal Highness was in any way answerable. I am, with great respect; Sir, &c. ROBERT GRAY, Secretary to the Prince of Wales's Commissioners. Copy of another Letter from Robert Gray, esq. In answer to the further inquiry made respecting the application of the sum of 100,000l. granted to his royal highness the Prince Regent by the Act of 52 Geo. 3, cap. 7, it is to be observed, that the Prince's commissioners made an early distribution, to the amount of 97,962l. Os. l0d. amongst upwards of 390 claimants; and that, according to such an investigation, as there has been time for making in that particular, the payments under that distribution appear to have covered debts, incurred within the year of the restricted Regency, to the amount of nearly 80,000l. ROBERT GRAY, Somerset-Place, Secretary to the Prince's 26 May 1815. Commissioners. came to such a conclusion, he should beg leave to make a few observations on the general circumstances under which these questions were brought forward, and the unfair advantage which was usually taken by throwing a general odium upon the administration of this branch of the public service. He should therefore attempt to show, by an account of the revenues which the civil list now enjoyed, and those which had been transferred to Parliament, that the public had not only sustained no loss, but received a material boon and benefit from the manner in which the Civil-list revenue had been settled during the present reign. A bargain had been made at the commencement of the reign of his present Majesty, by which the duties and revenues which George 2 had received, and which would have been continued to his present Majesty if he had preferred that course, were exchanged for a certain revenue. By this arrangement the Crown lost a revenue which might increase according to the general scale of expenditure in the country for a money rent. He should state what the amount of both their revenues had actually been: what he should state would be nothing more than had been laid before the committee in papers, the result of which would be shortly before the House.

Mr. Tierney

rose to order, and objected to the selection by the noble lord from a paper which had not been granted to the House. The papers in question had been laid before the House for the purpose of being conveyed to a committee up stairs, and his motion for the printing of them had been rejected. The noble lord had therefore no right to make a selection from that which was denied to the House, and of which no member could judge.

Lord Castlereagh

observed, that if he was restricted from bringing forward any new information, the line of debate would be very much curtailed, as he should be confined to mere matter of historical information.

Mr. Tierney

said, the noble lord might give any historical information he chose; but he submitted to the Chair, whether any member was at liberty to make use of that information for a parliamentary purpose, which the House had refused itself by its vote.

The Speaker

said, he knew of no technical rule to prevent a member from making use of any information which he might possess; but the source from which it was derived, or the probability of its correctness or incorrectness, was always open to animadversion.

Mr. Whitbread

observed, that in the present case there was a vote of the House on the subject, by which it had refused that the specific paper which the noble lord was about to read should be printed, and put within the reach of every member of the House. Whether the noble lord was or was not a member of the committee on the Civil-list, he could not with propriety make use of papers which were unknown to the rest of the House.

Mr. Bathurst

was surprised that the conduct of his noble friend should be considered out of order, as there could be no practice more universal than that the ministers of the Crown should give statements from documents not known to the House in general. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for instance, was continually in the habit of reading papers respecting the state of the revenue which were not before the House.

Mr. Horner

thought the conduct of the noble lord, in reading the paper in question, destroyed that equality which gave the freedom of debate, and which was the foundation of all the rules of order. It was known to every one that a paper of accounts would, with very little ingenuity, present very different views to different minds; and it was an evident contravention of the rules of order, that those papers, which had been refused by two votes, to the members of the House, should be partially read by any particular member who might get possession of them.

Lord Castlereagh

said, that he should not read any thing, the results of which, would not be confirmed by the committee. He did not conceive that he was restricted in his statements to information which was in the possession of the House, because he might save his time, if he could state nothing but that which the House knew before.

Mr. Whitbread

wished to know, whether the paper the noble lord was about to refer to, was one of those which had been placed on the table, for the purpose of being referred to the Civil-list committee, and which, therefore, was not before the House? If this were the case, he objected to any quotation from it.

Lord Castlereagh

said, it did not, in the least degree, vary the matter, whether from a paper, or from his memory, he stated facts essential to the argument he should submit to the House. His right, as a minister of the Crown, permitted him to quote those documents which came into his hands. He would, however, give an answer to the hon. gentleman, that would enable him to sit down quietly—the document he alluded to was not one of those to which the observations of the hon. gentleman pointed.

Mr. Whitbread

observed, that if the document was one of those to which he had alluded, he should propose a vote to the House, as to the propriety of the noble lord's making use of it.

Lord Castlereagh.

—It is not the paper.

Mr. Whitbread.

—Not the paper! Is it any one of the papers which have been refused to the House generally?

Lord Castlereagh

said, that the gentlemen on the opposite side of the House seemed afraid of that information for which they were generally so anxious, and to dread the effects of free discussion. He should state, that during the whole of the present reign the ordinary and extraordinary revenue of the Civil-list had been 51,623,564l. The hereditary revenue of the Crown, together with those duties which in the time of George 2 had constituted the revenue of the Civil-list, and which would have been given without hesitation to his present Majesty in lieu of a fixed Civil-list income, had amounted in the same time to 67,494,368l., which exceeded the sum which he had before mentioned by 15,860,804l. The noble lord further stated, that the debts which had accrued upon the Civil-list since his Majesty's accession to the throne, amounted on the whole to 3,200,000l. of which the Crown discharged 1,922,000l. out of the droits of Admiralty, and other resources belonging to the Crown, in the West Indies. Therefore Parliament had been called upon to pay only l,278,000l. Thus it appeared that the expense borne by the public, on the score of the Civil-list, had been extremely exaggerated, and hence a very unjust impression had gone abroad; the more so because if the Crown had continued to retain its hereditary revenues, as in former reigns, instead of entering into the new arrangement concluded upon the accession of his present Majesty, it would be at present in possession of a surplus of no less than ten millions, after liquidating all its debts. Hence it was clear, that the arrangement alluded to formed an advantageous bargain for the public, while it was disadvantageous to the Crown, inasmuch as the produce of the hereditary revenue had gone on progressively increasing with the prosperity of the country, while the revenue of the Civil-list was fixed.—With regard to the application of the sum referred to in the motion upon the Regent's assumption of the unrestricted regency, he was surprised at the perpetual occurrence of the word 'outfit' in the speech of the noble mover, and of others who had heretofore adverted to this subject. For no such word was to be found in the Act to which the noble mover referred, nor had any such word been used by those with whom the Act originated. He believed, indeed, that this word was first brought forward and applied to this question by the right hon. gentleman on the opposite side (Mr. Tierney). The right hon. gentleman must, however, in the use of the word 'outfit' on this occasion, have rather looked for the authority of applying it to the reports of the debates contained in the public journals, than to the registers of Parliament; for there certainly was not any parliamentary record to warrant the application. When the proposition of this 100,000l. was under discussion, it would be recollected that it was never stated to be meant as an outfit;—that no such meaning was attached to it by the gentlemen opposite, whose only objection to the grant was, that it was not accompanied by any estimate. There was indeed on that occasion no question whatever whether this sum was to be applied to the antecedent or subsequent expenses of the Regent; although it had lately become the fashion to insist that this sum was solely designed for the purposes of an outfit. There was no reason whatever to, suppose that this sum had not been applied as it was intended, to defray the expenses incident to the Regent's assumption of the royal authority. The House must be aware, that before the Prince of Wales had become Regent, his Royal Highness had placed his family upon a very economic and restricted establishment, with a view to provide for the liquidation of his debts, and to prevent any new debts from being incurred. But on, his Royal Highness's assumption of the Regency, he was obliged to extend his expenses in the purchase of carriages and horses, together with other articles necessary to maintain the proper dignity of his station. It would also be recollected, that his Royal Highness had given a very splendid fête at Carlton-house, of which the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Tierney) was competent to judge, as he had been present on that occasion. The expense of this fête amounted, he was assured, to no less than 12,000l.; and being led to think that this expense was defrayed out of the Royal Household, he had made inquiry upon the subject, but found that his Royal Highness had derived no aid whatever from that quarter. As to the letter of the Regent's officer (Mr. Gray), which had been so much animadverted upon, the writer merely stated the difficulty of distinguishing what proportion of the 100,000l. was applied prospectively, and what to discharge the debts of former years. Reverting to the sum under consideration, the noble lord maintained that there was nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Act under which it was granted, prescribing the application to prospective purposes alone. But, in considering the subject, it was but just to take into view, that the expenses of the Regent were most materially diminished by the property of the Prince of Wales, which had been transferred to his use. Sure he was, that the obloquy which had gone forth on this subject would never have existed if this distinction had been duly considered;—if the establishments of the Prince of Wales and the Regent had been separately viewed, as they ought, in order to appreciate the reduced expenditure of the latter, through the property derived from the former. He (lord C.) had no doubt whatever that if the noble mover had insisted, that instead of this transfer of property, the Prince of Wales should have alienated all his property for the satisfaction of his debts, he (lord A.) would have made a very improvident bargain for the public. For instance, who could deny that if his Royal Highness, upon his assumption of the Regency, were to have all his equipments provided at the public expense, that instead of 100,000l., 2 or 300,000l. would not have been necessary even for carriages and horses. [A laugh, and hear!] He could not pretend to state the precise sum necessary for such purposes. But he was persuaded that the arrangement adopted by his Royal Highness was, under every consideration, much more advantageous for the public, as well as more congenial to the liberality of his Royal Highness's own feelings. His Royal Highness desired that all his property as Prince of Wales should be car- ried forward for the use of the Regent, in order to save the public from any new burthens. As to the precise application of the 100,000l. under discussion, he had endeavoured to obtain all the information in his power, and he had found that his Royal Highness had ordered that his debts should be made up to the 18th of February 1812, in order that those debts, for the liquidation of which a previous provision had been made, should not be confounded with such as might be subsequently incurred. When upon receiving the sum of 100,000l., 97,000l. were promptly applied to the discharge of several different claims, 80,000l. of which indeed had been actually incurred within the year in which his Royal Highness had acted as restricted Regent; the House would see that the application of this sum was such as could not be found fault with. Among the articles of property belonging to the Prince of Wales which had been transferred to the Regent, the noble lord stated, that wine worth no less than 15,000l. had been so transferred. But the value of the articles so transferred was so very considerable, that if they had been handed over to the commissioners for liquidating the debts of the Prince of Wales, instead of having been so transferred, the amount which the House would have been called upon to advance to the Regent on his assumption of the royal authority would have been infinitely beyond the sum under consideration, He hoped that he had satisfied the mind of the House on all the points to which he had referred, and he therefore trusted that there was no ground for the proposed inquiry. The Act under discussion had, he contended, been in no instance violated; but that, on the contrary, whether in technical points or in spirit, the object of that Act had been most honourably fulfilled. The Prince of Wales had, it was known, some years since, set apart 53,000l. a year for the payment of his debts (together with the revenue of the duchy of Cornwall, which his Royal Highness spontaneously sacrificed for that honourable purpose), which sum was vested in the hands of commissioners, at the head of whom was Mr. Adam, to whose integrity and capacity it was impossible to make any objection; and a similar commission under the same gentleman was constituted by the Privy Seal in 1813; which commissions were quite distinct. To the latter the in vestigation of any claims upon the Regent was consigned; but as to the former, he was prepared to state the amount of the debts of the Prince of Wales which were yet unredeemed; and hence the House would see when the sum of 53,000l. year, at present under the management of that commission, would revert to the public. He could assure the House that no disposition existed to withhold any information upon the subject, whatever insinuations of mystery or concealment might have been thrown out. Now, then, if any part, or even the whole of the 100,000l. under consideration, instead of being expended as he had stated, had been applied to the liquidation of his Royal Highness's debts in aid of the sum already mentioned, he was prepared to maintain that such an application would have been substantially the same to the public; because the 53,000l, a year at present in the hands of commissioners, would have sooner become available. In fact, the case would have been as broad as it was long for the country. On the whole, he felt that no part of the calumny which had too often been pointed against persons in high station, would have applied to the Regent, on this transaction, if his conduct were fairly understood; for his Royal Highness had evinced a disposition to deal most honourably towards his creditors, and most liberally towards the public, as he flattered himself he had satisfactorily shown to the House. And as to the Civil-list generally, he maintained that for the last fifty years, since that Civil-list was arranged, the bargain had been extremely advantageous for the country, while the Crown had suffered a loss in the privation of its hereditary revenue, which had gone on increasing in its produce in the same proportion as all other descriptions of property, of the nature of which increase every individual possessed of property must be fully aware. Under all the circumstances of the case, seeing that the public interest had been materially benefited in the transactions alluded to, and that the Prince Regent had throughout acted with the utmost honour and liberality, the noble lord concluded with expressing his conviction that the motion would be resisted.

Mr. Tierney

began by observing, that if the noble lord had confined his remarks to the motion before the House, he should not have thought it necessary to add any thing to the able speech of the noble mover. But the noble lord had gone into a variety of details since the reign of George 2, which were quite irrelevant to the merits of the motion, and also into a vindication of the conduct of the Regent, to which conduct that motion had no reference; for the object of the motion was, not to question the conduct of the Regent, but to inquire into the proceedings of those by whom the application or expenditure of the sum under consideration had been directed. It would be recollected, that when in 1787 the sum of 55,000l. was voted to defray the expense of repairing Carlton-house, the Prince stood pretty much in the same situation as his Royal Highness was placed at present. The manner in which the 55,000l. was appropriated, was questioned in that House; and Mr. Sheridan, as the Prince's friend, in consequénce demanded that an inquiry should be instituted. Such an inquiry was accordingly moved by lord Sheffield, in 1791, which motion Mr. Pitt opposed until the Prince's consent was ascertained, when a committee was appointed, and the report of that committee was entirely to the credit of his Royal Highness. He had no doubt whatever that the report of a committee upon this occasion would be equally creditable to his Royal Highness, whatever might be the result to his Royal Highness's advisers or agents; and unless the contrary should be distinctly stated by the noble lord opposite, he could not believe that his Royal Highness entertained any objection to the proposed committee. There were several points in the noble lord's speech which he would not follow, first, because those points were foreign to the present question; and secondly, because they had been often answered heretofore. If, for instance, his Majesty were recommended to resort to the old arrangement which prevailed previous to the establishment of the Civil-list, Parliament would take care that if a surplus of 10 millions, or any thing like it, occurred upon the produce of the hereditary revenue, many articles provided from the public purse should be defrayed out of that revenue. The question, however, at present before the House had no relation to that point; but went to inquire whether the sum of 100,000l. voted to the Regent for a specific purpose, had been applied to that purpose agreeably to the provisions of the Act.—The noble lord, continued the right hon. gentleman, had appealed to him respect- ing the splendour and beauty of the fête which had been given at Carlton-house. Certainly he had the honour of being present at that fête, and the circumstance made the stronger impression upon his mind because it was the last time he had enjoyed such an honour—[a laugh]: but, with the exception of that fête, he did not know of a single occasion for expense during the year of the restricted Regency. In fact, he did not believe there was a single item of expenditure during that period which could be considered as arising out of the exercise of the royal authority. It was not a fair statement, therefore, to affirm that such an expense had taken place; but if it really had, let it be proved in the committee. The right hon. gentleman here stated the manner in which the present question had been brought under the consideration of Parliament, and referred to the letter from Mr. Gray to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in consequence of inquiries made by the latter, respecting the application of the 100,000l., and which he (Mr. Tierney) described as the most deliberate insult ever offered to Parliament, for it constituted a direct violation of one of its acts. That letter of Mr. Gray, also, had furnished the noble lord with an argument which he had used in the course of his speech, and which implied a proceeding on the part of his Royal Highness to which he did not believe he could condescend. He did not—he could not—believe, that his Royal Highness, as Prince of Wales, would stoop to supply the Regent with wine, and charge for it; that he would say, "Value my wine in my cellar as belonging to the Prince of Wales, and let me drink it as Prince Regent." [Hear, hear!] Then as to the property of his Royal Highness:—he denied that he had any right to dispose of it, as Regent, for the liquidation of his debts; Carlton-house had been made royal property, and he was quite sure his Royal Highness would rather have come down to Parliament in any shape, for the payment of his debts, if he had been aware that the noble lord could have made such a defence for him. The noble lord had spoken of the 100,000l. as if it were an absolute and unconditional grant from Parliament to the Regent; but he denied that it was any such thing, and he rested his denial upon the express words of the Act; and unless Parliament meant to recognize it purely as a gift, abandoning all right to inquire into its ap- plication, after having voted it, they must agree to the motion of his noble friend. The inquiry proposed by his noble friend would be an act of justice to his Royal Highness, and the House would only discharge the justice which it owed to itself in voting for it. The history of that 100,000l. was rather curious. On the l1th of February, 1812, the Bill for bestowing it was passed; on the same day, other bills also were passed, granting certain sums to the Queen and the Princesses; and then on the 13th of February came forth the celebrated letter to his royal highness the Duke of York, informing him that the new era had begun. That, he believed, was the true history of the transaction; and the new era certainly did commence at the price of 160 or 170,000l. a year. [Hear, hear!] It would appear, however, that the public had paid the 100,000l. twice over; and that might be proved without torturing any facts from, their legitimate tendency. In the report of the committee in 1813, upon the expenditure of the Civil-list, there was a sum of 104,000l., in the fourth class of the Lord Chamberlain's department, which excess arose almost wholly from the expenses of Carlton-house, and 61,000l, of that was stated to be for plate and furniture incident upon the assumption of the royal functions with proper splendour by the Prince Regent. In the department of Master of the Horse also, there was a charge of 15,000l. arising chiefly from the additional purchase of horses and carriages consequent upon the assumption of the Regency. So that, notwithstanding the grant of 100,000l. for the outfit, neither plate, nor furniture, nor horses, nor carriages, were purchased, but all those particular items are separately charged, to the amount of 76,000l. Under these circumstances, would the House endure to be told that they were not to inquire what had become of the 100,000l., but that they must pay another 100,000l. which had been employed for the purposes contemplated in voting the first? If ever there was a strong case made out, or one which, it was impossible for any man living to face, he firmly believed it to be the present; and if that House had any regard for the public opinion out of doors, they would not venture to refuse his noble friend the committee he required. The noble lord had talked a great deal about his Royal Highness's debts. Why had not these debts been paid? Why had they not been fairly submitted to Parliament? Because, said the noble lord, it was more pleasant to the feelings of his Royal Highness to pay them out of his own income, than to transfer them as a burthen upon the public. But he denied that his Royal Highness had any right so to appropriate his income, because he had no right to the enjoyment of it at all, from the moment that he became possessed of the unrestricted allowances of the Civil-list. It was true, the allowance which Parliament granted to him as Prince of Wales, was granted during his life, or during the life of the King; but, would any man deny that the political demise of his Majesty was a circumstance which ought to release the revenue of the country from the 120,000l. per annum granted to his Royal Highness? Why, then, were his debts left in that state of ambiguity, that so little of their real amount was known? Because there was some secret behind the curtain; because it was thought desirable to keep his Royal Highness in check, and to make him know that the ministers had something to let out if they chose to do so. Hence the profound silence upon the subject of his debts, so far as any distinct specification of them was concerned; as if they wished to make it up with his Royal Highness, which he (Mr. T.) did not think possible, for the slur they threw upon him in 1795. But he would defy the noble lord to point out an instance in the history of this country, where the debts of the Crown had been thus paid by a kind of side wind. The usage was, in such cases, for a message to be sent down to Parliament, communicating the encumbrances under which the Crown laboured, and referring them to its consideration. Again, he would ask, what were the debts of his Royal Highness? The noble lord said, if the House wished it, he would satisfy them upon the subject: for himself, he should not testify any premature curiosity; but if the noble lord chose to make any communication, it would certainly be a satisfactory proceeding. He was certain they must be large, from the appropriation which had been made, of various sums, to their liquidation. With respect to the question immediately before them, every syllable which had fallen from the noble lord pointed to the necessity of inquiry; and his firm conviction was, that if an inquiry were granted, no imputation would appear against his Royal Highness, but a very strong impu- tation would be cast upon a cabal whose practices would be detected, and of which practices they ought to be ashamed. [Hear, hear!] A case would be made out, in the committee, very painful to some individuals connected with his Royal Highness and others connected with the ministers; but he was persuaded the conduct of the Prince Regent himself would come out of the inquiry free from any blame whatever. If the House refused to go into the examination, all the people of England would see, and would be ready to exclaim, that they paid no respect to the application of the public money; that though they held the strings of the public purse, they treated with indifference a strong case of wasteful expenditure, at the very moment when they were calling upon that people to pay a tenth of their whole income, and to support the burthen of granting subsidies to foreign Powers. He was sure the character of the House was more at stake, in the public estimation, upon that question than upon any other. The people would regard the whole transaction as a dealing between the Crown and the House of Commons, and those who voted against the motion of his noble friend would be considered as paying their court to the Crown. [Hear,hear! from the Ministerial benches.] At no period of the history of this country was it less desirable that such an impression should exist in the public mind, than at the present, when every man, from the highest to the lowest, ought to be satisfied that not a farthing more was paid than the strict necessities of the Government required. If the committee was refused, a suspicion would work in the public mind as to the manner in which the 100,000l. had been applied, and that would do more injury to his Royal Highness's character than any inquiry that could be instituted.

Mr. Leach

said he could not, after the most deliberate examination of the present question, come to the same conclusion as the right hon. gentleman. On the contrary, he did not see the slightest grounds for the proposed inquiry. The hon. and learned gentleman warmly vindicated the character and conduct of Mr. Adam from any imputation which might be supposed to attach to him as the adviser and counsellor of his Royal Highness, in respect to the mode of liquidating his debts, and then proceeded to argue the question at some length, so far as it re- lated to the technical construction of the Act, in which he contended, that, strictly speaking, the money was not granted for any specific purpose, but for general and undetermined purposes. With regard to the other point of view in which the question might be considered, namely, whether in consequence of the use to which the 100,000l. was applied, a single shilling of charge had been thrown upon the public beyond what were the intentions of Parliament; he maintained that it was perfectly indifferent whether the money was applied to one purpose for which Parliament had pledged the public money, or whether to another purpose for which Parliament might equally have pledged the public money [Loud cries of Hear, hear! from the Opppsition.] If the sum were in fact applied to any other purpose to which the public money was already pledged, so far that pledge would be redeemed to the extent of the one hundred thousand pounds; and would not that be an equivalent? He said, he was arguing the point merely as one of a pecuniary nature, when he thus considered it; and he begged the House would do him the justice not to misinterpret his views. Had the money granted by the House been thrown into the sea, or devoted to any purpose which Parliament had never contemplated, then indeed there would have been matter of inquiry. But, if he was right in his facts, the right hon. gentleman laboured under a misapprehension on the subject. He could not, therefore, concur with his noble friend in his motion for an inquiry. On the best judgment that he was able to form, the act of parliament had not been violated, and he called on any legal man to say that it had. No additional burthen had been incurred by the appropriation of the grant which had taken place; and consequently nothing had occurred which demanded investigation.

Mr. Wynn

said, that it was with unfeigned pain, feeling the respect which he did for his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down, that he felt it his duty to declare that the argument of his hon. and learned friend went most directly against the privilege of Parliament, the substance of the constitution, and that active control over the Crown which the House of Commons were bound to exercise in the appropriation of the public money. What! was it a mere technical matter that a sum of money granted by Parliament for one purpose had been appropriated to another? It was a high misdemeanor to apply the public money to any other purpose than that for which Parliament had voted it. This was not a new doctrine. It prevailed on every subject. The money voted for the army could not be applied to the purposes of the navy. This was not a form or technicality, but it was of the very substance and essence of the Constitution. The second proposition of his hon. and learned friend was, that Parliament had pledged themselves to pay his Royal Highness's debts. This he utterly denied. He defied any one to point out a single line of their proceedings to that effect. It was true, that Parliament perfectly knew that engagements of that nature existed; but they were such that could not be recognised by them without the violation of an existing Act. In the event of the death of his Royal Highness, Parliament were not bound to pay those debts. Such a step would be contrary to all precedent. The posthumous debts of a Prince of Wales had never been recognised or provided for by Parliament. Frederic prince of Wales died greatly in debt, but Parliament did not saddle the country with the payment. It would, indeed, be a serious matter if, after a special act of parliament, that no debts of that description should be recognised after a certain period, that House should come forward and pay such, debts in direct violation of the Act. Conceiving that the grant had been improperly applied, he should certainly vote for the inquiry.

Mr. Long

contended, that though the House was never pledged to pay the honourable claims on his Royal Highness, yet it was aware that such claims existed, and had in fact recognised them, inasmuch as 50,000l. a year had been appropriated for their payment out of the revenue of the Prince of Wales. That annual sum would now be more speedily liberated. The right hon. gentleman here entered into a statement to show, that since the commencement of the present reign, a sum of 2,822,804l. had been given by the Crown out of funds of its own, for the service of the country; while the money that Parliament had given for the payment of the debts of the Crown had only exceeded the above sum by a surplus of 390,257l. He said, that the increase of the Prince Regent's establishment rendered the additional sum necessary, which had been fairly and justly applied. There were no grounds to admit a contrary inference; and therefore he should give his opposition to the present motion.

Mr. Ponsonby

observed, that it gave him great pain to say, that since he had sat in that House he had never heard so unconstitutional an argument as that of his hon. and learned friend near him (Mr. Leach). To the Speaker, who was so well acquainted with the history of parliament, and who knew, that by a perseverance in noble struggles against the two other branches of the Legislature, that House had established its right to direct the application of the public money, it must be particularly grating to hear it asserted, that it was no violation of the constitution to apply to one purpose the money which had been granted by that House for another. With respect to a learned friend of his (Mr. Adam), for whom he had the greatest regard, he must say, that the heaviest charge against him was the defence which it had been attempted to set up of his conduct. If any additional motive were requisite to induce the House to consent to the appointment of a committee, it was in order that his learned friend might have an opportunity of justifying himself; for he was persuaded that his learned friend could not act as had been imputed to him. His hon. and learned friend near him had said, that there had been no misapplication of the public money, because Parliament were bound to pay his Royal Highness's debts in some shape or other; and the right hon. gentleman opposite had declared, that that House had recognised those debts. This he denied. Parliament were under no pledge on the subject—although he was persuaded, that if the inconveniencies under which his Royal Highness laboured had been represented to the House, they would cheerfully have relieve him from them—and even if they were, that would be no justification for taking the money granted for one purpose and applying it to another. His hon. and learned friend called these considerations forms. Forms! They were forms for which our ancestors had fought and bled. Let hon. members read the history of the struggles of that House with the Crown on the subject. Let them read how often that House had refused grants of money to the Crown, because former grants had not been applied to the purposes for which they had been voted. Let them see how the disputes in the reign of Charles 1 were embittered by this contest; and what a share it had in the subsequent misfortunes of that misled and unhappy monarch. When pressed by necessity—after he had failed in raising ship-money—after he had failed in other devices—the suggestions of profligate lawyers and unprincipled judges—he was compelled to come to Parliament and ask for supplies, on the express condition that parliamentary commissioners should be appointed to superintend their distribution. In fact, the period from Magna Charta to the Revolution, had been a period of unceasing struggles on this subject; and the House were now told that it was a mere matter of form! [Hear, hear!] On the contrary, it was of the essence of the British Constitution. Public liberty depended on it. If when a sum of money was granted to the Crown by that House, it was applied with impunity to other purposes than that for which it was voted, there was an end of the control of Parliament over the public purse, and. the Crown would become absolute over it. The hon. members who opposed the. motion, contended that there had been, no misapplication of the grant. Now, to him nothing seemed clearer than that the object of Parliament in voting it was to defray the increased expenses which must necessarily be incurred by his Royal Highness, on his assumption of the royal authority; and therefore, that it was in consideration of expenses which were to take place, rather than of expenses which had taken place. The amount of the sum had nothing to do with the principle of the proceeding. If but one hundred pounds had been so voted and so misapplied, he would have argued as strenuously against the act. The smallest violation of the constitutional doctrine ought to be marked by the most unqualified reprobation on the part of the House. For these reasons he trusted the House would adopt the motion of his noble friend, and by doing so put an end to the possibility of their ever hearing those forms described as technicalities, which were, in point of fact, the very essence of the Constitution.

The Solicitor General,

after declaring that no one could give a more conscientious opinion on the subject than himself, contended that a strong case of the violation of the law, or of the abuse of the power vested in certain persons by the law, ought to be made out in order to induce the House to enter into an investigation of this subject by a committee. The very appointment of such a committee would imply a censure. He was not quite certain that he understood the argument of the supporters of the motion, particularly of the right hon. gentleman who spoke last. He did not understand whether that right hon. gentleman unequivocally contended that the money had been granted alone for the expenses which would be incurred by his Royal Highness on the assumption of the royal authority, and had no reference to the expenses which his Royal Highness had before that period been liable to. In the Appropriation Act, and in the resolution of the Committee of Supply, the House would find the words 'have been or may be.' At the time, the introduction of these words was opposed by gentlemen opposite, but the objection was over-ruled; because it was intended that the sum should be applied to the past as well as the future expenses of his Royal Highness. Now, unless it could be shown that the sum had not been applied to the expenses of his Royal Highness, there could be no foundation for the present motion. The general propositions of the right hon. gentleman were such as no person would contradict. The public had not been injured by the application of the sum in the manner which had taken place; and therefore to call for a committee was altogether unnecessary.

Mr. Stuart Wortley

had no hesitation in saying, that the Act of Parliament had been violated, in as far as it was a breach, of the Act to apply the money to other purposes, than those expressed in it. It appeared that all expenses of his Royal Highness's household in 1811, which were extra expenses beyond those which he would have incurred as Prince of Wales, were only, strictly speaking, payable out of the grant. But yet the hon. gentleman opposite had not made out a case which called upon the House to vote for a committee. By going into a committee they would be conveying an idea to the country that the money had been improperly applied; but of that there was not the least notion entertained. The country had not lost one farthing by it. It gave him great pleasure in coming to this conclusion. At the same time he acknowledged that the expenditure of the Civil-list had undoubtedly created a strong sensation in the country, and he felt convinced that the strength of the minority on a late debate on the subject would do good.

Lord Folkestone

expressed his surprise, that the hon. gentleman should acknowledge that a violation of the Act had been committed, and yet declare his intention to vote against inquiry.

Mr. Calcraft

conceived that his Royal Highness, during his whole life, had been exceedingly ill treated in money matters. Those who had formerly been severe towards him, were now endeavouring to make amends; but yet his Royal Highness had never been so ill-treated as he now would be if this committee were refused: 100,000l. had been voted for a specific purpose, and when this was questioned, it was owned that a direct misapplication of that sum had taken place, and that this had been advised by subordinate persons of whom the House had no cognizance.

Lord Milton

expressed himself to be as much surprised as the noble lord (Folkestone) at the little connexion which could be traced between the argument and the conclusion of the hon. gentleman who preceded him (Mr. Wortley). He trusted, however, it was possible that his support might yet be obtained, before the question went to a vote. In order to secure it, he wished to give notice, that if the question should be negatived, it was his intention to move a resolution, declaring, "that it appeared to the House, that the sum of 100,000l. granted to his Royal Highness on the commencement of his Regency, had been applied by the commissioners to purposes contrary to those specified in the act of parliament."

The House then divided:

For the motion 105
Against it 225
Majority against it — 120

List of the Minority.
Abercrombie, hon. J. Cavendish, hon. C.
Anson, sir G. Chaloner, Robert
Atherley, Arthur Carew, R. S.
Bankes, H. Calcraft, John
Babington, T. Coke,T. W.
Baillie, James E. Dundas, hon. L.
Barham, J. F. Duncannon, Visc.
Baring, Alex. Elliot, rt. hon. W.
Barnard, viscount Folkestone, lord
Bennet, hon. H. G. Fergusson, sir C. R.
Brand, hon. T. Fitzroy, lord J.
Burrell, hon. P. D. Foley, col. T.
Byng, George Foley, hon. A.
Campbell, hon. J. Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Cavendish, lord G. Fane, J.
Cavendish, hon. H. Finlay, K.
Gordon, R. Pelham, hon. G.
Grant, J. P. Pierse, H.
Greenhill, R. Philips, G.
Grenfell, Pascoe Piggott, sir A.
Guise, sir W. Prittie, hon. F. A.
Grattan, rt. hon. H. Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Heathcote, T. F. Pym, F.
Horner, F. Protheroe, E.
Hanbury, Wm. Russell, lord W.
Halsey, J. Ramsden, J. C.
Hamilton, lord A. Ridley, sir M. W.
Heron, sir R. Romilly, sir S.
Hornby, E. Rashleigh, Wm.
Howorth, H. Scudamore, R. P.
Hurst, Robt. Smyth, J. H.
Jervoise, G. P. Smith, R.
King, sir J. D. Smith, S.
Lloyd, J. M. Smith, A.
Langton, Gore Shakespeare, A.
Latouche, R. Stanley, lord
Lemon, sir Wm. Sebright, sir J.
Law, hon. E. Townsend, lord C. F.
Martin, H. Tavistock, marq.
Martin, J. Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Milton, viscount Talbot, R. W.
Moore, Peter Tremayne, J. H.
Monk, sir C. Wynn, sir W. W.
Molyneux, H. H. Whitbread, S.
Maitland, hon. A. Winnington, sir E.
Markham, admiral Walpole, hon. G.
Methuen, Paul Western, C. C.
Newport, sir J. Wharton, J.
North, D. Wilkins, W.
Nugent, lord Williams, sir R.
Osborne, lord F. Warre, J. A.
Power, R. TELLERS.
Parnell, sir H. Althorpe, viscount.
Pelham, hon. C. Wynn, C. W.
Lord Milton

then moved, "That the copy of a letter, dated 20th of May 1815, from Robert Gray, esq. to the right hon. Nicholas Vansittart, respecting the manner in which the sum of 100,000l., granted to his royal highness the Prince Regent by the Act 52 Geo. 3, c. 7, has been applied," might be read; and the same being read, his lordship next moved, "That it appears to this House, that the sum of 100,000l. granted to his royal highness the Prince Regent by the Act 52 Geo. 3, c. 7, was made over to the commissioners appointed by his Royal Highness under his privy seal as Prince of Wales, dated 11th of February 1812, for ascertaining and settling all claims and demands upon his Royal Highness to the 18th day of the same month, contrary to the aforesaid Act, and in violation of the Act appropriating the supplies for the service of the year 1S12."

The motion was negatived without a division.

Forward to