Mr. Tierneysaid, he could not help observing, that the papers before the House seemed to be all very clear, with the exception of the sum of 385,000l. The allowance to the privy purse, it was known, was 60,000l. per annum; but, over and above that allowance, there appeared to have been, during the late reign, an excess of 385,000l. He would thank the right hon. gentleman to explain this matter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that it had been from time to time the practice of parliament, that certain monies, arising from particular colonial funds, should be added to the privy purse. But the right hon. gentleman would see, 44 that this total of 385,000l., as taken upon the long reign of his late majesty, was little more, upon an average, than 6,000l. a-year.
Mr. Tierneyknew that the allowance of 60,000l. for a privy-purse was vested in the Crown by parliament. But this case was entirely different; for, with respect to the privy-purse, it had been thought fit that the king should have a sum at his absolute disposal, for whatever purposes he thought proper; and no doubt this was extremely fitting. This sum had been limited to 60,000l., and it was placed beyond the control of the House, and not subject to any other curb than his majesty's own discretion. But this excess was stated to have been added out of funds whose application should be matter of parliamentary direction, and for which ministers were responsible. He must again ask, how this addition was to be justified?
Mr. Tierneywished to know, whether they were to understand that the funds of the Crown might be enlarged in this manner by his majesty's ministers? If not, how did it happen that this 6,000l. a-year, or aggregate sum of 385,000l., had been so added to a specific provision made by parliament for the privy purse? How did it happen that no account was rendered, by which it might appear that about 6,000l. a-year was yearly carried to the increase of that purse in the way mentioned by the right hon. gentleman?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was impossible to give a specific account of such appropriations, occurring in the earlier years of so extended a reign, although it might be in his power to show in what manner they had been made during the latter part of it.
Mr. Tierneysaid, that the excess of 385,000l., for any thing he saw upon the face of those papers, might have accrued in one year instead of sixty years.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, that upon the subject of the civil list it might be matter of convenience to the House to understand when it would be brought forward. He deeply regretted that it was one which was not to remain in the hands of hon. gentlemen opposite. He did hope that those hon. gentlemen would have submitted the matter to the consideration of 45 parliament; and from them he considered it would most properly and most effectually have come. It appeared, however, that the fact would prove otherwise; and therefore, in order to redeem the pledge he had given in 1812, and because others would not, he should himself bring it under their notice. If they would not come forward and move the House to take away this fund altogether, and vest it in parliament, as it ought to be vested, and as all other public funds of this nature were vested—if they would not support a proposition to give to the Crown a moderate compensation for it, he now begged to say, that he would bring the question befor them upon Thursday next; and as it was material that the motion should come forward before the other propositions, he could wish it to be understood that it should have precedence of the other business. The House were aware that they were about to discuss how much should be the allowance to be made to the Crown. Now, since he should have to propose that something should be taken away from what the Crown already had, non constat that that circumstance might not move them to increase, pro tanto, the rate of that allowance.