Lords Sitting of 30 March 1819

ROYAL HOUSEHOLD BILL.
The Earl of Liverpool The Earl of Liverpool moved the order of the day for committing the bill for the regulation of his majesty's household, &c, and the House immediately went into the committee. On the motion for reading the preamble of the bill,
Earl Greyrose. Having already said that it was not his intention to make any opposition to the principle of the measure, it might be expected that he would reserve himself for another part of the bill; but, notwithstanding his approval of the principle, he had some general observations to offer, which appeared to him more particularly applicable to the present stage of the committee. After the misinterpretation that had taken place of what passed on a former occasion, it might however be necessary, before he proceeded farther, to guard himself against any misunderstanding of his views. Far from being disposed to leave out of consideration the just claims of individuals for past services, or to look with cold indifference on the unfortunate situation of the sovereign, he fully recognized all those claims, and he felt as strongly as any one could feel, that sympathy for suffering, and that sense of propriety and duty which ought to regulate their lordships in making a provision, not merely for an afflicted individual, but for him who had been, and, as the noble earl opposite the other day justly observed, still was the legal sovereign of a great, generous, and loyal people. Upon this principle he looked at the present measure; but there was another principle, in maintaining which he could not be considered

1231
as acting inconsistently with the declaration of the former; namely that he felt himself equally bound to take care that up unnecessary expense, however minute, was incurred on the part of the public. For his support in the justice of this view, he had only to look at the preamble of the bill now before their lordships. That preamble, in stating the object of the bill, not only professed to provide for the attendance suitable and requisite to the due care of his majesty's sacred person, and the maintenance of his royal dignity, but at the same time to make such reductions in the expense of the establishment as might not be found inconsistent with that principle on which the bill was founded. This, which was the principle of the bill he also maintained, and should continue to maintain, notwithstanding the indignant observations he had a few days ago drawn upon himself; but perhaps those expressions of irritability were not so much directed towards him as they were effusions of spleen against the bill itself, the authors and professed supporters of which now found themselves compelled to make some reductions in an establishment which they had formerly declared could undergo no alteration. This much he had found himself bound to say in order to avoid further misconstruction; but before he proceeded to notice the details of the bills, to all of which, with one or perhaps rather two exceptions, he was prepared to concur, he could not help adverting to the grounds upon which the noble earl who moved the bill, had called upon their lordships to support it. The noble earl had stated, and the bill indeed declared, that "the death of her late most excellent majesty would allow some reduction in the expense of the establishment provided for his majesty." This power of reducing the expense the noble earl attributed to the situation in which her majesty stood as queen-consort. The establishment, he said, having been made with a view to that consideration, if it had not been formed according to the arrangement which subsisted until her majesty's death, she would have had an equitable claim to the enjoyment of her dower. It appeared, then, according to the noble earl's explanation, that the establishment at Windsor had been founded on the double principle of providing for the care of the king, and of supplying what her majesty was entitled to as queen-consol. When the noble earl made that
[1232
statement, he heard it with great surprise a surprise in a which many other noble lords doubtless participated; for it was the assumption of a perfectly new ground This question, their lordships well knew was not now for he first time pressed on their consideration. He and two of his noble friends had last year agitated it, and then it was vehemently resisted, not only by the noble lord opposite, but by several others. One noble lord who maintained that every man in the country from John O'Great's house to the Land's End, would oppose the diminution of a particle of splendor from around the king, had indignantly exclaimed, "Shall I consent to strip my sovereign of the allowance made for him in his affliction?" "What," said another, "shall I, who have been protected by my sovereign in his prosperity, abandon him in his adversity?" He gave those noble lords, one of whom he now saw on the cross bench, full predict fur the sincerity of the warm effusions of loyalty to which they bad given utterance, and he had no doubt that they now had good grounds for their change of opinion. But if the noble earl bad at that time turned round to them, and said, "the reason which you have given has nothing to do with the principle of the bill. This expense is not incurred for the king only, but for the queen; one-half being given to her majesty, as queen-consort, in lieu of her dower." Had such as answer been given, what would have been the surprise, what the feelings of the noble lords? But no such answer was given; and the establishment was all along professed to be maintained for the king, and the king only. Was it probable, then that such had been the view of those who proposed the original bill, or of the legislature who passed it? Did the Journals of parliament, or any of the acts which had been adopted, afford any trace of such a principle On the contrary, the act of the 52nd of the king stated in the preamble, as the ground of passing it, the necessity of making further regulations for the maintenance of his majesty's household, and; to enable the queen to meet the additional expenses to which she might be exposed for that object. The sum of 100,000 l. was then directed to be paid for the maintenance of his majesty s household, and. the details in confirmation of the preamble proved that it was the intention of the legislature to apply the whole of that sum to expenses connected with his ma-
║

1233
jesty's persons. To remove, as it were, all possible doubt, a clause was inserted for rendering an account of the application of the money to the commissioners of the revenue; and it was provided, that if there should be any surplus, it was to go to the aid of the civil list. Had the view which the noble lord now took of the principle of the act been correct, it would have doubtless been provided, that the surplus should be given to her majesty; but no such thing was the case. Their lordships would, in fact, find that all the clauses perfectly illustrated the principle of the act. The clause which gave 10,000 l. to her majesty for her own use, was a further proof that the other sum Was exclusively designed for supporting his majesty's establishment. In the silence of the preamble, and of all the clauses, how could so extraordinary a construction be put upon the act? In addition to this, if their lordships were to refer to any of the contemporaneous expositions or the proceedings in parliament, they would find no trace of the principle which the noble earl had set up. Deficient and inaccurate as the contemporaneous publications to which he had alluded often were, it would be impossible to account for their silence, as well as the silence of all the records of parliament, if the supporters of the original bill had really had such an object in view. In the report of the House of Commons, which he must regret had hot been laid before their lordships, it Was recommended that the saving made on the 100,000 l., applied to the Windsor establishment, should go to the civil list; but not a word was said in that report of any part of the money having been granted in lieu of the queen's dower. Let their lordships next look at the reductions, by which it became practicable to strike off 50,000 l. from the former sum of 100,000 l., and they would be still more convinced that no part of that sum could have been intended as a compensation to her majesty. What were the offices abolished? The vice-chamberlain of his majesty's household, four of the gentlemen and four of the grooms, of his majesty's bedchamber, and the master of the robes; did these officers form any part of the queen's establishment? There were besides, servants reduced to the amount of 5,000 l. per annum, who were exclusively and personally attendant on the king. This new discovery made of the principle of the act which
[1234
was about to be repealed, was in the opinion far from showing respect to the memory of her late majesty. It Was in that point of view not a little remarkable, that the noble earl should come forward and make the death of the queen a reason for reducing a part of that expense the whole of which that noble earl, and all those who acted with him, had hitherto constantly maintained to be absolutely necessary for the dignity and comfort of the king. He could come to no conclusion on the subject but that the ministers of the Crown, after strenuously opposing, for a considerable time, any reduction in the establishment for the king, and having at last found that they must reduce it, had, in order to avoid the appearance of inconsistency, invented this argument of the establishment being partly for the use of the queen, that they might put forward the death of her majesty as a reason for the reduction, although no reason existed now that had not all along existed, why this establishment should not have been reduced. Notwithstanding, however, the unfounded pretence on which the present measure was proposed, he was glad to find the proposition of reduction, which, whenever it had before been made, was always stigmatised as coming front persons who were wanting in loyalty, at length fully recognized by his majesty's ministers. He was very happy that a measure which had often been called for was now about to be obtained; and that those who had formerly resisted it were no longer disposed to accuse its supporters of deserting, under circumstances of great affliction, the sovereign to whom their loyalty was due. To the principle, so often urged and at length acknowledged, he was, of course, ready to give his concurrence, so far as it was carried. He must confess that, when he first directed his attention to the subject, he did think that 50,000 l. was too large a sum to be applied to the purposes of this bill, even for a sovereign in the unhappy situation in which his majesty was placed; but when he looked into the details of the establishment, and found that above one-third of the 50,000 l. was necessary to keep up Windsor castle as a royal palace, he undoubtedly thought that the remaining sum was by no means too much to make an adequate provision for the establishment of the king, nor did he that that any one in the country could object to such an amount, recollecting that

1235
the individual to be provided for was a king and that every appendage of dignity ought to be added that was consistent with his melancholy and afflicted situation. There was one point, however with regard to the sum appropriated out of the 50,000 l. per annum, for keeping up Windsor castle as a royal residence, that he wished to advert to. He had understood that Windsor castle, like Kew, Hampton court, and other royal residences, was kept up at the expense of the civil list, and if so, he saw no reason why the keeping up of Windsor castle should be made a charge upon the funds provided for the king's establishment. He wished upon this point to have some explanation, as if the case was as he had understood, it was, in fact, making a present to the civil list, of the 17,000 l. per annum charged upon the fund of the king's establishment for keeping up Windsor castle, and he should wish in that case to' vote only the amount (deducting the 17,000 l.) requisite for the king's establishment, in order that the civil list might bear the charge which properly belonged to it. This was a circumstance in the bill, with respect to the propriety of which a strong doubt had arisen in his mind, though it had been pointed out to him by a noble friend only that morning; but perhaps the noble earl would explain it. The object appeared to be to make a diversion in favour of the civil-list. That objection he, however, did not at the present moment wish to press; and he now came to that part of the subject on which it was the most painful for himself to touch, but which it would be inconsistent with his duty to overlook—he meant the grant of 10,000 l. to the duke of York. It was most painful to him to dwell upon this subject, and he could not but think that ministers had acted most unwisely and injudiciously, in thus dragging forward the duke of York to incur a considerable degree of unpopularity, in consequence of their making such a proposition at a period like the present of great public distress. And here be must say, that in the view which he had taker of the subject, no proposal of defraying this sum from any other fund would diminish his objection to the grant. This view did not arise from any participation in the opinions expressed in another place with respect to the privy purse that fund was appropriated to the use of the King, in order to enable him to dis-
[1236
play those acts of generosity and bounty, which it became a king to perform. It was therefore on public utility, and public utility only, that the existence of that fund was founded. It was true that the application of that fund during the exercise of the royal authority could not be, questioned, except in instances of such, manifest abuse as he was unwilling to suppose ever would occur. Still it was, competent for parliament to interfere in cases wherein its own independence or the constitution might be endangered; but with that exception, he admitted that the fund ought to be completely under the control of the king. When, how, ever, it became necessary to provide a fund for another person appointed to perform duties his majesty was not capable of fulfilling himself, and when parliament was called upon to make provision for the care of his majesty's person, was it too much to propose that what remained unappropriated of this fund should be employed in aid of such provision. That, this was not proposing too much, he had the authority of the legislature for maintaining; for by the 52nd of the king it was provided, that the expense of the physicians should be defrayed out of the privy purse. The act expressly provided that they should be paid out of the surplus of that fund. Parliament had therefore assumed a control over the privy purse in as far as related to the expense of medical attendance. If this application of the fund was regarded as proper, he could conceive no mode of reasoning by which the fund could be proved inapplicable to the payment of any other charge connected with the care of his majesty's person. Though he considered this position incontrovertible, yet it did not meet his view to recommend the transfer of the proposed charge to the privy purse, or any other fund. The whole matter in dispute resolved into this question:—"Is the expense necessary or not?" The noble earl had endeavoured to justify the granting this sum to the custos of the royal person, on two grounds— 1st, That a similar provision had been made by parliament for her majesty; and secondly, that the same expense must be incurred by the duke of York as had been incurred by the queen. With regard to the first proposition, in questioning the propriety of the provision made by the former act, he must again express his regret, that ministers should have thought

1237
it necessary, to compromise her majesty's name in this transaction. There were some differences in the two cases; but if they were precisely similar, that would be no inducement to him to grant to the duke of York the same allowance as had been given to the queen. The former act passed at a time of great public emergency, when their lordships minds were deeply engaged by a variety of objects of extraordinary interest, and when, amidst the great expenditure to which the country was exposed, the granting of such a sum was less likely to be vigilantly watched. He did not recollect whether he was present when the bill passed, but he confessed that he considered himself and others guilty of great direliction of duty in not having protested against it. As an argument for the grant it had been stated, that her majesty could not conveniently reside so much at Windsor as she had formerly done, and that it was therefore reasonable that some allowance should be made to her for travelling charges. That plea was altogether insufficient to justify such a grant. With regard to the proposal of the same allowance to the duke of York, the objection was still stronger. Whatever reason might be urged for granting travelling expenses to her majesty failed with respect to his case. He must ask, what were the expenses to which his royal highness was likely to be put? Surely, in the present circumstances of the country, some grounds ought to be shown for those expenses, before such a grant was made. When his royal highness went to Windsor, did he incur any expense there? No. A table was provided for him. For the sake of the royal family, and even for the character of the government itself, he sincerely wished that this charge had never been thought of. How could such an expense be vindicated? The royal duke resided within ten miles of Windsor when at Oatlands, his country seat, and therefore the necessary journies which, as custos, he would be obliged to make to the palace could not be very expensive. Even when his royal highness lived in town, his travelling expenses to Windsor would not amount to much; and when it was considered that he held an office not usually continued in time of peace, yielding him great emoluments, and affording him provision for a considerable number of horses, he (earl Grey) did not see that there could be any hardship in ex-
[1238
pecting him to visit his royal father at certain intervals without any remuneration. Was there any other possible ground on which the grant could be justified, than that of defraying the additional expenses which the office of custos might occasion? Would the noble earl opposite (the earl of Liverpool) defend it on the plea that it was necessary, to provide for supporting the dignity of, his royal highness while acting it the capacity of custos? Something like that might be brought forward, or perhaps some new pretext would be found. The plea of dignity he was of opinion could not be urged, unless the noble earl was prepared, to contend that a prince of the blood; could not undertake any duty, however imperative, from family attachment, or however sacred, from filial piety, unless, he received a salary for its performance He must likewise contend that this necessary connexion of dignity and salary appeared to be peculiar to the princes of the blood; for there were other persons connected with his majesty who discharged important duties, and undertook the fulfilment of important trusts, that devolved upon them by act of parliament, without any payment whatever. In the act of the 52nd of the king it was provided, that the three commissioners of the privy purse, nominated therein (one of whom was to be a master in chancery) should perform their duty, a duty of great delicacy and importance, and probably of great labour and difficulty, without any emolument, reward, fee, or salary whatever. Could it then be seriously urged, that the dignity of his royal highness would be lowered by his discharging towards his royal father, without remuneration, those duties which the near relation in which he stood to him rendered becoming; while others on whom a troublesome office was imposed without having the same motives for executing it, thought their dignity best consulted by a gratuitous performance of the labours which it required? Such were his objections to a part of the present measure; and such were the reasons on which he must give that provision of it to which he had adverted his decided negative. In making those objections, he had performed a painful, though a necessary duty. He was sure that all what knew him would allow his reverence for the royal family, and his respect for the distinguished individual whose name was coupled with the proposed grant. No

1239
one would more willingly or more cordially a tribute to the great public merits and private virtues that distinguished his royal highness; but when a measure was brought forward which interfered with his duty to the public, he must Oppose it, though connected with his royal: highness's name. He trusted he had expressed his objections with becoming temper and respect; and would now merely add, that when their lordships came to that clause of the bill which referred to the grant of 10,000 l. to the duke of York as custos, he would move an amendment.
The Earl of Liverpoolcomplimented the noble earl, who had just sat down on the distinct and orderly manner in which he had brought his objections forward. The noble earl had perhaps taken the most convenient opportunity of expressing his sentiments on the subject, and he (the earl of Liverpool) would therefore endeavour to follow the noble earl into all his statements and arguments, and would answer them, where they called for answer, in the same order. The noble earl had begun by stating his entire concurrence in the reductions of his majesty's household, so far as they were reductions; but had followed up that expression of his satisfaction with a charge against his majesty's ministers, for their tardiness in proposing those reductions, and for opposing them, when their necessity was formerly urged by himself (earl Grey) and his friends. Now nothing could be more unfounded than this latter accusation. He protested and declared, that he never heard till last session of parliament of any objection which the noble lords opposite made to the royal establishment at Windsor, and that he was never called upon to oppose any proposition for its reduction. From the year 1812, when that establishment was fixed by act of parliament, to the last session, the subject was never brought forward. A bill was then introduced by a right hon. friend of his in the other House which was rendered necessary by the state of her late majesty's health, and then for the first time during eight years of the continuance of the net of 1812, was any objection stated to its provisions. What right had then the noble earl, or any other noble lord, however laudable his motives in calling for reductions (and he gave him full credit for his motives) to accuse his majesty's ministers of resisting appli-
[1240
cations for retrenchment, when he had allowed various opportunities to pass with out stating his objections: where he acquiesced in the grants to the princes on their marriages; when be concurred in the arrangements of the civil list, and agreed to various other measures connected with the royal family, without ever stating an objection to the Windsor establishment, or making any proposition for, its reduction? He would not answer for what might have been conveyed by a parenthesis in a speech, or by hint in a separate discussion; but he would declare, that no distinct proposition was made on the subject. In the last session of parliament, it was true objections to the continuance of the Windsor establishment had been pressed; but whether the proposal of a reduction was right or wrong, whether in the state of the country it was seasonable or unseasonable, he felt that any reduction would then, in the state of her late majesty's health, have been most unbecoming and indelicate. It would be recollected, that when his noble friend brought in his bill to amend the act for the custody of his majesty's person, it was expected that her late most excellent majesty would not live many weeks or many months. Now, considering that her majesty was at the head of the establishment, that she was then believed near the point of death, that at any rate it was not thought she could survive for any length of time, he would ask was there any man so bold, was there any man so regardless of her feelings, and the delicacy due to her situation, as to have proposed a discussion of her allowances, or a reduction of the establishment which she superintended? His majesty's ministers and their lordships felt, that without indelicate precipitation on their parts, an event will soon arise which would bring the whole subject be fore the House. He had a right therefore to say, that last session was not the proper time for the reductions now proposed; and he contended that till last session no question on the subject had been zealously pressed, or even seriously mooted. So much for the noble earl's charge against this side of the House, for resisting repeated calls for reduction. He had now to follow the noble earl into another pact of his speech, in which he accused him (the earl of Liverpool) of changing his ground in defending the establishment of lug majesty's household at Windsor. The noble earl had said, that he had on the

1241
second reading of the present bill stated a different reason for the expenses incurred under the Regency act, and in justification of the continuance of the Windsor establishment, from what had been stated in the act itself, or had ever been employed in its defence, since it passed—namely, that the establishment which it created was for the support of the queen's dignity as well as that of his majesty; and that if provision had not been made for her in that way, as queen consort, she must have put the nation to nearly as muck expense by providing the dower to which she would have become entitled on the demise of his majesty. He was certainly prepared to support this position; nor did he think that he had involved himself in any inconsistency. He, on the occasion alluded to, stated two grounds for the continuance of the Windsor establishment without reduction. In the first place, a hope was entertained for some time, by the physicians, that his majesty would recover; and it was desirous that, if he did 80, he might see himself surrounded with becoming splendor, and find himself attended by those faithful servants whom he had selected, and to whom he was accustomed before his unhappy malady. This hope had become fainter, after eight years of disappointment: still he was convinced that the physicians, if called to their lordships' bar, would not say that recovery was impossible. The second reason he gave for not proposing any reduction during the queen's life was, that if any had taken place, a provision nearly to the same amount must have been made for her majesty. This he could defend on the reason of the thing, and reconcile with the other plea of the king's dignity. During her majesty's life, when the situation of his majesty was considered, it was always considered in relation to the king and his family; and the establishment was formed, not for him as living separately from the queen, but for him and the queen consort, as living under the same roof and on a joint income. He would pit the question, had their majesties resided in different places, had their establishments been divided, and had that of his majesty been reduced as low as possible, provision being only made for food, personal comfort, and medical attendance, could their lordships have then refused the queen, thus separated from her husband, and enjoying none of the advantages provided for his state and splendor, that
[1242
dower to which she was entitled as queen dowager on the demise of her husband? Living under the same roof with the king, she did not require separate provision But how were her expenses defrayed unless out of the fund common to both? The noble earl had spoken of reductions which might have been made at Windsor during her majesty's life. He (the earl of Liverpool) had looked into the whole scheme of the Windsor establishment while under the management of her majesty; and after the most minute scrutiny, he firmly believed that there was no establishment in the country, either public or private, conducted with so much economy. Reductions might certainly have been made so far as the king was concerned; but then, the queen would have been entitled to her dower, which would have nearly amounted to the whole of the possible reductions. The establishments could not have been touched, considered as an establishment for both their majesties, the necessity for which grew not out of the king s situation as distinct from the queen's, but from the king's as connected with her majesty. Not a farthing had been uselessly spent. The question now was, was there any inconsistency in saying, that at the death of her majesty, who shared as queen consort the provision made for the king, and who in the event of living separately, would have been entitled to her dower, the establishment provided for the king might be reduced without destroying the principle on which it was originally estimated? Was it to be said that in providing for the comfort and dignity of the king, you did too much in taking into view the claims of her majesty, who had entitled herself so highly to the gratitude of the country, who had shown it such a bright example of virtue, and had exerted her influence to promote purity of morals, and patronize every liberal institution. What was then the principle of the present reduction? It was, that expense could be saved at the queen's demise, which could not have been saved but to a very limited amount daring her life, though the Windsor establishment had been reduced as low as now proposed. During the queen's life the whole was necessary; because, if it had not been given in one shape, it must have been given in another; the sum would have to been expended less respectably in separate portions; but still the whole expenditure would have taken place. By taking the

1243
subject into consideration during her majesty's life, and making the retrenchments now proposed, with due attention to her rights, 10,000 l. a year might have been saved, since his majesty's recovery had become nearly hopeless; but for such a saving he would not have proposed any change, while the queen continued at the head of the Windsor establishment. Now, since her majesty's death, all delicacy was at an end, and the question came before the House in all its bearings. The reductions consisted, among the rest, of the saving of the salaries of certain officers, whom it was painful to dismiss, but for whom, nevertheless, he could not propose any parliamentary provision. After a minute examination, it was determined what officers should be retained about his majesty, and who should be discontinued in their service. Some of the old servants of his majesty, the lords of the bedchamber, who were selected by him—the companions of his amusements, while in possession of his faculties—begged to continue their services gratuitously, to be allowed to attend him to his last hour, impressed with the gratitude and veneration of subjects, and the attachment and esteem of old friends. To the bill which presented this reduced establishment the noble earl said he had no objections, with the exception of that part of it which related to the salary of the custos; but the noble earl begged to know why the expenses for keeping up Windsor-castle as a royal residence, which constituted so considerable a portion of the 50,000 l. proposed, were not defrayed out of the civil list, like the expenses for keeping up the palaces of Kensington, St. James's, and Hampton-court. To this he would reply that the subject had been often before parliament, and that the present manner of procuring the money for keeping up Windsor castle had been sanctioned by the decision to which their lordships had come on the civil list, after the accounts which were presented to the other House were laid before them. The present arrangement was then agreed to. The matter might rest here; but he would add, that as the castle of Windsor was kept up in a different manner, as a residence for the king, from that in which the other royal palaces were maintained, it seemed but; proper that the expences should not come, from the part of the civil list appropriated to the Regent Parliament had, when the whole subject was before it, along with the re-
[1244
port of the board of works, agreed that such an expense should not be thrown on the civil list, but on the provision made; for the Windsor establishment. He came now to the last part of the noble earl's observations, which adverted to that clause of the bill providing the grant of 10,000 l. to the custos. The noble earl, in introducing that part of the subject, had stated certain doctrines about the privy purse into which, as he did not propose that the grant should be made out of that fund, he was not bound to follow him, did he not wish, on account of the importance of the subject, to show the error into which the noble earl had fallen. The privy purse was in his (the earl of Liverpool's) opinion as much the private property of the king as their own purses were the private property of their lordships, or as the purse of any man in the kingdom was his private property. Whether the arrangements of the civil list, by which his majesty became possessed of that fund, were wise or not, he would not stop to inquire, nor did he think that any reference to its original was material to the question at issue. He took the matter to be this:—By act of parliament a certain sum of money was allowed to the king, under the name of privy purse, which was entirely at his own disposal, for the expenditure of which no person was responsible, and which was supposed to be used for personal expenses, or in any other way the king pleased. This sum, when once granted, was granted on no condition of accountability—for its use no minister was responsible. Not a hundred pounds of the other parts of the civil list could be expended without being accounted for by some public servant; but the 60,000 l. composing the privy purse might be paid away at the moment of its receipt, like private property. That being the case, their lordships would see how the matter stood. Parliament had recognized 60,000 l. as the private property of the king. It had done more, it had rendered the fund subject to the dispositions of his majesty's will. The noble earl had referred to two acts as supporting his argument, which sufficiently established the doctrine, that he (the earl of Liverpool) now contended for. One of those acts (that of 1812) had ordered the physicians to be paid put of the privy, purse, but it rendered the residue (if there had been any doubt on the subject before) the king's private property, by directing it to be paid over to commis-

1245
signers for his majesty's use. Parliament had thus by a solemn act vested an interest in this fund; and to touch it now would be defrauding his majesty, and defrauding the heirs of his majesty. It was true that the king had a public character; but that public character did not affect his private property. The privy purse was as much his private property as any of their estates were the private property of their lordships, and ought no more to be violated than the property of his meanest subject. He could not allow the right of property to be extenuated in the king, on account of his kingly dignity, nor was he aware of any instance being upon record where such an extenuation was ever contended for. But it had been argued, that as ministers had defrayed one part of his majesty's expenditure from the privy purse, they might as well do so in the present instance. In reply to that argument, he should observe that they had entailed no expense on the privy purse which his majesty had not himself previously entailed on it; they had paid the physicians out of it, because such had been the custom of his majesty; and had discharged some other incidental expenses from it, because part of its funds had on previous occasions been applied to the same purpose. He now came to the question of the grant itself, and was forced to contend, that the noble earl who had objected to it, and to whose objections he had listened with attention throughout, had taken a very unfair view of the subject. He would ask the House whether such a duty as was imposed upon the custos could be imposed upon the duke of York, or upon the queen, without entailing upon either of them many additional expenses? He did not here allude to travelling expenses, but to those expenses which every individual who held this office must incur, from the claims which naturally grew out of it. He was speaking before men who had most of them been honoured, with public situations; and he would ask any of them, whether there were no other expenses incurred in such situations, than those which were to be paid by the fees and emoluments of office? Did any man imagine that her late majesty had grown rich on the sum allowed her to meet the additional expenditure which had been forced upon her as guardian of the king's person? Every body was aware of the false and malignant libels which had been propagated upon that
[1246
subject during her majesty's lifetime; but it was not until the veil which concealed her from the public eye was torn asunder by death, that every body knew how paltry and contemptible the sum was of which she was possessed. And yet it was not in frivolous enjoyments, of idle gaieties that her majesty's income had been expended, but in satisfying those claims which her situation had Created against her. He could speak, from a correspondence in which he had been lately engaged, of the numerous acts of benevolence which she had performed and could say with the utmost truth, that there were many, very many, who deplored her loss on account of the charity which they had received. He could inform the House, that to many individuals who had received benefits from his majesty, she, as custos personæ, had continued the same aid and assistance. Even in a situation where she could receive no pecuniary help from his majesty (for till the latter part of the reign, she often did receive such help) she had devoted so much of her own income to charitable purposes, that she had found it requisite to direct by her will, that no inconsiderable part of her personal property should be sold, in order that all her debts might be properly discharged. He therefore felt himself justified in saying, that there were great incidental expenses to be supported by the custos, though he could neither limit the extent of them, nor distinctly point out of what nature they might be. The state of his majesty health was at present such, as only to require a temporary residence at Windsor; but it might become such as to require a continued one. To meet the expenses which such a contingency and other contingencies might create, parliament had declared that the custos ought to have 10,000 l. a year; and the question therefore which the House had to decide was, whether, in the teeth of an unanimous resolution, that it was fair and equitable to remunerate the custos for the expenses which he might incur in the execution of his duties, they would resume the grant which they had previously voted. The noble earl had also stated this grant, as if it created a further addition to the public burthens; he was not surprised that a great deal of wilful misapprehension should have prevailed upon the subject out of doors; misapprehension of which he knew the noble earl was in-

1247
capable; but still fee was surprised to hear the question argued in a similar manner within the walls of that House. He weald, however, tell the noble earl, that if the present bill were not passed, the law would grant the old sum of 100,000 l. to the Windsor establishment, and therefore the question was not whether they should we 50,000 l., but whether they should vote the whole original sum, or reduce the 100,000 l. down to 50,000 l. Taking the matter, however, on the ground on which the present bill placed it, a considerable saving would be effected to the country, 56,000 l. a year had by the queen's death fallen into the civil list, and belonged in point of law to the Prince Regent, who might have applied it, if he had so chosen, either to the department of the lord chamberlain, or of the master of the horse, or of any other public officer. His royal highness, however, by the advice of those whose duty it was to advise him, had placed it at the disposal of parliament; requesting only that provision might be made for the superannuated servants of her majesty 18,000 l. had been provided for that purpose: so that the remainder, amounting to 40,000 l. was a complete saving to the public. That sum added to 60,000 l. saved by the reduction at Windsor, formed a clear saving in the whole of 90,000 l. a year. He therefore thought, that the proposed grant could not, on any fair or equitable view of it, be considered as an additional burthen to the public. He knew that the royal duke was willing to exercise the duties of his office without either fee or reward; but that willingness was, in his opinion, an additional reason why they should not let him do it.
The Marquis of Buckinghamremarked, that the bill now under discussion purported to be for the further regulation of the royal household, and the care of the royal person; and was the first instance on record, in which a committee of parliament had decided, not upon what should be the expense of the royal household, but upon how many servants his majesty should keep, and what should be his 'quantum of personal attendants. As that had never been the case in any previous period of our history, he was sorry that each a precedent had been established at the present time, when his majesty was labouring under a complication of maladies, on which his duty and his inclination equally forbade him to descant. It might indeed be said that a certain
[1248
number of menial servants could, in his majesty's present situation, provide him with every comfort which he could now enjoy; but even if that statement were true, would their lordships allow such a degradation to be offered to their monarch? It was not his desire to surround his majesty with the trammels of unnecessary state; but it was his desire to place him in such a condition, that if he ever recovered his reason, he might find himself in a state as little different as possible from that in which he had been accustomed to live. He should certainly give his vote that the different officers should retain their salaries, not indeed with a view to promote their convenience, but with a view to retain responsible officers around his majesty. There was not at present a single officer responsible for the care of the king's person, and that was his principal objection to the bill which he then held in his hand. He knew, indeed, that there was a council either appointed, or to be appointed; but still there was not a single clause in the bill which made it absolutely imperative on them that they should attend on the king's person. The House ought not to legislate upon probabilities only, and also upon possibilities; and should guard even against the most remote contingencies; and yet, if any person were to ill use the king's person, they would not be able to tell under the bill which he held in his hand, who ought to be responsible for allowing such misconduct. He was sorry to hear the noble earl put the alternative which he had done, that we most either take the law as it now was, OF as it had been; but as that was the case, he should certainly prefer the law as it now was, inasmuch as if he could not get a person as custos persons who was really responsible, he should wish to get one who was apparently so. If then it were proper to give a salary to a responsible officer, and if the whole country agreed that the duke of York was the person best calculated to discharge the duties of the office, why was the salary to be taken away from the royal duke? He was not much acquainted with that illustrious personage; but from what little he did know of him, he was certain that no person could accuse him of sordid motives if he accepted this grant. Indeed, in a pecuniary point of view, it was not worth one sixpence to him. He should certainly give his support to the bill.
The Earl of Lauderdalesaid, that on the present subject he could not deny that be entertained strong feedings. Towards the illustrious individual whose name was connected with the grant, he felt more than a strong personal attachment. It was in the nature of his Royal Highness, that those most intimately acquainted with him, who knew his many distinguished public and private qualities best, were, most firmly attached to his person, and most interested for his, feelings and his fame. But meeting this question on fair and open ground, he could not see why his Royal Highness should not receive that compensation for public service which the nature of that service required—which the dignity of the station, and the expenses incident to it, demanded. Of those expenses, he would not enter into a minute particularization of the nature or amount, but sure he was that his Royal Highness, whose generous nature was ever open to every humane appeal, would be anxious to attend to the applications of those who were in the habit of appealing to the bounty of his royal father. He therefore wished to support the grant of 10,000 l. a year to the duke of York, not as a salary, but as a remuneration for the extraordinary expenses to which his new office would inevitably render him liable. He should wish to know what were the objections to this plan; for his own part he could see none. It was impossible to make the royal duke custos personae without subjecting him to certain extraordinary expenses which ought certainly to be provided for. Their lordships must feel, that in the discharge of such an office many incidental expenses must arise which previously it would be impossible to specify. Taking even the travelling expenses, could the House expect, that if his Royal Highness was required, by the application of the king's physicians, to repair to Windsor, he was to make out an account of the expense in the same way as a messenger of a secretary of state. The truth was, that there were also expenses of generosity and feeling which were inseparable from the discharge of such a trust; and it was in the light of an indemnification for those, and not as a salary, the grant was proposed. He had the authority of former parliaments, who had given such a sum to the queen for the same purpose. He had the authority even of those members of the present, who in the other House were
[1250
distinguished for a regard to the strictest economy, for the present grant, with, the difference that they wished the charge to be defrayed out of the privy purse. Now, certainly, it was his opinion, that it would be impossible to take it from the privy purse, without violating the private property of the Crown, and establishing a precedent which would go to undermine the security of all private property. He called it the private property of the Crown, because there was a special act of parliament which made the savings of the privy purse liable to the debts of the king; and which enacted, that the king might dispose of them by will, and that, in case he should die without one, they should go as the common law would give them. Supposing, therefore, a proposal were to come from a high quarter, that their lordships should appropriate those savings to the expense of the Regency, they would not commit a greater violation of justice in agreeing to such a proposal, than they would in making the attack which was now recommended on the privy purse. But if there were no will, to whom would the savings of the privy purse descend? Why, to the Crown, subject to the superintendence of parliament, as the droits of admiralty had also done. If that were the case, what was the object of those who wished to make an inroad on the privy purse? Merely to gain by illegal methods now, that which in the course of a few years might legally come into their hands. In the other observations which he had to make, he should have the mortification of not agreeing either with the noble lords hear whom he sat, nor with those whom he saw on the opposite benches. The manner in which his majesty's superannuated Servants had been treated by parliament exhibited a meanness which ought never to have been witnessed. It was a sad consideration to reflect, that old and faithful servants had been thrown on the world, one after 47, another after 39 years of Service, and others after a lapse of time which, though not so much protracted, was still not inconsiderable. Would any of their lordships dismiss their menials in a similar manner? Was such a dismissal even founded on principles of true economy? He thought not; and he expected that their lordships would find it to be fact the next time they had occasion to form a civil establishment for the Crown. They would find that men

1251
would not take these situations on the same terms on which they had previously accepted them, because they had now seen that no ulterior provision was intended for them, and had discovered that the emoluments of them were not sufficient to enable them to provide for themselves. Besides the meanness of parliament taking into their grave consideration the number of scullions who were to serve in the king's kitchen, he thought that there was another reason which should have taught them not to have bestowed their attention on such a subject, and that reason, in a few words, was this, —such discussions were calculated to undermine the dignity and reverence due to the Crown. He had promised, when the discussion on the Windsor establishment came forward last year, to oppose all reductions of it at any future period. He should now redeem his pledge, and should boldly affirm, that he did not disapprove of the reductions themselves more than he did of the time in which they had been made. All the alterations in the establishment had been made in consequence of the queen's death—a circumstance which had naturally led some minds to conclude that the queen had been the only obstacle, to their having teen made at a previous period. Though the infirm state of his health would not permit him to enter into further details on the subject, he was glad to observe that the luminous speech of the noble lord opposite had rendered it almost unnecessary. In the views of that noble lord on this subject he fully concurred, and should certainly give his support to the bill which was upon the table.
The Earl of Darnleyagreed with his noble friend who had just sat down, in the opinion respecting the dismissal of the royal servants. It was, he conceived, ill advised as a measure of economy, and in other respects not calculated to produce the end which was probably intended by it. In some of the provisions of the bill before their lordships he fully concurred; but there was one to which he could not give his consent; it was to that which made a provision for remuneration to the duke of York, as the custos of the king. In adverting to the subject, he claimed for himself as great a portion of respect for that royal personage, as any of the noble lords who concurred in the propriety of the grant. He conceived that a more fit person could not have been, selected for
[1252
the care of his majesty's person than his royal highness. The royal duke had many claims upon the esteem and respect of their lordships. In acceding to those claims, he felt as much pleasure as any of their lordships; and he was satisfied, that in giving his opinion against the propriety of the proposed grant, he was not derogating in any degree from the honour and respect due to his royal highness, and to every branch of the royal family. On the contrary, he conceived that his majesty's ministers would have best consulted the interests of his royal highness, had they advised him to give up the claim which was now made for him on the public. At that moment of, he might say, almost unexampled financial, and he might add, commercial difficulty, he thought that his royal highness would best consult his honour and interest, by coming down to the House, and publicly withdrawing every claim to the sum proposed. It would, even in a pecuniary point of view (if such a motive could have any influence with his royal highness), be considerably to his advantage; for if, as might be the case, he should hereafter have occasion, in consequence of debt, or other pressing necessity, to come to parliament for pecuniary aid, he would have a strong claim, which could not be the case if he accepted the present sum. With respect to the objections urged against the proposition by his noble friend, he conceived not one of them had been answered, except by assertions. While he expressed himself hostile to that part of the bill which granted the 10,000 l. a year, he should observe to their lordships, that if the country were in a state of financial and commercial prosperity, he would not oppose it; but seeing the distress which prevailed, he felt that he could not better discharge his duty to his own conscience, or better consult the true dignity of the royal family, than by voting against it.
The Marquis of Lansdownehad not intended to trouble their lordships upon the question then before them, particularly after the speeches of his noble friends; but he was induced to offer a few remarks in consequence of an observation made by the noble earl, respecting the time at which the suggestion of reduction in the Windsor establishment was first made. It had been said, that no mention was made of those reductions which were now spoken of, till a late period of the last session, when the measure was introduced to provide for the

1253
care of the king's person, in case that sickness or other cause should prevent her majesty from superintending that important duty. He felt that the importance of this subject required, that there should be no misunderstanding upon it, and therefore he wished to correct a mistake respecting it, into which the noble earl had fallen. It was not at the time when the measure was introduced which provided against the consequence of her majesty's illness, that he and his noble friend first suggested the propriety of an inquiry as to what reductions might have been made in the Windsor establishment. It was at a period of the session much earlier. It was at the time when a message was sent to their lordships respecting the marriages which about that period took place in the royal family. He conceived that that was the proper occasion for making an inquiry as to what reductions might be made. It was true that no motion had been made—no bill introduced upon the subject; but it was unnecessary for him to say, that no money-bill, or other pecuniary matter, could originate in their lordships' House. That he had, however, given the suggestion at the time, he appealed to the recollection of their lordships; he appealed to the recollection of those noble lords who had treated the suggestion with indignation at the time. At the period of the first regency, the royal establishment was left with little or no alteration; that, as was then urged by Mr. Perceval, when his majesty should recover, an event which was then looked to with hope, he might find every thing in the same state in which it was at the commencement of his disorder. A period, however, soon did arrive, when the hope of his majesty's recovery was scarcely entertained; and when that circumstance did occur, he expressed his firm opinion, that it was the time to consider how far any reduction might be made—not in any matter connected with the queen; not connected with the comfort, the splendor, and the dignity of the ling; no; but whether, considering that his majesty's disorder had arrived at that state, from which recovery was nearly, if not altogether hopeless, and in consequence, that the same reasons did not exist for continuing an extensive establishment, an inquiry should not be made to see what part of such expense could be spared to the country. Such was his opinion at that period. It might be right or it might be wrong; but it was given, and
*
[1254
he now repeated it, to prevent any misconception from the observations made by the noble earl. If at that time, if at the present time, he conceived that any of the proposed reductions were such as would detract from the comfort, splendor, or dignity of the king; if they were such as would, in any one way, be derogatory from the dignity of the royal family, he should conceive himself unworthy of a seat in their lordships' House, if he suffered a bill which sanctioned them to pass, without endeavouring, by every means in his power, to arrest its progress. But he had not any such objections to the bill then before them. He conceived it was fair and equitable, and would therefore offer no objection to its principle; but he must except from this remark that part of the measure which went to make a provision for his royal highness the duke of York as custos of the king's person. On that subject he agreed with his noble friend who had just sat down. If the services of the royal duke in his high situation were to be considered, he should have no objection to grant the proposed sum, or greater, for them; but he did not think the demand ought to be made for him in his character of custos of his majesty's person, and therefore he thought that the honour and dignity of the royal duke, and that the honour and dignity of parliament would be best consulted by having the clause of the grant omitted from the bill altogether. At the same time that he gave that as his honest opinion, he thought it but justice to express his great satisfaction at the appointment of his royal highness to the high and important trust. No person could be chosen who was so fit to discharge its duties, and he had no doubt they would be discharged with perfect satisfaction to the country. There was another topic of the noble earl's speech upon which he wished to say a few words. It was that which referred to the privy purse, and which went to consider it as private property. In that he differed entirely from the noble earl. He was aware that in doing so he was also opposed to many great legal authorities; but with great deference to them, he should hold the opinion that the privy purse was not private property, at least in the sense in which it had been so described by the noble earl. It should be recollected, that this money was granted not to the person but the character of the sovereign. In no other sense was its ap-

1255
plication ever understood. By the common law, the king of this country could not hold any property whatsoever. At the commencement of the present reign, this privy purse was part of the civil list; and now had it become separate? How did the notion originate which now seemed the ground for considering it as private property? He believed with Burke's bill, which was introduced not with the view of making that particular item private property, but in consequence of an inquiry into the whole system of the civil list. That it was not considered private property out of the control of parliament he had very high authority for stating— authority which accident had enabled him to furnish; it was that of the king himself. At the time the inquiry which preceded the bill was set on foot, his majesty wished that the privy purse should be excepted from investigation; and the reason he assigned was, that that was the only part of the civil list which he could call his own. He contended that, according to the opinion of his majesty himself, the parliament did not then consider this property was such as they could not interfere with. If then it was so considered at the period he alluded to, he wished to know how it had been made private property since? Where were the acts of parliament authorising it to be considered as such? Authorities had been talked of in support of the opinion he was combating. He would quote the highest of all authorities—the authority of parliament itself. Several acts had interfered with this; the very bill before the House was interfering with it; that very bill he would adduce as a proof that the privy purse was not considered as private property; for it allowed the duke of York to dispose of a very considerable part of it to pay for medical attendance. But if it was private property, the parliament had no right to put any part of it to a use to which the owner had not applied it, He need not remind their lordships, that the medical attendance was not charged on the privy purse before. The noble earl had said, as an argument against the grant to the duke of York being taken from the privy purse, that if his majesty had made a will and disposed of any of this property, the application of it to any other purpose would be a robbery of the person to whom it was so bequeathed. Then, according to the ad-mission of the noble earl, the application of large a sum for medical attendance
[1256
would be a robbery also. There was no difference in the principle of either: they were alike an appropriation of his majesty's private property to purposes different from those which he himself had specified in his will, assuming that he had made one. This argument was upon the assumption which the noble earl had made, that the property was private; but he denied that assumption altogether. Parliament had not so considered it, for it could not have directed its application as long as it was private. In the regency, the parliament granted to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent a privy purse. As long as it should be continued, the parliament of course would not exercise any control in its application. But did they recognise two privy purses? They acted certainly with a most generous and laudable liberality: they continued the grant to his majesty, and directed its application to purposes to which they conceived his majesty himself would apply it had he continued in health. But this was interference which precluded the idea that the property was private like that of any individual; for if it had been so considered, they should have let it all accumulate, as in fact a part of it was at present accumulating, till the restoration of its royal owner's sense, or till such time as it could be ascertained whether he himself had given any directions as to the way in which it should be appropriated. A part of this might be charged with the king's debts, and other parts were given to defray medical attendance, which was very expensive. Under these circumstances, he conceived that the principle laid down by parliament was one which destroyed the idea of private property in the privy purse. He, therefore, differed widely from the positions laid down by the noble earl. He Conceived that there was no weight in the argument that it was necessary to give a salary where there was responsibility. Salary did not, and could not, increase responsibility; for there were high, important, and responsible trusts held in the country, to which no emolument whatever was attached. He had hoped that his royal highness would have come down to the House and rejected the offer—if he had done so, he would have consulted his best interests, and have added to a reputation dear no less to the country than to himself. That not having been done, he most vote against the grant, at the same time that he was willing

1257
to admit that no one in his majesty's dominions was fitter to be intrusted with the care of his majesty's person. It was an important trust, and would be performed by his royal highness with fidelity—he had no doubt, with all the attention, solicitude, and care, due from a son to a parent and a sovereign.
The Earl of Lauderdale, in explanation, denied that the application of part of the privy purse for the payment of debts, or for medical attendance, could be any just ground for the payment from it of a grant of the present description.
The Lord Chancellorexpressed his reluctance at saying any thing upon this subject, but declared that he felt himself bound to state that he considered the privy purse was as much the private property of the king as the property of any of their lordships might be said to belong to them. By the 39th and 40th of the king, his majesty was declared capable of holding private property, and empowered to buy and sell estates, to dispose of those so purchased by deed, or to bequeath them by will. The same power was given to him with respect to any personal property lie might be possessed of. If his property were held in trust, the trustees were the same in their powers, as the trustees of any private individual. The property was as liable to taxation as that of any subject. It was also declared by those acts which he had cited, that if the king should die without conveying any of his real property by deed, or disposing of it by will, then it should go as it would have gone had those acts not been passed. The same was said with respect to his personal property. He had heard a great deal about the manner in which that should be disposed of at present; but he would put it to their lordships, whether they would deprive their unfortunate sovereign in his severe affliction of that which was allowed to the humblest of his subjects—the benefit of the principle which arose from a hope of his recovery? It was because that recovery was not despaired of that the property of a lunatic was taken care of in order that it might be forthcoming at the return of his reason. Would they, he would ask, do in the case of their sovereign what would not be allowed in the instance of any other similarly afflicted? If he were asked whether this property of the privy purse, if not conveyed away by deed, or bequeathed by will, were to revert to the successor, or still be considered
[1258
as private, he should say that by the acts cited, the mark of private property would be given to it by either of the circumstances mentioned. If the grant, or the deed, or will, did not exist, the mark of private property would be wanting; and then it would revert, as all property of the Crown did before the passing of those acts. But that, he thought, could not be so well discussed during the lifetime of his majesty. By the 22nd of the king, the private and royal property of his majesty was separated. But it was contended, that this principle had been since departed from. It had been so. His majesty had always considered the allowance to his medical attendants inadequate, and out of his private property gave an additional remuneration to those who attended on his person. The continuation of bounties by parliament was a breaking in upon the principle; but every clause, and every sentence, and every word of the act, which made provision for the medical attendants out of the privy purse, testified that parliament considered it private property. But because that act continued bounties from the privy purse, was it therefore to be contended, that the privy purse was not private property, while the same act placed the surplus of the privy purse in the hands of commissioners, subject to the disposition by will of his majesty, if he should recover? It had been said, by persons for whom he entertained the sincerest respect, that private property ought to be made liable to the maintenance of the proprietor, when he happened to be visited with such a malady as now afflicted his majesty. But the principle which was applicable to other persons, was not applicable here: so much mischief would result from the prevalence of such a doctrine, that he felt it his sacred duty at least to attempt to refute it. As to the observations of the noble marquis, respecting the propriety of making a reduction of the 100,000 l. last year they appeared to him not to bear upon the state of the question. Such a subject could never, with propriety, have been discussed upon an incidental occasion. What establishments might be necessary for maintaining the dignity of the Crown was the greatest subject which the House could discuss. With respect to the sum proposed for the duke of York, that part of the subject had not been sufficiently connected in argument with the possibility of his majesty's recovery. By

1259
the constitution of this realm, the king was king till his death. He could never allow himself in his judicial character, to think that a person in his majesty's situation was not to recover; and he always considered what should be done in order to consult his feeling, and to render his return to the connexion with his family easy and satisfactory. His declaration might surprise some of their lordships, but he declared, that if his royal highness were to perform the office gratuitously, it would appear to him an objection to his holding it. The consideration was not how much a post horse would cost, or what was the expense of travelling from Oatlands to Windsor; but what was required for the dignity of the royal family while they remained in their present situation. The 10,000 l. was in this view as necessary as the 50,000 l. was for the maintenance of the king's household. His royal highness was required too to be at great expense, as succeeding in this office a person of so much bounty, and one who had so much more ample means of conferring benevolences and bounties, lest the comparison should lessen the dignity and respect which he was bound to maintain on account of the person on whom he attended.
Lord Kingreprobated the manner in which the various members of the royal family had been exposed to public odium by the present cabinet. He considered this a most odious measure, and most injurious to the royal family. Ministers felt not the odium, although they alone were in fault: the 15 cabinet ministers (an unusual number) divided the blame, and each thought little of l–15th of it; and hence they were, on subjects like the present, the most pliable phalanx that could be conceived. But the greatest enemies to the Crown were those who on slight grounds proposed grants such as those now asked, and that had been asked of parliament last year. So far as they had not succeeded last year, it was a benefit to the royal family, since so far had respect towards it been unimpaired, The grant now asked was most odious in all its circumstances. It was an attempt to obtain money from the people under false pretences; it was unnecessary to the custos; it was in every public view unnecessary; and it was of all things most invidious to call for an unnecessary sum to any of the royal family in the present distressed state of the country.
The Marquis of Butecontended, that additional claims would be made upon the custos, in consequence of the deductions in this very bill. It was quite a mistake to suppose that the 10,000 l. were conferred as a grant upon his royal highness. Such an allowance was indispensable in order to relieve the anxiety which his royal highness must feel, to behave with liberality towards the old servants of his royal father.
Earl Grey Earl Grey, in reply, contended, that however he might be disposed on private grounds to accede to such a proposition as that before their lordships, when a grant was demanded on public grounds, he was bound to inquire into the necessity of it. In looking at the expense to which his royal highness would be subjected by his new situation, he was persuaded it was so trifling, that it would not only not justify the grant in question, but would not justify any grant whatever. On that ground he had already stated his opposition to the proposed grant; and after listening with great attention to the arguments urged on the other side, he remained unconvinced by them. It had been said, that minute inquiry into the necessity of this expense was unsuited to the dignity of the Crown. He felt himself, however, bound on public grounds, and from public duty, to inquire. His opinion remained still untouched, that there were no expenses, not only to justify this sum, but to call for any grant at all; and particularly as other persons, such as the king's council, now the council of the duke of York, were at the same expense without any remuneration, and as his royal highness had peculiar facilities for performing the duties of his office. Their lordships had heard a great deal of the expense which his royal highness would be at; but really, after turning the thing every way in his mind, he could not divine in what that expense, would consist. His noble friend near him had said it was impossible to state the nature of those expenses. Expenses the nature of which it was impossible to state, were not a fit subject for a parliamentary grant.—The noble president of the council had, on a former occasion, declared that he could easily imagine what those expenses were, but that he could not explain them. If their lordships chose to add to the public burthens on the imagination of a minister, which imagination he could not explain, he (earl Grey) could not help it; but as he could neither

1261
imagine nor explain the expenses for which the grant was called for, he must persevere in his opposition to it.
The clause for granting 10,000 l. a-year to his royal highness the duke of York was then agreed to without a division, and the bill went through the committee without any amendment.