Lords Sitting of 2 August 1850

MINUTES.
A CONFERENCE—County Court Extension.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Excise Sugar and Licences; Securities (Ireland) Act Amendment.
2a Cruelty to Animals (Scotland); Borough Gaols; Public Libraries and Museums; Engines for taking Fish (Ireland); Administration of Justice in Court of Chancery Acts Continuance; Mercantile Marine (No. 2).
Reported.—Navy Pay.
3a General Board of Health (No. 2); Bills of Exchange; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c.

THE EXHIBITION OF THE WORKS OF INDUSTRY—HYDE PARK.
LORD BROUGHAMthen rose to put a question to his noble Friend the President of the Council, on what he called the interminable subject of Hyde Park, and spoke nearly as follows:—I understand, my Lords, that huge operations are already commenced, and no doubt will continue to be carried on, for the destruction of Hyde Park, and of the road leading from Hyde Park-corner to Kensington. I understand that it is projected to pave that great road, which is now very easily and comfortably travelled on by all the many inhabitants who now live on the left hand side of it, Judges, and others. I understand that it is now begun to be paved with those great paving-stones which are now very much discontinued even in the most bustling parts of the town. I am told that this country road, this suburban road, is to be paved with huge blocks of granite, to make a road fit for great traffic, and to facilitate the works intended to be erected in the Park itself. I ask my noble Friend whether that is true or not? Now, I also hear that a similar paving operation, a similar process of granite, is about to take place in that part of the Park which is known as Rotten-row—a part of the Park with which I am not much acquainted; but which, I understand, is a road on which equestrians are wont to disport themselves. Whether that be true or not, I cannot tell; but if it be true, then the road will be rendered more safe for waggons to travel on, but not so safe for my noble Friend opposite to ride upon, as I am told that he is in the habit of doing. So my noble Friend will see that he, too, is interested in this question. But, my Lords, this is a minor matter when compared with the new law

679
which we now lire under—the law whereby the Attorney General is the sole judge in all cases between his client, the Crown, and all other parties, I mean the public, and individuals having their rights damnified, or threatened to be damnified, by the power of the Crown. The Attorney General now stifles all proceedings and suits by the subject against the Crown—the Attorney General now shuts the doors of all the courts, which ought to be as open to the subject as to the Crown, and decides judicially, ay, and more than judicially, for no Judge could prevent a suitor coming to his court, and having his case argued openly, in his own private closet against one party and in favour of the other. And the judicial character which Mr. Attorney General assumes is this. But I will first read what Sir Robert Wilmot, once Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, has said upon this very subject. What says he of the Attorney General?—
"The Attorney General is instructed by the King, and not by the constitution. It is the King who is instructed by the constitution. The great ability of the persons appointed to the office of Attorney General has made it higher in imagination, and has given it more importance in the eyes of the public, than it really deserves to have; for the Attorney General is but an attorney, though it be of the King, and stands in no different relation to his client than any other attorney to his employer."
But the Attorney General of the Queen now assumes to himself judicial functions, and says, "I act judicially." And how? By not hearing the parties; by shutting the doors of the court in the face of the public; by giving judgment in his own closet in behalf of his own employer, whose servant he is, against the other party. This is what is now said to be a judicial officer, acting judicially. All depends on the way in which the power of the Attorney General is exercised. I do not, my Lords, deny his power, but I question the way in which it has been exercised. I have brought this matter before your Lordships in order that you may know and understand the law under which you are living; and I say that there is no great or petty prince in Germany, Turkey, or even Russia, who exercises a power more absolute in dealing with the property of his subjects than the constitutional Sovereign of this country, provided that this power claimed and exercised by the Attorney General can be legally enforced as he enforces it in the teeth, not of a doubt—for that might be enough to justify him—but
680
in the teeth of the opinion of three most eminent lawyers, who have answered more cases by thousands and thousands than have ever been answered by the present Attorney General, or by him and the Solicitor General to boot. I state this as a positive matter of fact. In the whole course of my professional career I never stated any case before your Lordships, I never brought any question before this House, I never made any address on any subject either to you, my Lords, or to the other House of Parliament, which was ever attended by more applause than my speech on a late occasion, and never were heartfelt thanks more gratefully and cordially rendered to me by persons in private—some of them Members of this House, and other Members of the other House of Parliament—than those which have been rendered to me for my exertions on that occasion. Dead silence there was within your Lordships' walls—dead silence there was within the walls of the House of Commons, showing most painfully that absolute prostration of the understanding which takes place even in the minds of the bravest men when the word "prince" is mentioned in this country.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not consider that he is always right when he gains applause. There are very few subjects which fall into the hands of my hon. and learned Friend, on which he is not likely, when he speaks, to obtain applause. He says that the House was struck with silence the other night when he spoke on this subject. I listened to my hon. and learned Friend's speech on that occasion with all the attention and respect which I trust that I shall always give to every word that falls from his lips. I did not, however, remain silent because I thought that he was right, but because I thought that the discussion was altogether irrelevant, and because it was just possible that the whole question might come before me in my judicial capacity as Lord Chancellor. My noble and learned Friend has thought fit, in the exercise of his discretion, to censure the Attorney General very severely. He thinks, of course, that he is right in making such an attack upon the absent; but I shall endeavour to satisfy him and your Lordships that he is perfectly erroneous in his opinion, and that the Attorney General has acted all throughout these matters in a perfectly legal and con-

681
stitutional manner. I don't intend, my Lords, to say now whether the exercise of his discretion has been sound or not. I forbear for several reasons from answering my noble and learned Friend on that point. I was informed that it was the intention of several parties to bring a Motion into the Court of Chancery to put a stop to the proceedings in Hyde Park by means of an injunction. As I consider it possible that it might thus come before me as Lord Chancellor, I did not think it right to take any share in the discussion on that occasion. I have already stated, my Lords, the reasons why I was silent; but when my noble and learned Friend says that the other House was equally silent, I think that he cannot have consulted the ordinary vehicles of information, by which we obtain intelligence of what is passing in that assembly; for the Attorney General there made a most satisfactory answer to the objections urged against his conduct—an answer which, if my noble and learned Friend will give us a legitimate opportunity for debate, I will undertake to prove was in every respect a legal and substantial answer. Such topics, as my noble and learned Friend well knows how to introduce, are likely to make an impression on those who are not aware of the nature and duties of the office of Attorney General. But I must be permitted to tell him, that when he cited this evening the opinion of Sir Robert Wilmot, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, as an opinion condemnatory of the proceedings of the present Attorney General, he quoted an opinion that has nothing to do with, and cannot make any impression on, the present case. The question in that case was, whether the Solicitor General as well as the Attorney General could file an information; and the judgment upon it cannot be legitimately twisted into any analogy with the subject now before us. It is said that the Attorney General represents the public. Undoubtedly, and therefore it is his duty, when his name is to be used in the manner in which it is proposed to use it on this occasion, to see whether it is for the promotion of the interests of the public that it should be so used. If John-a-Nokes chooses to go to the Attorney General, and to say, "I am the public," it is the duty of the Attorney General to see whether he has any right to be considered as the public, and the Attorney General must not take it on his unsupported assertion. If the Attorney General sees that there is
682
not a case to justify the proceedings of John-a-Nokes, he has a right to refuse his assent to them; and he would be guilty of moral cowardice if, from any fear of obloquy, he should give his assent where he conscientiously thought that it ought to be withheld. The Attorney General, in refusing to allow these parties to file an information in his name, did not prevent them from proceeding as they might by indictment. This is a totally different thing. Who is it that complains? Are they private parties having any private interest affected by these proceedings? Let them bring it into court, as they are entitled and have power to do, and there let them try their right. Have they any public interest? Let them proceed, as they could do, by indictment against the wrongdoer. You bring before the Attorney General an opinion which says that there are certain Acts of Parliament which do not give the Crown the right of erecting buildings in Hyde Park. The Attorney General replies, "That is not the question; the question is, 'Have any rights been taken away from you?' If the Crown, which is the owner of the soil, gives its consent to the erection of those buildings, what right have you to object? Do not alarm the public by stating that your rights are in jeopardy, and that you are likely to be injured, when you cannot show that you have any rights, as individuals, or that any injury has been or will be inflicted upon you." The Attorney General says no more than this, "I will not be the means of assisting you—take such remedies as are open to you—I will not interfere for you, or against you." My Lords, the Attorney General has exercised a sound discretion, and these attacks upon that functionary are without foundation, and are inconsistent both with law and with justice. The Attorney General has exercised his powers for the benefit of the public—he is responsible to Parliament for his exercise of those powers; and if he has exercised them improperly let his noble and learned Friend bring that charge regularly and substantially before the House. I do not question my noble and learned Friend's right to discuss the question whether the Attorney General has exercised or not a sound discretion; but I do complain of the system of attacking an honourable man, and a high legal functionary, in a place where he cannot answer for himself. Where he could answer his detractors, he has answered them in a straightforward and satisfactory

683
manner; and I now tell my noble and learned Friend that, whenever he will condescend to bring forward his charges against the Attorney General in a regular manner, I will not fail to prove to the satisfaction of every impartial man that the Attorney General has exercised a sound, impartial, and legitimate discretion.
LORD BROUGHAMcould not refrain from rising to put his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack right on one or two matters of fact. In the first place, his noble and learned Friend had not been so long in the House as to be aware of its ordinary forms, or he would not have used the term "honourable" Friend in an assembly where every man was noble. In the next place, had he been longer a Member of that House he would have known that nothing was less irregular than to moot a case like the present on presenting a petition. He might bring forward without notice in that House any question, without being liable to the charge of irregularity. The courtesy of the House led to the practice of giving notice; but irregularity there was none in bringing forward any matter without it. If his noble and learned Friend had no better foundation for his knowledge of law than he had for his knowledge of the rules and orders of Parliament, when he stigmatised as irregular a proceeding which was strictly regular, he was certain to fail in the case which he had just pledged his reputation to establish. He had not, on the occasion to which his noble and learned Friend alluded, travelled even one hair's-breadth out of the four corners of the petition, and everything which he had then said had relevancy to that petition. As to his noble and learned Friend's saying that he (the Lord Chancellor) would take issue with him (Lord Brougham) on the point of law, he begged leave to remind the House that he had never said that the Attorney General had not the legal right to act as he had done. He had distinctly admitted that the Attorney General had that right; but the whole question rested upon the discretion with which he exercised it. He repeated his assertion, that this country was not a free country if the Attorney General had a right to refuse to the subjects of the Crown all access to the courts of law and equity by refusing to join them in a triable, probable, and maintainable cause. Oh! but he was the attorney for the public, was he? Why, the public repudiated his office, and would rather have these matters decided judicially by the courts
684
than by their own attorney in his private closet. The ground of his complaint against the Attorney General was, that by his refusal the matter in dispute could not come before the Court of Chancery.
The LORD CHANCELLORgave a decided negative to that assertion. If any individual had to complain of a private wrong, there was nothing to prevent him from bringing it before the Court of Chancery.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEbegged to remind his noble and learned Friend, who stood up so stoutly for the regularity of his and their proceedings, that he had himself departed from the Orders of the House in making an attack upon the conduct and proceedings of the Attorney General, when he merely rose to ask a question about the paving of Hyde Park. He assured his noble and learned Friend, that he had made inquiries into the subject-matter of this question, and that he could now inform him that the invasion of the sacred territory of Rotten-row, on which he admitted that he and others were wont to ride, was confined to the pavement of the entrance at the gate, and thence to the building erected in the Park. Not the road nor any part of the grass was to be paved.
LORD BROUGHAMwas understood to admit that, strictly speaking, he had been out of order in the observations which he had made that evening on this subject; but, if he had erred, he had erred in common with great authorities. Communis error facit jus. With respect to the Park, it was a great consolation for him to have heard from the noble Marquess that they were not to have a paved road to Kensington. Some, but a small part of the Park, it appeared, would be paved. Nothing could be more fair than the language and conduct of his noble Friend.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—THE LIVERPOOL CORPORATION WATERWORKS PETITION.
LORD BEAUMONTbrought up the report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the fraudulent signatures attached to the petition recently presented from Liverpool. His Lordship read the report at length. It stated that the Committee were of opinion that it was not established that the promoters of the opposition to the Bill had directly aided in increasing the number of signatures to the petition. The Committee, however, were of opinion that due precaution had not

685
been taken by them in the selection of their agents—that the signatures were of such a description as could not have failed to attract their attention—and that their neglect in not inquiring into their genuineness was remarkable. The Committee had, therefore, come to the conclusion that the promoters of the opposition to the Bill had been guilty of neglect in the first place, and of something worse than neglect in the second, in allowing the deception to be so long continued before Parliament. The Committee had directed the minutes of the evidence which they had taken to be laid before their Lordships; and he now moved that the report be printed.
Ordered accordingly.

THE CIVIL LIST.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that to the Motion he was about to make for a return relative to the savings on the Civil List he could not have conceived that any objection would have been raised; but he understood that his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne) intended to oppose it. He had not thought that any serious objections could have been raised on the ground that it was interfering with the revenue of the Crown, and he certainly had not done so with any view of entering upon any indiscreet examination of what had been done with regard to the Civil List appropriated to the Crown; but he conceived that Parliament had a right to see how any savings which had taken place had been effected. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Lansdowne) shook his head, but there was nothing in it. He meant there was nothing in the shake. He held in his hand a paper which had been presented to Parliament, being the revenue returns for the year ending the 5th of April, 1850, which showed that a saving had been effected in the expenditure of the Civil List during the last year to the amount of 38,719 l. 4s. 2d. This surely could not be considered a secret when these savings had been stated in a return furnished by the Treasury. This was merely the last year's saving; all he wanted to know was how much of the amount had been effected in consumable articles used in the Lord Steward's, in the Lord Chamberlain's, and in the Master of the Horse's departments, and how much had been obtained from pensions, salaries, and allowances. He wanted to see how much had been saved in each department, and how much from salaries. They had the total amount, and he could not conceive why they should not
686
have details. He could state a sound reason on his own part why he called for these further returns. Previous to voting the Civil List for this reign, estimates were laid before Parliament in 1837 explaining the principles on which the Government had framed the Civil List for the present reign. Estimates were given, under various heads, of so much being required for the Lord Steward's, the Lord Chamberlain's and the Master of the Horse's departments, and so much as allowance for salaries and pensions. He therefore required an explanation under which head the savings had been effected. It had become known that in consequence of the death of Sir Thomas Marrable, and the appointment of Mr. Hill to the Board of Green Cloth, there was a saving to the amount of 2,927 l. This therefore had been effected out of a vote which had been granted for a specific purpose. If they voted a certain number of thousands a year for the support of the dignity of the Crown for each department, they ought to know what the expenditure was in the Lord Steward's, the Lord Chamberlain's, and the Master of the Horse's departments. The Sovereign had no right to abolish offices—or, rather, the advisers of the Crown had no right to take money given for one purpose, and apply it to another. He begged to remind the House that in 1837 or 1838 he had stated two grounds why he thought it was the duty of Parliament to fix a period to which they should limit the Civil List then to be granted. During all the discussions when they were fixing the amount of the expenditure of the three great departments of the Court, and of salaries and pensions paid out of the Civil List, he had remarked that they could not possibly foresee whether in future time the amounts they were about to vote would be found too much or too little. It was equally impossible for them to tell whether, probably for a period of half a century, they were about to vote too much or too little. If it was too little, the Parliament would have to give an increase or to pay off debts contracted on the Civil List. If it was too much, which was very possible, and he had stated several reasons why he thought this would be the case, it was a strong ground why provision should not be made. He had strongly maintained one reason for thinking so, namely, that the prices of articles of consumption would not continue high. He then said, be did not believe that the law which tended to keep up the price of the first necessary of life—

687
bread—he meant the corn laws, would he long continued. He had expressed his assurance that the law must be repealed, and he had asked what would he the effect on the prices of all the articles of general consumption. He had also asserted that the consequence of such repeal would he that they could not properly appropriate the amount that would be required in each of these departments with the existing state of facts before them. As he had foreseen, the corn laws had been repealed, and savings to the amount of 38,000 l. had been effected in the expenditure of the Civil List in one year. He took credit for not having agreed at the time with the sums fixed for each, for the whole of a reign, for these several departments. Many objections, however, were taken against making the Civil List temporary, and he was induced to content himself with protesting against the course taken. There was also another reason which he had urged, it was—that he wished that they should know what were the revenues of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. He found the revenue of the duchy of Cornwall for the year 1848 was 67,000 l. M. This was under a management than which one more expensive never existed. It appeared that for every 2l. collected from the revenues of the duchy, 1l. 5s. was paid to defray the expenses of the department. It was impossible that any noble Lord would allow anything of the kind to occur in the management of his estate, or for a moment sanction a charge of between 60 and 70 per cent on the gross revenue to defray the expenses of the stewards and agents and other managers of his property. In 1848, not less than 7,000 l. was paid out to defray the charges connected with the Prince of Wales, the auspicious young prince being only seven years old. In the following year the whole amount drawn for the alleged service of His Royal Highness was considerably greater, amounting to not less than 29,000 l. It was quite impossible that that House could believe that the expense of his education, the charge for maintenance, or any other necessary expenditure for him, could amount to so much; such, however, was the sum received by the Crown out of the revenues of the duchy for the alleged maintenance of the Prince of Wales. It appeared, also, that a saving had been effected in the duchy of Lancaster of not less than 12,000 l., and this was to be added to the 38,000 l. saved in the Civil List; and altogether he found
688
the sums received by the Privy Purse from these various sources amounted to about 140,000 l. But it was a great mistake to suppose that the Privy Purse was unencumbered. He did not mean to say that that debt had been increased by the present Sovereign, but there were arrears due from charges placed on it by former Sovereigns. The late William IV. had charged it with about 28,000 l. He (Lord Brougham) never could allude to that beneficent monarch without expressing his admiration of his excellent temper and his kindness of disposition, which perhaps had induced him to bestow grants on those who had served with him, or who, in his estimation, had rendered service to the State. It was not in conformity with the genius of the constitution that the Sovereign of this country should have the means of acquiring wealth, but that he should be dependent on Parliament. If the Sovereign and the Parliament went on with amicable feelings and with a good understanding, the latter would be ample, liberal, nay, even generous in its grants for the support of the dignity of the Crown. He had been many years a Minister of the Crown, and he had never doubted for one moment that such would always be the result of a mutual good feeling existing. There had been no means hitherto of a Sovereign amassing wealth from savings from the Civil List, and indeed the Sovereign had not the moans of disposing of any property belonging to the Crown till Mr. Pitt passed a measure on the subject, in 1799, enabling certain grants to be made out of the landed property of the Crown. The law, however, clearly was, that if an estate descended to the Crown by gift, devise, or other means, it could not be settled as any estate belonging to a private person. It was held not as a devise of private property, but was considered to be Crown property, and was held by the Crown in trust as public property. The ground for the measure of Mr. Pitt was, that George III. wished to devise some land to his favourite daughter, the Princess Amelia, and that was the first time for a very long period that the Crown was enabled to separate a portion of land from Crown property, or the property of the Sovereign separate from that of the Crown was recognised. He had formerly broached the subject as to the alleged too high salary paid to high judicial and other functionaries, and to diplomatists who represented the Crown at foreign Courts. It was very much the custom at that period

689
of the year to postpone any subject likely to give rise to much discussion to an early period of the next Session. It was most painful for him to postpone the consideration of the subject, but he would then give notice that at an early period of the next Session he would bring the whole question under the notice of the House, and press for a division upon it. He merely wished, on the present occasion, to move for a return showing how much of the 38,000 l. saved from the Civil List was saved in the departments of the Privy Purse, and in the offices of the Steward, the Chamberlain, and the Master of the Horse.
Then the Order of the Day for moving an humble Address to Her Majesty, for the Amount of the Savings in the Civil List Revenues since the beginning of 1838; distinguishing the Classes and the Years; and for the Lords to be Summoned; read, and discharged. Then it was moved—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for a Return of how much of the 38,000 l. and upwards, Savings on the Civil List for the Tear ending 5th April, 1850, arises from the Salaries, Pensions, and Allowances."
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that his noble and learned Friend had given notice of a Motion to which he had certainly felt that the very strongest objection should be made; and he was bound to state that even the modification of that Motion which had been proposed, was, in his opinion, open to very grave objections, considering the situation in which that House stood with respect to the Crown. With respect to the savings of which the noble and learned Lord spoke, he was informed that the view of his noble and learned Friend was founded on mistake, and that the money was merely so much money not issued. He must, however, fairly state to his noble and learned Friend his invincible repugnance to the production of the smallest, the most minute, or the most trifling account in the Civil List, founded as that Civil List was upon a solemn engagement and contract between the Crown on the one hand, and Parliament on the other. So long as that contract subsisted, he should deem it his duty to object to the production of any accounts connected in any way with that Civil List. Well, knowing that his noble and learned Friend would disclaim any interference with that contract, yet knowing at the same time—what his noble and learned Friend must be well acquainted with—the temper of these times,
690
and feeling sure that if Parliament began by asking for information, that information, if granted, might be followed up in a spirit far different from that which actuated his noble and learned Friend, he would oppose himself to any concession from which it might be argued that the whole question of the settlement of the Civil List might be reviewed, for the sake of showing that some paltry gain might accrue to the public in the distribution of the expenses of the Crown, leaving altogether out of sight a question of the greatest importance, namely, the independence of the administration of that fund, which the deliberations of Parliament had assigned to the Sovereign for the maintenance of that royal rank and dignity which became the head of the State; but which would cease to be dignity, if the administration of that fund were liable every year, and on every occasion, to be sifted and examined. He begged of the House to consider that the establishment of a Civil List at the commencement of each reign had become, by usage, something like constitutional law; but, at all events, the arrangement had been sanctioned by long usage, Parliament having obtained from the Crown the revenues of the Crown, and having given in exchange a certain fixed sum to maintain its dignity. This was a practice which had obtained for the reigns of three or four successive Sovereigns, and the only alteration which had been made in the original arrangement was one which presented a still greater bar to the inquiry for which his noble and learned Friend had asked, inasmuch as those parts of the Civil List which peculiarly appertained to the honour and dignity of the Crown were separated from the other portions of it, which were left subject to the review of Parliament. The 9th clause of the Act by which the Civil List was regulated expressly provided that savings in particular classes of the Civil List should be applicable to the wants of others. The advent of another Sovereign, the necessity for more horses, or a larger expenditure in the kitchen one year than another, would make a difference in the different classes, and the savings in one department were transferred to departments to which those savings had not been specifically appropriated. Parliament had nothing whatever to do with the subject. He agreed entirely, that if at any time—though fortunately such a thing was not likely to occur during the present reign—the Crown were to come to Parliament for

691
assistance to the Civil List, Parliament, before granting such assistance, would have a right to be informed whether there had been any undue expenditure in the different classes. But to the honour of the Crown he might justly say, that though during the half century preceding the present reign no less than nine applications had been made for assistance to the Civil List, since the present Sovereign had ascended the throne, now upwards of thirteen years, no such application had been made, and he was confident that no prospect existed of such an application ever being made. The greatest inconvenience would be felt, and indeed the greatest indecorum would be manifested—as much as if the affairs of any private gentleman were inquired into—if they were to examine in that House, or in the other House of Parliament, or out of doors, whether there had been a horse too much kept in this department, or a dinner too much or too little given in that department, the real question being whether the honour and dignity of the Crown had been generally maintained. He would not ask their Lordships whether this object had been attained in the present reign. He believed it was admitted on all hands that the expenditure of the Civil List had been regulated in accordance with the spirit of the country, with the honour and dignity of the Crown, and with a liberal distribution of public and private charity. Beyond that he did not know that the public could desire anything; and he would put it to his noble and learned Friend whether his Motion could answer any other purpose than that of satisfying mere curiosity? On these grounds he must oppose the Motion of his noble and learned Friend.
LORD BROUGHAMexplained, that in framing his Motion he had desired to exclude all indecorous inquiry. He merely wished to know whether the same number of offices for which Parliament had voted the money was kept up with the same amount of pay.
The DUKE OF WELLINGTONobserved, that his noble and learned Friend seemed to have overlooked the enactment which provided that none of those classes of the Civil List which were allotted to the dignity and sustentation of the Crown could be made the subject of inquiry in regard to the transfer of means from one to another. He did not know whether the same statement was made in settling the Civil List of Her Majesty as was made in set-
692
thing the Civil List of the last Sovereign; but he perfectly recollected Earl Spencer, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, declaring that no inquiry could be made into the expenditure of these classes, and that such inquiry was inconsistent with the dignity and honour of the Crown. That statement was in precise conformity with the principle that there should be no inquiry. He concurred in all that had been stated of the personal generosity of the Sovereign. Having been cognisant of the formation of the Civil List during the last two reigns, he had objected that sufficient provision was not made for the demands on the bounty of the Crown. He had occasion to know with what generosity Her Majesty had acted in the case of those who had been bereaved through misfortunes in war; and he could not avoid mentioning that circumstance, having on the occasions he had mentioned, in voting the Civil List, objected that sufficient provision was not made for such benevolent purposes.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that as an individual employed under Lord Spencer, in the preparation of the Civil List of King William IV., and also as having acted as Chancellor of the Exchequer in preparing the Civil List of Her present Majesty, he trusted that their Lordships would feel that he was only discharging a duty which he owed to the House in making a few observations. He regretted that the Motion should have been made, and also that the questions and conversation which had preceded it should have taken place, because it would go forth with all the sanction that could be given to it by the high authority of his noble and learned Friend. A precedent of greater danger to the constitution of this country, and one more foreign to previous precedents in the history of England, never could take place, than the opening of this question. He did not mean to say that Parliament had not ever been called on to review the Civil List, but that was when there were exceedings and debts. The public ought not to be misled by the notion that the land revenues of the Crown were all that was surrendered in exchange for a Civil List. The Crown surrendered its hereditary revenues as well; and it had been often argued that the amount surrendered by the Crown was infinitely greater than the amount given by Parliament. Up to the reign of George IV., the sums at the disposal of the Sovereign far exceeded the amount provided for by the present Civil List. The whole of the droits of the

693
Admiralty, the revenues of Hanover, and the four-and-a-half per cent duties were in the possession of the Crown. An alteration was made by the Government of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington). There was then tendered a large surrender of the hereditary revenues of the Crown. The Committee, however, of 1831, to whom this matter was referred, confined themselves in their inquiries into the second class—to the salaries of the Officers of State, not thinking it consistent with the respect due to His Majesty to scrutinise the details of his domestic household. He would now proceed to the Civil List of Her present Majesty. In Her Majesty's communication to Parliament in 1837, She said—"Desirous that the expenditure in this and in every other department of the Government should be kept within due limits, I feel confident that you will gladly make adequate provision for the support of the honour and dignity of the Crown." Their Lordships, however, must bear in mind that Her Majesty was placed in a different position from any of Her predecessors in respect of revenue. The revenues of Hanover had ceased to be the possession of the Crown; no private fortune had been bequeathed to Her, and the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall (which George IV. enjoyed during the whole of his reign), were only Her's until the birth of a Prince of Wales. Upon that occasion he (Lord Monteagle), as the organ of the Government, had made use of the following observations:—
"We wish to make such arrangements as will carry us through this reign, which we hope may be as long as happy, without appeals to Parliament, contractions of debts, and those circumstances which have led in former times to so much jealousy and suspicion on the part of the people, and have not been without prejudicial effects to royalty. But as we hope the reign to be long, it behoves us to consider it with care, and to weigh well the steps we take, because I admit that when the step is taken, I shall be ready to plead it in bar of any proposal to reconsider the Civil List, unless the Crown were placed in a position to require it."
That was the expression of the opinion of Lord Melbourne's Cabinet. Parliament then settled Her Majesty's Civil List at a less amount than that enjoyed by Her predecessors; and upon that occasion the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) himself declared that the arrangement ought not to be revised by Parliament unless the Crown applied for additional sums. Even now the noble and learned Lord admitted that the settlement made at Her
694
Majesty's accession was binding as a bargain; and yet he proposed to inquire into it, to examine witnesses, and to put all sorts of questions to them. This was blowing hot and cold. If the settlement of the Civil List was really a bargain between the Crown and the people, no one was entitled to ask any questions about it. If the settlement was not such a bargain, let the noble and learned Lord say so at once, and propose that it should be reconsidered. This was the first time it had ever been proposed to inquire into the expenditure of the Civil List when the Crown was not in debt, and no application was made to Parliament for an additional grant to the Sovereign. Was it even rumoured that the Crown was in debt? Their Lordships would bear in mind that the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall had now passed away from the Crown, and that Her Majesty had a smaller Civil List than She bad in 1837. Having had the honour to serve under two successive Sovereigns, he was happy to state that no persons ever felt greater alarm at the idea of incurring debt, or a firmer determination to live independently within the income assigned to them, than the late King and Her present Majesty. When his late Majesty was about to go into his new palace, he expressed to him (Lord Monteagle) his fear lest he might be obliged to incur additional expenditure, saying—"I never asked Parliament to pay a single debt for me, and, so help me God! I never will." Her present Majesty was equally cautious of incurring debt, and yet it could not be imputed to Her that She was deficient in acts of generosity or charity. Her present Majesty had also been obliged to incur extraordinary expenses by Her progresses to Ireland and Scotland; but, nevertheless, She had avoided making any application to Parliament for an additional grant. The noble Lord then contended that Parliament had no right to inquire into particular savings that might be effected in the expenditure of the Civil List, because it was provided by Act of Parliament that all such savings should belong to the Crown, and concluded by apologising for having said so much.
LORD BROUGHAMwould have excused his noble Friend for saying ten times as much, if what he had said had only been accurate. His noble Friend had, however, informed the House that he was once a Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had bragged of having framed the Civil List,

695
and of having been an under-workman in that transaction, but had in his address made blunders which he (Lord Brougham), in his ignorance—for he was never either a Chancellor of the Exchequer or a Secretary to the Treasury, and was, at the time the noble Lord had referred to, only one of his masters—would not have commited. The noble Lord had said that the money voted by Parliament was voted for the Civil List, and not for the items of which it was composed. He had heard of metaphysicians, Jesuits, refiners, over-refiners, hair-splitters, wire-drawers, and wire-drawn arguments, but he certainly had never before heard a more wire-drawn, evanescent, subtle distinction than that drawn by the noble Lord. Parliament voted a certain sum of money for supporting the dignity of the Crown, upon estimates which were laid before it, containing the most minute details of all the expenses, salaries, and allowances of all the officers, down to the grooms, postilions, coachmen, footmen, running-footmen, servants in livery and servants out of livery, as well as maids of honour, bedchamber women. Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, and Master of the Horse; all these items were fully set out, and although the House did not vote separate sums for each of those individuals, male and female, still the whole was summed up, and it was upon the faith of those estimates that the total amount was voted. His noble Friend had argued as though the sum total were unconnected with the details of the sum; he might as well have argued that because 2 and 4 are 6, and 4 are 10, and 2 are 12, that therefore the number 12 had nothing to do with the 2's which went to make up the number. His noble Friend had "jumped about and turned about" with that singular evolution, agility, and nimbleness which would have done honour to the representative upon any stage of "Jim Crow," and boldly declared that none of those twos, or fours, or sixes, went to make up the total of twelve. It was far from his (Lord Brougham's) wish to curtail anything of the dignity of the Crown. God forbid that such a national calamity should ever occur as that of the loss of the services of a Lord Chamberlain!—God forbid that either the country or the Crown should ever be deprived of the services of a Lord Steward!—and God forbid also that they should ever be deprived of the services of the Master of the Horses! and if the noble Lord who filled that important post were present on
696
this occasion, he should feel, if possible, a still greater pleasure in saying, God forbid that the country or the Crown should for an instant lose the services of that illustrious trio! He hoped that the Crown would long maintain that accession of dignity which their valuable and important services conferred upon it. There was nothing in his Motion which could for a moment lead to the supposition that the country or the Crown would ever be deprived of the services of the Lord Chamberlain, be bereaved of the valuable assistance of a Lord Steward, or that they should ever have occasion to go forlorn for the want of a Master of the Horse. His noble Friend had said that the object of the Motion was merely the gratification of an idle curiosity. It was no such thing. He wished to be satisfied that there had been no diminution in the salaries, and that the same persons were still employed, and the same salaries still given to them as entered in the estimates upon which the vote for the Civil List was granted. If there was to be no check of this kind, his noble Friend opposite (the Marquess of Westminster) might, perhaps, be called upon, for instance, to serve without any salary at all, and then—or, if he did not so choose to serve without his salary—let their Lordships consider the alternative—that office might be laid down altogether, contrary to the estimates, upon the faith of which the vote had been granted. But he had been told that this was a question of extreme delicacy, and one which ought not to be asked. His esteemed Whig friends had certainly changed very greatly since he had the pleasure of seeing them in the House of Commons; for in that House he had over and over again moved for returns connected with the revenues of the Crown, and had always upon those occasions received their faithful and valuable support. He had at length, after great difficulty, succeeded in extorting and extracting from Lord Liverpool an account of the droits of the Admiralty, which then formed part of the revenues of the Crown. He was now told, however, that it was indelicate, that he ought to let well alone, and wait for such an inquiry until the Sovereign was in debt; that the stream of monarchy was flowing smoothly, unshaken, and unruffled, and that if they erected their dam, or made their dike before the tempest came on, some great catastrophe would take place. This was nearly the same language which had been held on the

697
previous occasions to which he had referred. But, notwithstanding these opinions, upwards of 3,000,000 l. of the revenue derived from the Admiralty droits were given up by Parliament just before the battle of Trafalgar, and returns were now constantly laid before the House respecting the duchy of Cornwall, the hereditary revenues of Scotland, and other sources of revenue of the Crown. He commenced his Motions on these subjects in 1812; and, after Lord Castlereagh's death, he at length extorted from Lord Liverpool's Government a detailed statement of the appropriation of the droits of the Admiralty.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, the droits of the Admiralty went to the credit of the public.
LORD BROUGHAM: Yes, that was the result of his Motions, which all his Whig friends supported.
LORD MONTEAGLEbegged to assure his noble and learned Friend that he was not mistaken in what he had previously stated. When the Civil List was settled, it was distinctly provided that all savings which might be made in salaries, other than those of the great officers of State, should go to the Crown. When his noble and learned Friend made his Motion about the droits of the Admiralty, the Crown was in debt.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, his Motions had no reference whatever to the debts of the Crown.
The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEstated, that at the time of the settlement of the Civil List it was provided that no new appointment should be made, nor any alteration in the salaries of the officers should take place without the sanction of the Lords of the Treasury. Many of the expenses which were formerly borne by Parliament were defrayed by Her Majesty out of the Civil List; and the public ought to know that Her Majesty voluntarily gave up 12,000 l. of her revenue for income tax for the good of the country. The manner in which the noble and learned Lord had brought forward his Motion, had been, in his opinion, deserving of the censure of that House and of the country; and he believed that people out of doors would entertain the same opinion on the subject.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MERCANTILE MARINE (No. 2) BILL.
EARL GRANVILLE, in proposing the Second Reading of this Bill, briefly explained its provisions. It was intended, (said
698
the noble Earl) to regulate matters connected with the mercantile marine of the country. In the first place, it gave to the Board of Trade the power of superintending the carrying out of those regulations; and, to enable that to be done, it gave to the board the power of appointing, as superintendents, persons who had practical information on the subject. It had reference, also, to that point which had been made a matter of accusation against the captains and mates of the merchant ships, that if they had not actually deteriorated, they had certainly not improved, in scientific attainments, nor in their general or moral conduct. The Bill, therefore, enabled the Board of Trade to appoint examining officers to examine all those who were candidates for those situations. Another object of the Bill was to insure greater discipline on board, and, as a proof of the necessity of such a provision, he referred to an instance that occurred some time ago, in which the captain of a vessel was put into irons by the crew; but, on arriving in port, as the law stood, no punishment could be awarded against him for his misconduct. It was as much for the interest of the seamen themselves as for the service in general that strict provisions should be made for maintaining good conduct on board. He would not, however, detain the House longer, as he intended to accede to the proposition of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley), that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
EARL WALDEGRAVEsaid, that as the Bill was to go to a Select Committee he would not oppose the second reading.
LORD COLCHESTERapproved of the provisions of the Bill respecting the qualifications of masters and mates, but regretted that they were confined to foreign-going vessels.
Bill read 2a, and referred to a Select Committee.
House adjourned till To-morrow.