one of the great sources of wealth which the country had derived under the present reign. He concluded a very able speech by voting for the address.

Mr. Tierney entered into a pretty full examination of the accounts presented on this occasion, and of the classes under which they were arranged. He objected to the large payments which were stated generally, as "occasional payments." He also objected to the enormous expenses charged as law expenses: he knew that in the beginning of the war fourteen or fifteen counsel were employed on the part of the crown in the state trials. This was, in his opinion, a wanton waste of the public money. The creation of the place of third secretary was, he thought, unnecessary, and the expense enormous, amounting to no less than 26,000l. per ann.

After some observations from other gentlemen, and after the amendment was put and negatived, the question on the original address was put, and the house divided, Ayes Noes

Majority

226 51

175

On the 31st of March, being two days after the debate on the civil list, a very serious debate took place in the house of commons, with respect to the claims of the prince of Wales on account of the arrears due from his revenues in Cornwall.

Mr. Manners Sutton rose to make his promised motion upon this subject; the motion was, that a committee be appointed to inquire what sums arising from the revenues of the dutchy of Cornwall had been received, and under what authority, since the birth of his royal highness,

till the period of his arriving at the age of twenty-one years. He also wished to inquire into, what sums had been advanced towards the payment of his royal highness's debts up to the 27th of June 1795. If the house should resolve upon the appointment of the committee, there would be two questions for their consideration: 1st, Whether his royal highness be or be not entitled to the arrears of the revenues of the dutchy of Cornwall? and whether, if he be, those arrears have not been expended for the public service? He then proceeded to the claims of his royal highness. In the first place, this claim was founded upon a grant of Edward the Third, to his son the Black Prince. He conveyed that dutchy and its revenue to his son for his maintenance, when that prince was but eight years old. The object of this grant was to secure the heir apparent an income independent of the crown, and the consequence of it has been to vest the dutchy in the prince of Wales for ever since, from the moment of his birth. The prince of Wales was therefore entitled to the revenues of it from the moment of his birth. It therefore would be an extraordinary thing to assert, that the king had a right to hold those revenues till the moment of the prince arriving at the age of twenty-one, and without rendering any account of them. When he said, his majesty had retained them, he by no means meant that he had retained them for his own use; those revenues were otherwise applied. Great doubts had been entertained on this subject, and by high legal authorities: the first doubt was, whether the king had not, as guardian to his children, a claim on those revenues. This doubt was

however

however soon got rid of, it being clear that this oppressive sort of guardianship was got rid of entirely by the act of king Charles the Second. Another doubt was whether the king had not, by some sort of prerogative, a power to claim those revenues. This doubt was also disposed of, it being clear that his prerogative was limited by the grant itself. The learned gentleman then mentioned the many princes of Wales who had been formally invested with this dutchy when under age; among the rest, Henry the Fifth, who received it at ten years of age. Prince Arthur, son of Henry the Seventh, was invested immediately upon his birth, and after his death his brother, afterwards Heary the Eighth, succeeded him. After stating all the cases of former princes of Wales, who were acknowledged dukes of Cornwall from their birth, be cited, as the most modern and recent that could be produced, that the father of the present king, being under age at the accession of George the Second, had an account rendered him, at the time of his coming of age, of the revenues of that dutchy from the day of his father's accession to the crown. The same rights were evidently vested in his royal highness from his birth; and the late chancellor of the exchequer must admit, that the surplus revenues of the dutchy of Cornwall had been applied to the aid of the civil list. The principal motive which induced his royal highness to bring this question forward, was an anxious desire to stand well in the eye of the public, and to prove to them, that if his rights had been duly acknowledged, he should have been no burden to the people, but that all his expenses, whether incurred prudently or not,,

would have fallen on himself. The learned gentleman concluded a very able statement, by moving that a select commitice should be appointed to inquire into the application of the revenues of Cornwall during the minority of his royal highness; as a so respecting the several sums which have been voted by parliament for the discharge of the prince's debts.

Sir Ralph Milbank seconded the motion, and expressed the firmest conviction of the justice of the prince's claims.

Mr. Fuller quoted precedents from the journals of the house, to prove that the dutchy of Cornwall was considered independent of the crown, and belonging to the prince of Wales. He thought the house even bound by the precedents in the records of their journals.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer discussed this subject at very considerable length: he confessed that the claim of the prince by no means appeared to his judgment to be so clear and indisputable as had been stated by the learned gentleman who moved the present question; and highly as he respected the legal knowledge and great talents of the honourable mover, yet there were other professional gentlemen, whose learning and talents he was also bound to respect highly, who entertained an idea very different on the point of law, from that which had been expressed by the learned gentleman. The point of law, which had been stated as clearly with the claim of the prince, was, that the statute of Charles II. abolishing military tenures, services, &c.abolished generally the old right of ward existing in the guardian, and which applied to the present case.

I 2

There had

had been opinions of the highest authority, that this statute did not divest his majesty of the ancient right of ward to the revenues of the dutchy, until what the law calls livery of seisin was demanded on the part of his royal highness. As this was merely a question of law, it became him to speak with diffidence upon it; but he could assure the house, that some of the highest legal authorities had held an opinion adverse from the claim of the prince. He thought it would be sufficient to state, that it was a doubtful question of law, to convince the house that it was not their province to determine it. If the prince had a legal right, he had undoubtedly a legal redress by petition of right, or in some other shape. Although this was his opinion on the matter of right, yet he would not wish to be considered as having advised that or any other measure. As to the other point, the balance of accounts between the prince and the public, which the learned gentleman had stated, that his royal highness only wished to have brought forward for the purpose of setting himself well in the eyes of the public, he could not but obserye, that this motive reflected the highest honour on his royal highness, and that the statement of it must produce that effect, so necessary both to his situation and to the welfare of the country: but highly as he admired the notive which actuated his royal highness, he could by no means admit, that the balance of accounts between the prince and the public (if this claim was admitted) would turn ent to be in favour of the prince. If it was allowed, to the fullest extent, that the prince of Wales was absoJutely entitled, from his birth, to

the revenues of the dutchy, yet it by no means followed that the expenses of his maintenance and education during his minority should not be defrayed out of those revenues, but be borne entirely by his majesty out of his civil list, and yet it was merely on this supposition that the idea of a large balance due to the prince was founded. He could by no means believe, that it was the intention of Edward the Third, who first made this grant to his young son, the Black Prince, that the whole revenues of the dutchy were to be appropriated for the prince, and yet that all the expense of his maintenance was to be defrayed by himself. However, he did not mean to give any decided opinion upon the question. His great objection to the present motion was, that its object was, first to decide the legal right, which he thought the house could not do; and afterwards to order an account. As he could not approve of or support the motion, and yet did not wish absolutely to oppose it, he concluded by moving, "that the other orders of the day be now read."

Mr. Erskine then rose and supported, in a very able and argumentative speech, the claims of the prince. He admitted, that if the point of law was doubtful, it should be submitted to another tribunal. But he considered the point so perfectly settled, that in a question between the prince of Wales and the king, it was the house of commons that ought to examine the subject, especially when the object of it was to determine how the accounts between the prince and the public stood, or whether the prince was really a debtor to the nation, or a creditor. The learned gentleman then examined all the precedents of

the

the predecessors of his royal highness, the former princes of Wales, and proved that it was always considered, that they were entitled to the revenues of the dutchy. Although, in the reign of Henry the Sixth, and of James the First, there appeared some disposition in those monarchs to keep those revenues to themselves, yet the very proceedings in consequence of such dispositions, and the declarations of the legislature, proved the right of the prince to "livery of seisin" in his minority. In the reign of Edward the Fourth, this "livery" was given to his son at eight months old, and the charter of livery," confirmed by the lords spiritual and temporal, recited," that the duke of Cornwall was entitled to livery, the same as if he had been of the age of twentyone." This being the acknowledged law of the land, so soon after the original grant, he could not conceive how the meaning of the grant could be misunderstood in 1802; and yet the only legal doubt that could be advanced was, whether the statute of Charles the Second failed in its general operation, as to this dutchy, for want of "livery of seisin," when it was always acknowledged in express terms, that the prince was entitled to this "livery" from his birth. He thought it would be a very ungracious thing to have a litigation between his majesty and the prince. He thought it was also unnecessary, for he could not conceive that a committee could entertain a doubt upon the subject, when the documents were laid before them, As to the balance of accounts he should say nothing: however small it might turn out to be in favour of the prince, yet it would afford him the pleasure of showing the public,

that he had not been a burden to the country.

The Master of Rolls did not wish to express a decided opinion upon the subject, but recalled to the recollection of the house, that this was the first time that these claims had ever been mentioned in the house in so confident a manner. This claim was stated on the one side as strictly legal; on the other side, doubts were entertained: surely this was not the tribunal before which doubtful points of property should be litigated? As to the idea that the point was so clear, that it was not worth sending to a legal tribu nal, nothing could be more fallacious than that argument, for we heard daily in our courts points agitated, which to the majority of the profession appeared perfectly clear. He considered that the education of the heir apparent was the exclusive prerogative of the crown, and that his majesty alone was the proper judge of the disbursements necessary. If his majesty was not accountable, neither was the public. The great principle upon which he opposed the appointment of the committee was, that if the house should take upon itself the determination of legal questions, it would appear to him an assumption of judicial power, and a violation both of the principles and practice of the constitu tion.

Mr. Fox saw the question in a point of view entirely different from that in which the last speaker, the chancellor of the exchequer, viewed it. In order that the question might be more distinctly understood, he begged the clerk would read again the motion: (this being done), he declared he could see

I 3

до