proposal was a change of the whole state of the question, and asserted that the custos was distinct from the rest of the establishment at Windsor, and went to touch that fund as a public fund which the law had tied up as the sacred property of his Majesty. Taking the path which nothing but principle could induce him to take, he opposed this proposal. He hoped that the house and the country would agree, that since the keeping of the Royal person was intrusted to the highest hands to which it could by law be intrusted, the expenses of this office ought to be paid from some public fund, over which Parliament had the same control as over the other sources whence money was granted. If this were a case of private service, the privy purse could not be tied up more than any individual's property; but since it undeniably was a public duty to provide for it out of the privy purse would be unjust, illegal, and unconstitutional. Should the act of 1811 and 1812 be vicious in principle and detail, instead of being, what he believed it was, sound and equitable; if this precedent were wholly wanting, while the laws respecting private property were unviolated, Par liament was incompetent according to the precedents and usage which had prevailed, to overstep the boundaries of private property in this case. There was a distinct recognition on the part of Parliament, of the privy purse being private property, in the 38th and 40th of the King; and since the privy purse was private property, the savings were private property. If any doubt could have existed as to what the law was, that doubt was laid at rest in 1811 and 1812, by the 51st and 52d of the King, when, regulating their steps with all the serious anxiety which belonged to private indivi

duals, Parliament had decided, that the amount of the privy-purse was L. 60,000. and tied it up for the sole disposal of his Majesty, as his private property. The third resolution gave a certain sum to the custos persona as a public character; but it was not proposed to give it effect by violating private property. He protested that he confidently expected, that the right honourable gentleman would not offer his intended amendment; he gave him credit for too much good feeling, too much English spirit, too high a regard to public principle, and too great a respect for public feeling to expect that he would bring before the house the intended proposition-a proposition that would, if carried, he believed in his conscience, consign their names to infamy. His Lordship stated, in conclusion, that he was authorised by the Duke of York to state to the House that nothing could induce him to accept what he considered the private property of his Majesty; and that as to himself nothing but a sense of public duty could have led him to endure the painful feelings which arose from the donation of money to any of the Royal Family.

Mr Tierney began by assuring the house that he would occupy as little as possible of their time, and should offer his observations under the three heads, branched out by the Noble Lord-1st, the L. 50,000 for the establishment at Windsor; 2d, the pensions to servants of her late Majesty; and 3d, the allowance of L. 10,000 to the Duke of York, which was the greatest, the most constitutional, and most important question of all. As to the first question, he believed that no report had ever been made with more general consent than the report upon the table. He had certainly gone into

the Committee with a different view of the subject, and had then believed that L. 50,000 was too much for the establishment at Windsor; but when, upon going into the Committee, he had found, that if his Majesty were removed from Windsor, the expense of keeping Windsor Castle in proper repair would cost L. 18,000 or L.20,000, the case assumed, in his view, a very different complexion. If he were to examine all the little items in the report, he could, perhaps, point out a practicable saving of L. 3000 or L. 4000; but the saving would be very trifling, and the discussion irksome. With respect to the second resolution, concerning pensions and allowances to superannuated servants, he regretted that it had ever come before the House, as the House had no connexion with the case. In all the precedents referred to, the Royal persons had allowed out of the privy list what they pleased. The case became totally different when the laws regulating the privy purse became different. He could assure the House, that he had never gone through more disagreeable labour than in examining the claims of the several ladies who came under the consideration of the Committee; and if the ladies were ill pleased with the result, he could assure them that he was more so with the impressions on his own feelings by the investigation. The Noble Lord had told him, that L. 25,000 were necessary for those pensions and allowances. He asked for precedents, and the Noble Lord stated the several precedents quite correctly. He objected to extend ing pensions or allowances beyond servants in menial offices. He was told that he was quite in error upon that point, and that Lords were usually pensioned, as well as menials. But the Noble Lord, of himself

changed his proposition. He was pleased to give up the Marquisses and Lords; whether they were equally pleased to be given up, he knew not. The next subject of difficulty that occurred was the question whether the ladies were not only to have their salaries continued, but also their allowances. It was proposed that allowances should be given according to the length of service. It was difficult and painful to ascertain where the proper length of service was to be found, and where wanting. Having thus shortly disposed of those two questions, he felt obliged, after the eloquent declamation of the Noble Lord, to throw himself on the mercy and goodness of the House. He had been told that the measure he was to propose, if carried, would bring infamy on the new House of Commons. He acted from the best information he could receive, and with the best discretion he could exercise; and while he so acted, he was sure of the approbation of his own mind, and felt confident that he could not be the means of bringing infamy on himself or on others. The communication made to the House by the Noble Lord at the conclusion of his speech, was very ill advised. It was the advice of the minister, who must have told the Royal Duke, that if the House of Commons would be infamous by giving the money out of the privy purse, he would be infamous by receiving it. But whatever sum of money that house might offer, he begged to say that the proudest Royal Duke must feel it an honour to receive it. He would now meet the argument of the Noble Lord as to the privy purse being private property; at least he would endeavour to meet it, with all the light which he could derive from the laws of the country, from the consti

was

tution, and from the usage of Parliament. What was the privy purse? According to the interpretation of the Noble Lord, he could not well understand it; but perhaps by looking back a little to the settlement of the revenue upon his present Majesty, the house might come to some right conclusion upon the subject. By stat. 1 Geo. III., cap. 1, it was enacted, that a certain sum should be settled upon his Majesty, for the proper maintenance of the Royal household, and the due support of the Royal dignity. The sum grant ed by the act mentioned L. 800,000 per annum, to be disposed of as to his Majesty might seem proper, under the responsibility of his ministers. Parliament were not, at that time, to be consulted; but it was to be left to the discretion of ministers to judge what sum might be necessary for his private use. It could never have been meant, that as much of the whole sum might be placed at the disposal of the King as private property; for, in that case, his Majesty might, if he thought fit, consider L. 600,000 as his private property as well L. 60,000. At first, the sum placed at the disposal of his Majesty, as a privy purse, was L. 48,000; but subsequently it was raised to L. 60,000, in consequence of the increasing number of his Majesty's children. The arrangement he had just mentioned, continued until the 39th of the present reign, (1799,) when his Majesty expressed a wish to be able to make a will. There was then a large surplus from the savings of the income accruing from the Duchy of Lancaster, and from the other property which had been allowed to his Majesty as private. These he wished to have the power of disposing of, and at the same time he had the wish to build a palace at Kew;

as

but his Majesty wished to have the palace so far at his disposal, that at his death he might leave it to whom he pleased, and with that view, he laid out a considerable sum from his own private funds in the purchase of the ground. The act was passed; and what did it authorise? It said, that all sums which had been granted for his Majesty's private usenot the sum of L. 60,000, but that the savings of all issues made, whatever they might be-might be disposed of by will at his Majesty's pleasure: but not a word did it say about the privy purse. He would agree with the Noble Lord, that all the savings made up to the period of his Majesty's present illness might have been disposed of by him, to any body, even to the Noble Lord, if such were his Majesty's pleasure. That was his Majesty's undoubted right, and he did not mean to dispute it for a moment; but what had that to do with the question before the house? They were now come to another and a different order of things, and the same reasons would no longer be applicable. He did not wish, and he trusted it would be so understood, to have the 39th or 40th of the King repealed on that subject; all he wanted was, that circumstances being now so completely different, the application of the sums should be in some degree suited to them. He would next come to the 51st of the King, and here he begged the particular attention. of the house.

At the time of the passing of that act, there was a prospect of his Majesty's recovery; and the whole object of the act seem ed to be that his Majesty's property might be so managed, as that he might on his recovery, find it in the same state in which he had left it. If he could dispose of it, as any private gentleman might dispose of his

property, why did parliament pass that act at all? The Parliament how ever did interfere, and an act was passed by which the sum of L.60,000 was ordered to be issued to the keeper of the privy purse, and that the surplus, after paying the charges which were upon it, should be vested in proper funds, in order to be forthcoming on the recovery of his Majesty. Well, then came the melancholy year in which it was thought that his Majesty could not recover, that was, that his recovery could not be calculated upon in any human probabillity. By the 51st of the King the private property of his Majesty was vested in the keeper of the privy purse and his Royal Highness the Prince Regent: but the 52d had to provide for arrangements which it was conceived would be permanent. The act of the 52d did not consider the surplus of the privy purse as property which ought to be kept back, when the demands which that act contemplated were made upon it. Three commissioners were appointed, who held this in trust; but from those commissioners no information could be obtained on the subject, for before their nomination, they were obliged to take an oath, by which they were bound to secrecy on what concerned this property, except in a court of justice, and there for its necessary security. He begged pardon for this digression, and for detaining the attention of the house so long, but he felt that every part of the subject could not be too well understood. The 51st of the King recognized the privy purse as far as the payments which were charged upon it. These were an annual sum of L.15,000, and a quarterly payment of L.4000 some few hundreds quarterly, making in all about L.32,000, and no more. In 1811 and 1812, some charges had increased so as to raise the whole

sum payable out of the privy purse to L-35,000; these arose out of application of certain sums to purposes which it was supposed his Majesty, had he continued in health, would have applied them. He now came to the material part of the act (52d). It was there found that the country was about to be charged with a certain permanent burden-provision was to be made for the payment of physicians, who were to be continued in attendance, and who were paid before, it was not known how; the expense then was certainly more heavy than at present, because they were all required to give daily attendance and not in rotation, as has since been the case: well, parliament did make provision for them; and it was enacted, that the payment of the physicians, and the other expenses incidental to the custody of his Majesty's person, should be defrayed: and it added, "it is reasonable that these should be borne out of the privy purse. "Would the noble lord

would any honourable gentleman get up in his place, and after hearing those words, say that the proposition which he had given notice of was one which ought to be resisted? The act of the 52d, after enumerating the nature of the charges, and their amount, which were then upon the privy purse, added, that the surplus, if any, should go to the commissioners for managing the kings private property. Suppose the necessary expense of the physicians should amount to L. 70,000, would it not be the right interpretation of the act to have it paid out of the privy purse? The noble lord would no doubt say, no; but if so, what did the act mean, when it said that it was reasonable to charge all the fair expenses on the privy purse? But, said the noble lord, will it be maintained, that the expense of the Windsor establishment ought also to be borne out of the

privy purse? He (Mr Tierney) would not deny his opinion, that it had a right to be so: but he conceived, at present, it would be very bad taste to demand it as long as their beloved Sovereign lived;-as long as the remembrance of his virtues remained, they would not wish to deprive him of any thing which could in the slightest degree add to his comfort or convenience. It was not known, he believed rather that the reverse was the fact, that his Majesty had any testamentary document by which to direct the future application of his property; and if so, the consequence would be, that it would devolve to the Crown; and were the house, he asked, to be called on, in the present state of the country, to add to the burdens of the people in order to secure a large sum to the successor to the throne? Did the house recollect that the privy purse of his Majesty was not the only one which the country had to pay? There were at present two privy purses, and the savings from both were to become the property of the Crown. The Prince Regent had one, amounting to L. 60,000, besides the profits of the Duchy of Cornwall. He had, as the Sovereign, or the representative of the Sovereign; and the Sovereign who was represented had just about the same sum, though the principle on which the grant was made in one case ought to preclude it in the other. The Noble Lord had asked, whether, in giving the allow ance to his Royal Highness the Duke of York, they would treat him as a nurse attending a sick-bed. He (Mr Tierney) would do no such thing; he would give to his Royal Highness every penny, as custos persona, he would be put to; but he would give it from that fund from which alone it should be taken. It had also been said, that a court of equity would a

ward the same grant which was now sought for. Undoubtedly it would: and suppose a younger son were to have the care of his father, who was a lunatic, would not the court grant the expense of his custody out of the father's property? Mr Tierney then read his amendment to the house. It was, that after the words of the original motion" the sum of L.50,000 for the Windsor establishment," there should be inserted, "that the surplus out of the funds arising to his Majesty from the Duchy of Lancaster, and the L.60,000 which was allowed for the privy purse, after the payment of the physicians, and other incidental expenses, be applied to the payment of the L.10,000 to be given to his Royal Highness the Duke of York as the custos of his Majesty's person."

Mr Peel replied at considerable length to the statements and arguments of Mr Tierney. He contended that prior to the year 1811, a privy purse was distinctly recognised by the Legislature, and that the act of that year did nothing but repeal the provisions of former grants. He next explained why Parliament had in 1812 ordered the physicians to be paid out of the privy purse, because they acted merely as the interpreters of his Majesty's wishes; but that this did not authorise a similar interference now for the payment of the custos; as, had the principle been the same, Parliament would, in 1812, have charged the expenses of the custos on the same fund. Even when parties ran the highest, it was never proposed to interfere with the privy purse in the manner now suggested. And would it be fair, would it be just, to interfere now, to disappoint expectations so reasonably formed, or to alter dispositions made on such prospects of permanency? The right honourable gentleman had gone