brought into the House in 1782, but not carried into a law. Thirdly, in the act which passed in 1786, embodying and enacting all the system framed by Mr. Burke. In all these cases the whole of the civil list was brought under the control of parliament, except the privy purse, which was specially exempted from it; and in the last case, which gave to these arrangements the form of law, the amount of the privy purse was specifically stated, as at present, at 60,000l. Fourthly, the Regency bill of 1788, secured the privy purse, its profits and savings, to the king. Fifthly, by an act passed in 1799, the power in the king of bequeathing those savings as private property was distinctly recognized. Sixthly, by the act of 1811, which set apart the privy purse as the indubitable property of the crown, as it had been set apart by the Regency bill of 1788. And lastly, the act of 1812 completely set the question at rest.

After some further speaking, the question being put, That 10,000l. stand part of the resolution, the House divided: Ayes 247; Noes 137: Majority 110. The resolution was then agreed

to.

On March 19, on the motion of Lord Castlereagh, the order for the further consideration of the report on the Royal Household Bill was read. The amendments were agreed to; and on the motion that the bill be engrossed,

Lord Folkestone rose, not to animadvert upon any of the amendments which had been just adopted, but to state his opinion

+

upon the clause in the bill relative to the grant of 10,000l. a year to the duke of York. He said, it was impossible consistently to agree to this clause in the terms in which it stood at present, for it assumed that the same sum was allowed to her late majesty as a remuneration for the expenses to which she was liable on her appointment to the care of the king's person, as was conferred on the duke of York upon undertaking the same appointment. Now it was clear that the annuity was not granted to the queen for the care of the king's person, but on a different account; consequently to state that the same sum should be granted to the duke of York for that purpose, was a direct falsehood. It could not be pretended that the duke of York from his appointment of custos regis, would have to incur more expense than that of paying for four horses for travelling once a week to Windsor; and would it be maintained that 10,000l. a year was necessary for such a purpose? At all events, he felt that the House should not adopt a clause which contained a palpable falsehood; and upon that ground he should move that the clause be expunged.

The Speaker stated, that the question to be put was, "That the said clause stand part of the bill."

The Hon. Mr. Lyttelton observed, that the reception which the remarks of his noble friend had met with, and the little attention which ministers seemed disposed to show them, held out but a slender encouragement to him to address the House on this occasion.

occasion. But still he felt it his duty to say, that if the grant alluded to was made, it would be quite scandalous to vote that grant upon false pretences. The hon. gentleman made a variety of other remarks, some of which were in a strain of considerable severity.

The question being put, "That the said Clause stand part of the bill," the House divided; Ayes, 156; Noes 97: Majority 59.

In the House of Lords, the Earl of Liverpool, on March 26th, moved the second reading of the Royal Household Bill. He said, he understood that no opposition was intended to be made to the principle of the bill. After having just touched upon the main circumstances of the bill, he alluded to the grant of 10,000l. per annum to the duke of York, which was the same amount as had been granted to the late queen. He owed it to the duke to state that he had not sought for any such allowance; but parliament having thought it right to give the queen 10,000l. per annum as custos persona, there could be no question that the duke of York was fully entitled to the same allowance.

Earl Grey said, with regard to the allowance of 10,000l. to the duke of York, it was a subject to which he adverted with very considerable pain. He highly respected the duke for his public services and private virtues; but no consideration should induce him to shrink from the discharge of a public duty; and that duty compelled him to oppose the allowance. Nothing had been urged by the noble earl that

could in any way justify such a grant, and he could not but view it as obtaining a grant of 10,000. a year under a false pretence. He must regret that such a measure had been at all brought forward; and he could assure the noble earl that in the country the impression was the most unfavourable that any proposition could give rise to.

The bill was then read a second time.

March 30th. The Earl of Liverpool moved the order for committing the bill for the regulation of his majesty's household. The House immediately went into the committee.

On the motion for reading the preamble of the bill, Earl Grey rose and said, that having already declared 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 particularly applicable to the present stage of the committee. In considering the preamble of the bill now before their lordships, he found that, in addition to the provision requisite to the due care of his majesty's person, there was also an intention declared of making such reductions, in the expense of the establishment, as might not be found inconsistent with the 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

indignant observations he had a few days ago drawn upon himself. This much he found himself bound to say in order to avoid further misconstruction; but before he proceeded to notice the details of the bill, 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, that the death of her late most excellent majesty would allow some reduction in the expense of the establishment provided for his majesty; for had it not been for the arrangement which subsisted until her majesty's death, she would have had an equitable claim to the enjoyment of her dower. When the noble earl made that statement, he heard it with great surprise, for it was the assumption of a perfectly new ground. 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 52d of the king stated in the preamble, as the ground for 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 100,000l. 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 majesty's per

son.

To remove 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. The clause which gave to her majesty 10,000l. for her own use, was a further proof that the other

sum

was exclusively designed for supporting his majesty's establishment. 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 length found that they must reduce it, had, in order to avoid the appearance of inconsistency, invented this argument, that they might put forward the death of her majesty as a reason for the reduction, although no reason had all along existed why this establishment should not have been reduced.

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 overlookthe grant of 10,000l. to the duke of York. 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 of great public distress like the present. The noble earl then went through the reasons by which this appropriation had been attempted to be justified; and he argued against the necessity of such a grant at

this period. In making these objections, he said, he had performed a painful, though a necessary duty; 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 would now merely add, that when they came to that clause of the bill which referred to the grant of 10,000l. to the duke of York as custos, he should move an amendment.

The Earl of Liverpool said that he would endeavour to follow the noble earl into all his statements and arguments, and would answer them in the same order. The noble earl had begun with stating his concurrence in the reductions of his majesty's household, but had at the same time brought a charge against the king's ministers for their tardiness in opposing those reductions when urged by himself and his friends. Now, nothing could be more unfounded than this latter accusation. From the year 1812, when the 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 act of 1812, was any objection made to its provisions. In the last session of parliament, it is true, objections to the Windsor establishment had been pressed, but he felt, that reduction in the state of her late ma

jesty's health would have been most unbecoming and indelicate. He had a right, therefore, to say, that last session was not the proper time for the reductions now proposed.

He had now to follow the noble earl into another part of his speech, in which he accused him of changing his ground in the defence of the establishment at Windsor. The noble earl had said, that on the second reading of the present bill, he had 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-namely, that the establishment 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 much expense by providing the dower to which she would have become entitled on the demise of his majesty. I, said the earl of Liverpool, am prepared to support this position; nor do I think that I am involved in any inconsistency. His lordship then, in a train of argument which we shall excuse ourselves from particularly discussing, went through the whole ground of his defence.

The conclusion of the noble earl's (Grey) observations adverted to that clause of the bill which provided the grant of 10,000l. to the custos. The earl of Liverpool, in encountering his antagonist, strongly con

tended

tended that the privy purse was as much the king's private property, as any of their lordships' estates were theirs, and ought no more to be violated than the property of his meanest subject. He further said, that to meet contingencies, parliament had declared that the custos ought to have 10,000l. a year; and the question therefore was, whether in the teeth of an unanimous resolution, they would resume the

grant which they had previously voted.

After several lords had spoken on the occasion, and Earl Grey had made his concluding speech, in which he declared himself unconvinced by the arguments brought against him, the clause for granting to the duke of York 10,000l. a year was agreed to without a division; and the bill went through the committee without any amendment.

CHAP.