The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1803-03-05 00:00:00

eiirr s up an Address to his Majesty. If the Hon. -r eeman had staid a few minutes longer in the u ; he would heard him move that the Report be I ssert Aim consideration on the next day. It was re. reef for the Prince which induced him to admit of as little delay as possible. No objection was then made to the line of conduct adopted on the oc casion ; and it any had been made, he world cer tainly have delayed the proceedings, and en deavoured to accommodate matters to the sa tisfailion of all parties. He must own he felt ex treme regret at finding that any circumstance had occurred to interrupt the unanimity which he flattered himself would have prevailed on the pre. sent occasion. As to what had been said by the Hon. Gentleman, that this business was brought forward withoet the• Prince's knewledee, he entirely believed it. The Message from his M :jesty accords with the Massage of 1787, and before he presented it to that House, he had the honour of waiting on his Royal Highness, and submitting it to him, who perfeCtly agreed to it. He must therefore suppose, that if the Prince had been acquainted with the intention of the Hon. Gentleman, he would have condescended to have consulted him also on the subject. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who spoke second, (Mr. Erskine) wished to amend the King's Message, by going farther than it re quired ; and the lion. and learned Gentleman who preceded him, and who introduced the subject, was for giving a different interpretation to the Message from what it was intended to convey. But he begged leave to observe, that no grant could be made; according to form, without a recommenda tion from the Croesn, and he certainly was not autho rise to convey any such recommendat ion, so that even should a Committee be appointed, they could not proceed a single step without a recommendation from the Crown ; and as to the Message, the words, it is true, are general, and may admit the interpreta tion given by the Hon. Gent. But he felt it his duty to disclaim on the part of his Majesty, any such inter pretation as his Majesty could not have any measure in contemplation, which referred in the most remote degree to his Royal Highness's debts. Indeed it would be unbecoming, after what past in 1795, to refer to his Royal Highness's debts, for the aCt specified that after that time no debt should be deemed legal, with a few exceptions, and his Ma jesty could not suppose that any debts had been con tra:led since that period. He would not question bat it was highly to the honour of the Prince to discharge the debts alluded to, but the House conld not, with any degree of propriety, or consistency, interfere. He bad not a doubt, but every Member of the House felt as he did, the highest respect for the Prince's feelings, and admiration of his con duct on the occasion. But it certainly could not afford the ;nest agreeable subject for reflection to that illustrious personage, to have it appear rn the Journals of this House, that his debts had been a third time the subject of parliamentary discussion. As to the foreign debt alluded to by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tierney) it was included in the aggregate of debts : but some difficulties arose res eecung the settlement of it, which induced the Commissioners to appropriate the money they had fur that purpose to the liquidation of other debts, where such difficulties did not present themselves. Every debt was then liquidated, except the, debt alluded to and another, which his Royal High ness had taken on himself to discharge. The whole .debt amounted at the period alluded to, to 6'20,0001. It was with pain and regret he felt himself called upon to refer to the ques tion of the Prince's claims on the arrears of revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall. One / lon. Gent. has asked what burden the Prince was another Hon. Gent. contended,that it was not a measure of liberality but a claim of justice, and that in reality the Prince had made very .treat sacrifices. He confessed, when he heard such tle.-es, he was irresistibly impelled to make a reply, confident as he was, that, as far as he could judge or learn, the Hon. Gentlemen were much mistaken. As to what he was about to deliver respeaing the claims of the Prince of Wales, he should not state it on his own judgment, but on the opinion of a Right Hon. Friend of his (the Noble Lord at the head of the law in this country), whose opinion he believed to be unfavourable to the Yrince's claim ; and as it has been said that no dif ference of opinion was entertained on the subject, he would also observe that the Noble Lord at the head of the law in Ireland was also against it. This, he must repeat, was a subject which he most earnestly wished to avoid, and was in hopes, that gentlemen would abstain from it. But he owed it to himself to declare, that no apprehension, arising from the prosecution of that claim, had influenced him on the present occasion, and that what he brought forward was on public grounds, as a mea sure of national interest. He could not agree with the statement of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Tier ney), which he believed to be entirely erroneous. l-le was unwilling to enter into a very painful dis cussion, but was compelled to notice the statements of the Hon. Gentleman. The Right Hon. Gentle man then entered into a detail of the expellees of his Royal Highness, including his debts, Ac. and proved, that 17,04)01. had been paid over any de mand that could arise from the Duchy of Corn wall. It is true, he said, the money applied for the last eight years was deducted from the Prince's income, for the discharge of his debts, but Parlia ment stood pledged for 800,0001. and the interest, in case of the death of his Royal Highness, which most fortunately did not happen. It was not, therefore, just to speak of a sacrifice ; and he con tended, that it was less dishonourable to the Prince to delay the resumption of his state, than for Par liament to interfcre • for if Parliament was satisfied • that the accounts Of 1795 were true, they could have no grounds of supposing that any debts had teen contracted since. He had now only to observe, that every part of the proceedings of Government, with regard to his Majesty's Message, had been previously communicated to his Royal Highness: He could not, therefore, for an instant suppose, that the Prince was acquainted with the intention of the Hon. Gentleman, which went to enforce an in delicate enquiry into the private concerns of his Royal Highness. He should, therefore, oppose the Motion, and vote for the previous Question. Mr. FOX said, that since he had a scat in Par liament, he never heard such an objection to a mo tion as that urged on the present occasion, of its being an indircc question; and still more strange was the attempt of setting it aside by moving the previous question. It has been said b y the Right lion. Gentleman, that it was a fundamental prin ciple of the constitution, to have grants for money iotroduced by a reeominendation from the Crown. This, like many other principles deemed funda mental, was liable, in many instances, to objedione But the present case was so clear, so distind, that he could not perceive how it could be obscured by any °hire - lions niede to it. A Message was re ceived from his Majesty, stating his extreme re luaance to aid any fresh lent-then to those already imposed on his people, hit recommending the situation of his Retied Highness the Prince of 'Wales to the consideration of the House, for the purpose of enabling him to resume his just state and dignity. This wax the object of the Mes sage. and we find the Res dutions do not answer that ' specific purpose. If we leans from his Royal High ness, that a sum is set aside for certain purposes, we shoidd know for what purp.)ses ; and why it inter fered with the resuription he Prince's just state and dignity ? The lIGn. C,.ntleman under the gal lery, ( Mr. Tierney) has not bi.en answered as to the observations he made un the subject. if the foreign debt was the obstacle that opposed the resumption of his dignity, he would vote for having it removed —or if the 10 per cents. was the cause, he would also agree to remove them ; or if it was in con sequence of new debts contracted since 1795, though he would, perhaps, not go so fat as the Honourable Gentleman under the Gallery, yet he would do every thing in his power, consistent with his duty, to remove that obstacle also. But he wished to know what the obstacle was ? The debts were stated to amount to 620,0001. in 1795; and if Gentlemen will consider, that an account given in at May, would fall short of the account given in at September, which was the latest period for re ceiving applications, it will not appear surprising, that some demands remained unprovided for. But the whole of the Inisiness amounts to this, that we cannot answer the purposes of the message ; and can - there be a clearer reason for going into a Commit. tee ? The Right Hon. Gentleman has spoken at some length on the claim of his Royal Highness, but he believed the preponderance of opinion to be against him. Supposing, for instance, that the King came into Court, and acknowledged the debt, but brought against it the clothing, ;ducaticin, &c. which the Duke of York and all his other children equally experienced from him, would it be admitted ? The Right Hon. Gentleman had niid, he would support the grant, if the Prince's claim had never been spoken of. That might be the case ' but he would wish to know if any proposition on the sub ea had been made diredly or indirectly by his Royal High ness? He also wished to know if this law-suit had not made some progress, or whether there had not been some intimation made to his Royal Highness on the sulijea?—He was inclined to believe there had been ; and that, in con sequence of the interposition of his Majesty, he felt himself bound ,in gratitude to relinquish his claim. In contemplating what was requisite for supporting the dignity of the Prince of Wales, he, did not, like some gentlemen, solely confine him self to the id.- is connected with splendid trappings, and enema' pomp ; nor, on the other hand, did he agree with those who imagined the mild ex ercise of virtue alone was sufficient to give dignity and lustre. We are all attached to hereditary mo narchy, and know there is a necessary regalia annex ed to it, independent of the dignity of hereditary virtues. We all wished to see his Royal Highness in the full possession of that splendour which he was born to enjoy. But his Royal Highness, . much to his honour, tells us, that on hearing every thing emulated with his Majesty's Message, he re ceived with gratitude the assistance contained in the resolutions, but could not, in consequence of claims on his honour, yet resume that state the House was anxious to see him enjoy. This it is evident the Prince did not as an application for a further grant, but for the purpose cat not deceiving any person with the idea that, on obtaining this money, he could resume his state. And the question now is confined to this: 'Alan the Prince be restored to splendour or not ? As to the sum expended on Carleton-House, a house which was not his own, it surely could not be objeaecl against him, and yet nobody could deny but that house was a foundation . for a debt. When the King's Civil List was ar ranged, it was then said, as it is now, respeding the Prince of Wales, that no new debts could be contracted. But in 1802, the whole debt of the Civil List was paid on the grounds of the encrease of expence, and if that was a reason for clearing the Civil List from incumbrance, why nottlso a ground far exonerating the Prince of the claims that press on him ? He would wish to see the income once fixed for King or Prince, and that they should ac commodate their expenditures to the same. And now, said the Hon. Gentleman, let us consider for a moment the Personage who is the subject of this discussion. His patience under severe restrictions, his cheerful acquiescence in, and submission to the measures adopted respeainhim, by this House. be And shall we hesitate if itattended by no very great expence, to put him in that situation which he never yet enjoyed since manhood. He was hap py to hear, from all parts of the House, that his Royal Highness's character was not :it all implicated in the question, as no application had. been made on his part to the House since the year 1795. He concluded by voting for the original Motion. Sir WATK IN WILLIAMS WYNNE suppOrted the original motion: Lord STANLEY noticed a difference between his Majesty's late Message, and those of- 1787 and 1795. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained. Mr. ERSKINE explained at some length. He understood, that the preponderance of legal opinions were in favour of the Prince's claims to the reve nues of the Duchy of Cornwall during his minori ty. His feelings on the subject were, he said, pre cisely those and no other. His Majesty had been graciously pleased to reccommend to the House to take such measures as they should deem to be neces sary and expedient, for the purpose of restoring the Prince of Wales to his state and dignity. The House had proposed a sum, which, on investiga tion, turned out to be inadequate to the proposed object. The advocates of the motion of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Calcraft) proposed another sum, which would be adequate to the intended purpose. He wished to support the splendor and dignity of the Prince of Wales. Mr. CANNING said, that in voting for the ori ginal Motion, he should nut consider himself pledg ed to agree to the future recommendation of the Committee ; that agreement or disagreement would depend upon circumstances. Upon this question he RiiAM; l • found the House in this situ t ation. He could not consider this as an applicatioh from the Prince of Wales; he considered his Royal Highness as pas sive in :lie question. He was called upon, how ever, to vote upon the question, and he nieant to take it as he found it. The House had proposed certain sum, to enable the Prince of Wales to resume his state and dignity ; that sum WO found insuffici ent for the desired objet. What was the situation of the House? They were called upon, either to give up the object, or to enlarge the sum. He wish ed - to know, what sum was necessary for the pro posed purpose, in order that he -might know whe ther the object to be attained was worth the sum to be given fur it? Upon this question he could not decide, till it Ifas ascertained what sum v. as ac tuallx necessary, and therefore lie should fur the Committee. Mr. FULLER explained. Mr. GOLDING supported the previous question. Mr. SHERIDAN said, that after the maint..r iu which the Motion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. C.d craft) had been met, he must suppose that. there was in reality little oppo,:ition to it ; and indeed he had observed so little difference of opinion upon the subject, that he deprecated any hostile division upon this question. From the indisposition of Gen tlemen on the other side to address the House, he could not but 'think that they wished the original Motion to be carried, and particularly, because he could not but think that the Right Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must wish to give full e ilea to his Majesty's Message. With respe& to the Prince's disposition upon the subject, they ought to consider what was fit for the Prince, and not exactly what he wished. Was it honourable to the Prince to believe that His Royal Highness was indifferent as to the resumption of that splendour and dignity which he owed to the Country. What was the question ? The Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said he lamented that circumstances should pre vent the Prince of Wales from immediately resuming his state anddignity; circumssanceswhich,were they known, would do the highest honour to his Royal Highness's feelings, 'Wily should not the House know those circumstances, as well as the Right Hon. Gentleman ? The opposition to the motion of his Hon. Friend seethed merely to turn upon points of form ; he did not doubt that his Hon. Friend would have any objection to change the shape ofhis motion, so as to meet those objedions. An Hon. Gentle man (Mr. Johnstone) had regretted that the Prince of Wales should have made any compromise of his claims ; he (Mr. Sheridan) did not 'regret it ; he thought the Prince's Law Officers had Advised him well in advising him to make that compromise, as there must have been a great indelicacy in the mode . in which those claims must have been prosecuted, and the manner in which the set-off against them must have been required.. The Hon. Gentleman, (Mr. Johnstone) had said,•that in 1795 there were a great many Sacribins, and the resumption of the state and dignity of the Prince of. %vales was more neces sary at that period than at the present. According to this argument, the greater the number of Jacobins, the greater degreh of state and splendour was requi site for the branches of the Royal Family: God forbid that the Jacobins should be the principal supporters of the Monarchy ! Two owls once dis coursing in the rains of an old tower, ardently pray ed for tne continuance of the reign of a Prince, who, as stated in the country, because they derived a ma terial advareage from it; so, if the arguments of the Hon. : Gentleman were to prevail, the Royal Family might say, God send plenty of Jacobins, for then we shall enjoy more splendour and greater dignity. An Honourable Baronet (Sir R. Buxton,) seemed to think that there was no necessity for any splendor to be attached to the Prince of Wales, but that his virtues were sufficient. That splendor ought to be necessarily attached to Monarchy, there couldbe no doubt ; but if the argument of the Hon. Baronet Was to be applied to the Prince of Wales, it ought to be applied to all; for instance, if it was diseovered that splendor was unnecessary for the branches of the Royal Family, it might next be discovered that a house at the public ex. pence Was unnecessary ; or for the Speaker to give his hospitable dinners in ; that a state-coach to go up to St. James's was useless ; and that the Speaker might walk up to St. James's wrapped up in his virtues and a warm surtout: it might next be discovered that there was no necessity for any shew or parade for the Judges going the Circuits, and the Chief Justice might be sent down in the Mail Coach to hold the assizes. It was needless to pursue the ar gument further; every one must be convinced that state and splendour were necessary appendages to the Monarchy, and to the officers of Government. It was acknowledged that there were impediments which would prevent the Prince of Wales from immediately resuming that state and splendour which was wished ; and those impediments it was acknowledged, arose from circumstances which did His Royal Highness the highest honour ; it was therefore, in his opinion, necessary that the House should know what those circumstances were, which would be obtained by granting the Motion of his Honourable Friend. Lord HAWKESBURY said, he should not have risen hadit not been for the construction put by the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheridan), on the silence of Gentlemen on this side of the House, who, as the fact was, rather chose to give silent votes upon the question, considering that it had been suffi ciently discussed by others. In opposing the original motion, they were actuated by no other motive than that of duty to their King and the Public • and if there was a difference of opinion upon the subject, it was principally as to the means. The Honourable Gentleman who had last spoken, 'as well as several other Honourable Gentlemen, seemed to have mistaken the tendency of his Majesty's Message ; he did not see in the terms or the sense of it, any thing which held out an idea of the Prince of Wales immediately resum ing his State find Dignity ; the objed of the Message was, a Provision for the comfort and dignity of the Prince of Wales, and provision had been pro posed accordingly, fot the purpose of increasing that comfort and dignity without an immediate re sumption of His Royal I lighnes's State and Dignity being in contemplation. In 1795, a considerable difference of opinion prevailed upon the subject, but it was then thought proper nut to adopt any measure for the immediate payment of the debts of the Prince of Wales. His Right Hon. Friend the then :-hancellor of the Exchequer proposed an increase of the income of his Royal Highness, and .an a ppacyr:atiou of 73,0001. per annum for the _.._. .r. w • payment of the : Prince ' s (Kis. His Right, HMI. Friend (the ('hencellor off' the Exchequer) . Wee few niehts since proposed to restore his 'Royal Highness to the full use of his income. As ko thee question respec:ing his ROva) Highness% immediate resumption of his state and dignity, there - were itn• pediments which prevented it; those impediments were stated to be certain debts, which the Prince of Wales conceived himself bound in honour to pay, S and His Royal Highness woul 1 not resume his sta till those debts were liquiarted.—As to His. RoeW Highness's feelings, he could say nothing, but the question was,_Could the House, after the At of 1795, take cognizance of any further debts of the Prince of Welts? Some of them might be of mt. h a nature, that it would be neither proper - nor rig i for the House to take cognizance of them. P. • • thought that consistently, the House could open 11 4 ) new account of the debts of the Prince of Wales. It would he unjust to press His Royal Highness to resume his splendour until he had discharged those • debts of honour, nor ought he to . be called up on to do it. The House had proposed to give him the full use of his income, which would e - able him to discharge those debts four years sooner than he otherwise could have done. In ! doing this he thouelit they had aged conformably to their duty, consistently withthe At of 1795, and in a manner which would be creditable to the illus trious personage alluded to. He objeeted to the • motion for the appointment of a Meet Committee ' to inquire into tne causes which prevented the im mediate resumption of the state and splendor of the Prince of Wales ; they did his Royal Highnets the highest honour ; yet many of them might be found to be of a private nature, which it would be indeli cate and improper to inquire into. Under these circumstances he should support the previous qUes don. S:r JOHN WROTTESLEY conceived the question had two objects, the resumption of the dignity of his Royal Highness, and his personal comfort. He most cordially supported the Motion, fully persuaded that it was calculated to promote those two desirable objeffs, but in doing so he de s;red to be understood that he considered himself at liberty ,to adopt any opinion afterwards which the result of further inquiry might suggest to him. If an invetigation took place, circumstances might be brought before the House which might induce a change in the sentiments of those who at present were desirous of supporting the Motion. He thought it was a matter of national prudence,as well of national dignity and honor, to allow his !loyal Highness to resume the splendour of his former style of living ; but with regard to the Bill which was before Parliament, he could not consent to sup port it without further proofe-There was an ambi guity about the bill which he highly disapproved of, and it was not enough, in order to justify his supporting its provisiops, that he should merely be told it had the sandion of his Majesty's Ministers, and of the servants of his Royal Highness. tertaining the ideas he did, be should certainly vote for the Motion. Mr. Wsa. SMITH said, he also meant to give his vote for going into 'the inquiry, He consiclere ed it extremely necessary, and - he entertained pre cisely the same sentiments on the subjed as the Hon. Baronet who fiad just sat down. There was not only, with regard to the Bill, a degree of ambi guity which it was impossible to develope, but it was contradidory to every measure adopted in and since the year 1795. He trusted that the inquiry would be gone into, in order that every thing which should be done might be done openly, and upon principles every man might avow. He did not meal to dispute the propriety 'of his Royal High ness being enabled to support that dignity and splendour which naturally belonged to his high rank ; but the objedion he entertained was this: in the year 1795 an Hon. Gentleman, net now in the House, proposed that the sum of 125,0001. a year should be granted for the support of his dignity ; but though at the same time he proposed that sues as absolutely necessary to enable the Prince to live in the style which the honour of his charader re quired, he rendered the provision ineffedual by ano ther proposition for deduding 75,0001. to be ap propriated to the liquidation of his debts. Now, these two things were perfedly eontradidory. If it was so necessary to the honour and interest of the country that the Prince of Wales should live in a style of splendour, and that to support it a cer tain sum at least wee necessary, it could not pos sibly .be consistent for part of that money to be applied to the payment of debts. It had happened, that the House, by not seeing the question in this point of view, and applying itself to the establish ment of an adequate income on the one hand, and the payment of the Prince's debts on the other, had, in fad, neither effeded the one or the other. The dignity and comfort of his Royal Highness, he con sidered inseparable from the interest of the come try, and, therefore, he should vote against the pre vious question. • Lord CASTLEREAGH said, it was not from any doubt that remained on his mind, as to the necessity and propriety of placing his Royal High. ness in that independent station, which had been so justly considered by many gentlemen necessary to the real interests of the country ; but he could not avoid feeling his mind biassed, by the grounds stated by his Right Hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). He could not bring his mind at all to comprehend, or, at least, approve the distinc tinction made by the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last. He had two grounds of objedion to going into the enquiry ; first., he thought it would be alto gether without the authority, sandion, or approba tion of his Royal Highness. Without such sane don end approval on the part of his Royal High ness, it would be extremely premature to enter into an investigation of his private concerns ; this was of itself a decisive objection ; but there WIS another reason, namely, that the result of the en quiry might be the means of producing an died upon the public mind, greatly injurious to the charader of Parliament. In 1795, measures were taken, the ob jeds of which were to liquidate the existing debts of the Prince, and to guard agalrat new ones. It was distinctly understood by the public, at that time, that the extent of his debts were estimated at least within the 60,0001. the provision appropriated by Parliament for the adjustment of them. The ac count of the commissioners was presumed not to ',contain any material error; it was supposed to have been prepared with such caution and deliberation, that the public could not imagine it contnined any - etrone.)us statement. It was therefore he thought it woeid be more for the boom . of the PriuCe wf ~ Y ~,.: .