The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-21 00:00:00

HOUSE OF LORDS-Mx. 20.

The Loan CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool3ack
at Fire. o'Goek,
NEW HOUSES OP PAHLIAMENT.

Lkird DUNCANNON moved the second rntling of
the Bill, authorisitig her Nci-jesty's Com Missioners of Woods
and Forests to ptirellOb tettain hinds and tenements in
Ahingdon-street, and on the river side, required for the site
of the new Houses of Parliament.—Read a sem:it-id time,
CIVIL LIST BILL.

Lord MELBOURNE moved an Address to her Ma.
jcsty, informing her that the House had received a Bill
from the House of Commons, founded upon her recommen•
dation, respecting a new arrangement of the Civil Lit
The Address having been read by the LORD CHAN•
CELLOR, and put, was agreed to.

Lord MELBOURNE now rose to move the second
reading of the Bill sent up from the House of Commons.
He said—My Lords, the same course has been pursued
respecting this Bill as has been formerly pursued upon
the new settlement of the Civil List. The House of
Commons has proceeded upon the Report of a Com-
mittee. According to the recommendation of that
Committee, a division of the Civil List had been
made which would give great satisfaction to the country.
My Lords, I apprehend that your Lordships will consider
that the principle upon which this Bill is founded is in it-
self wise and prudent—that it satisfies the real dignity
and honour of the Crown, and tends to the welfare and
advantage of the country. My Lords, the ancient reve-
nues of the Sovereigns of this country before the restora-
tion—not probably from contrivauce and arrangement,
but from the nature of society and from the state of affairs
—I say the ancient revenues of the Crown, partly feudal
and partly arising from the prerogative of the Crown,
—these revenues were entirely the property of the Crown,
out of which it of course was bound to provide
for the general service of the country, and it was only when
the Monarch had been improvident, or when he was desir-
ous of making aggressions upon his neighbours, or when
the country was threatened with danger and difficulty, that
application was made by the Crown for Parliamentary
grants. Now, my Lords, it is impossible not to see, a
priori, that no system could be worse calculated to securc
anything like constitutional liberty in this country.—(Hear,
hear.) Under such a system there was no security for that
without which there can be no constitutional freedom—
namely, the free, the regular, the periodical meeting
of those representative bodies by whose active and
vigilant superintendence alone constitutional freedom can
be preserved.—( Hear, hear.) There were, indeed, Acts of
Parliament providing that a Parliament should be held
every year ; but, my Lords, what are Acts of Parliament
without the means of enforcing them ? Your Lordships
know that even now merely preceptive Acts of Parliament
would be little observed were there iot means taken to
compel their observance. My Lordson ancient times, as
I said before, it was only the improvidence or the ambition
of the Monarch, or the danger and difficulties of the coun-
try, that led to the meeting of Parliaments. Fortunately,
my Lords, for the liberties of this country, these secu-
rities were found, though very imperfectly, sufficient to
preserve the constitutional rights of the country ; but,
my Lords, if one or two of our ancient Monarchs
had contrived to live within their incomes, as in the time of
Henry VII., in the course of whose reign of twenty years,
not more, I believe, than two Parliaments were called,
and a system of tyranny was established in this country
never known before, and which it required protracted
efforts, torrents of blood, years of contest to break down—
if, my Lords, this had been often the case, the liberties of
this country would have been but slightly secured.—( Hear.)
This continued with more or less alteration until the resto-
ration of Charles the Second. At that time the increasing
liberality of the times, and the anxiety to obtain popularity,
and which for the previous fifteen years had to a certain degree
shaken the power of the Crown, induced it to give up the
great feudal rights which it possessed, and to accept from
the people a Parliamentary revenue formed upon Parlia-
mentary taxes. This was the first great change in
the settling of the public revenue. The next great
change which took place, with respect to the public re-
venue, was introduced at the time of the revolution. We
know, my Lords, what difficulties there existed about that
period as to the manner in which the public revenues were
to be settled. The clamours of a political party, and the
huzzas of the populace outside, did not, however, produce
any corresponding effect upon the Parliament, and they
do not appear to have met the demands that were made
upon them. With great difficulty, and after many legal
questions and doubts, the revenue was settled for the, life
of the Sovereign, and that was the first occasion of
the bringing up of a Civil List. The great wars which
broke out, about this period, induced the necessity of mak-
ing adequate provision for the naval and military services ;
and Parliament was obliged to meet annually for this pur.
pose. That was the second great alteration which in fact
divided and separated from the Crown—which in fact re-
moved from the Crown—not the eontroul and direction, but
the power of paying the great and efficient servants of the
Sovereign. The same principle was with additions rather than
alterations continued—voting a certain amount of money,
and guaranteeing, that if that sum was exceeded it would
be mado up—this system was continued during the reign of
George 111. That plan was subsequently given up, and
a regular annual income was voted by Parliament for
what was called the Civil List of his Majesty—that was
for the support of his Majesty's Household, and also for
defraying the expenses of certain of the Civil servants of
the Sovereign. My Lords, it is not my intention to go
through all the amendments and reforms of the Civil List,
which took place up to the time of Mr. Burke's Bill, or to
the Act which passed in 1816 ; by the former of which the
division into classes was introduced ; by the latter, the division
of these classes was carried still farther, and an auditor ap-
pointed. Tho old principle of the Civil Government of
the country being defrayed by the Sovereign, still conti-
nued however ; but this separation was carried still
farther by the Bid introduced by a Noble Friend of mine,
(Earl Spencer,) in the year 1831, by which farther ar-
rangements; which would tend to the dignity and personal
comfort of the Sovereign were made. Now my Lords, I
say, if this was in the first place a very considerable
gain in point of form—there is no such thing as
a Royal road to perspicuity in the arrangement of
aceounts, any more than there is to mathematics—
but I think by this mode it was made as clear and plain
and as intelligible as possible, what sums were paid by the
public, and for what purposes. I trust that we shall
never have to consider as a hostile body in the Constitution
the power of the Crown as opposed to that of Parliament.
I must say, my Lords, that whatever may be said of the
ancient system, as being one of greater dignity, and as one
more becoming the character of the Crown, it is, my Lords,
impossible to look at those times, and say that the system
which then prevailed added in any degree to the real weight
and authority of the Crown. It by no means protected
the Crown from frequent inquiries into the income of the
Crown : ever since the Revolution there has been a ge-
neral consent, a general union, and full agreement be-
tween the Crown and the other branches of the Con-
stitution. Those other branches have been uniformly actuated
by a feeling of great liberality to the Crown, and through it
to the nation. Thus much, my Lords, I have thought it
necessary to say, in order to set before your Lordships my
opinion in the clearest manner, that there is no foundation
for any alarm with respect to the nature of the policy
which was then introduced. My Lords, I will now
advert to the provisions of the Bill to which I have
the honour of askine, your Lordships' attention on the
present occasion. A great similarity, my Lords, will
be found in the provisions of this Bill to those
which were contained in the Civil List Bill of his late Ma-
jesty, William IV. My Lords, the Civil List, as your
Lordships know, is divided into classes, for which provision
is made by the money which is granted by Parliament.
The Civil List is fixed at 60,000/. In the former Bill,
that of his late Majesty, the sum under this head
was 110,000/. The difference was occasioned, as
your Lordships well know, by the provision which
was necessarily made for the Queen Consort. Under
the next head are classed the salaries of the; House-
hold, and the retired allowances, for which we propose a
sum of 131,260/. In the former Bill the sum was 130,3001.,
being but a small difference which your Lordships will un-
derstand to be occasioned by the circumstances of the pre-
sent reign. Under this head, my Lords. we have a reduc-
tion of the salaries of the three great officers of state—the
Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and the Master
of the Horse—these reductions, my Lords, being made
in accordance with the recommendations of the Com-
mittee of the other House in the year 1831.—(Hear.)
On the other hand the Ladies of her Majesty's establish-
ment who formerly derived their allowances from the Queen
are thrown upon the fund, and the result is produced which
appears on the List. The expenses of her Majesty's House-
hold is put at 131,000/., in the former List it was 130,000/.
The Royal Bounty was in the former List:B2,ooo/., in the
present it is put at 23,000/. My Lords, the pensions
7.5,000/. is left blank in the present Schedule, because, as
your Lordships know, an enquiry has been instituted
already with respect to them.—(hear.) Now, my
Lords, interesting as this subject of pensions is to the
country, it is not my intention to take up the time of your
Lordships by going into the consideration of it, because as
the present pensions are to be considered by the other
House of Parliament, it is not my intention to say anything
which by possibility might be considered as biassing the de-
cision of the other House. My Lords, the question of pen-
sions is not without difficulty—it is one which has for a

very long period of time excited great dislike in this coun-
try. It is a head of expenditure that is very ha de
to be abused, not from corruption or base motives;
for there are very few cases, I will venture to say,
which it will be found possible for suspicion to suggest
such a motive-4ntt it is liable to be abused by good moil%
and influence, and this is liable to produce at times t.
i'osst effects, as it causes immense discontent among those
who are ditappointed in receiving pensions. However, h!Y;
Lords, taking all these matters into consideration,
am decidedly of opinion that fir the purposes of carrying
out out the resolution—for the purpose of the encouragement
Literature—for the purpose of affording relief in spectk,
cases ; and very often, allow me to say, for the purposcc
the public service, it is necessary and expedient that
certain
I still
Crown should be invested with a power of granting a _,
riumber of gratuities of this description. That, my Lord!
is my opinion, and upon that onion this Bill is frame.cad,
Power is given to tbe Crown top rant 1,200/• in
ea
and that the surplus should go over to the next. I ii",."it,„
there is a certain degree of disadvantge attendin g pao_H;J;
on these occasions—a degree of disadvantage in its e
I
known exactly what the public has to give, so that
demands may be precisely proportioned to it ;
there may be cases in which conscientious, right-thinks
0.
and highly honourable persons would wish there should
be such a publicity as is proposed by this Act ; het, "
Lords, it is the least evil of the two. There is no possible se'
I n;
curity against abuses which so easily and so naturally c!'eeoP,
into a subject of this nature—there is no other mode.
..I
guarding, against this, except that it should be known vrna,':
the pensions arc, to whom granted, and upon what groans`
and for what reasons such grants were made. The
01 ,
head is 8,0401. unappropriated. This is
given in order to meet any of those unforeseen even
_d
which we know under all circumstances will arise, an
which, considering that her Majesty was about to give.
what in addition to what had been given up by her RaS
uncle and preceding Sovereigns, would have amounted
proposed t D;
about 70,0001., I do not think it is unreasonable or elt°l;
bitant ; indeed I am sure, from practical knowledge fu
experience, it is highly expedient that such a fifhe
should be placed at her Majesty's disposal. This
is
general scheme for the Civil List of her Majesty whIe"10,
proposed. I don't know that there is anything else 01,:at
rial to call to the attention of your Lordships, excePt
there is this difference between the present and eta
Bills, that by other Bills the Civil List bas
pired at the death of the Sovereign, but it is Pro
;
posed by the present Bill that it should continue for
six months after the demise of the Sovereig7
Then, my Lords, another object of this Bill is that the f
duties which formerly ceased upon the demise
the Crown shall hereafter continue to be collected,
for six months after that event. The Noble Lora
then referred to certain duties npon Beer and Cider.
which had been supposed to cease in particular distriet,sl
[we believe in the Duchy of Cornwall, but the Noble
Lord spoke in so low a tone, that we could not nialle
ourselves assured of the exact import of what ,
said], and he intimated that it was the intentiO °
the Bill, that those duties should remain in force for
stir
months after the demise of the Crown. His Lordship
continued :—My Lords, I call upon your Lordships as
branch of the British Legislature—and interested in the PT
servation.of the Monarchy of this country—to pass this n"'
I would not enter into a dispute as to whether this 91::
rangement may be the best ; but I call upon your Lord'
ships to pass this Bill, as it has come to us from the
other House of Parliament, for the purpose of maintaining
those institutions connected with and depending upon our
Monarchy,under which this country has attained an amount
of property, and a degree of liberty and prosperity, tine:in,*
pled in the history of nations.—(Cheers.)
Lord BROUGHAM—My Lords, I dont rise to opPO
the motion of my Noble Friend ; nevertheless, I wish to cal,,
your Lordships' attention to the manner in which this Bill
is framed, and in which it has been passed by the other
House of Parliament, for the purpose of Year
Lordships ascertaining whether there has been due
consideration given to this important subject, aul
whether there do not exist at this hour, most substantial
reasons for adopting a different decision. I vit.° "
not waste your Lordships' time, nor degrade myself ft
defending myself (I am sure my Noble Friend did no
throw out anything against myself personally, or those rill°,
may agree with me,) against the supposed imputation whicu
might be conveyed by the concluding part of my Noble
Friend's speech—upon those who might take a (lir'
ferent view upon this subject from him, as if their
were less attached to the established Constitution 0`
the country—or as if they were, to use has own expression
so " insane" as to desire the destruction of that Constitution.
My Lords, we are all agreed that a Monarchy, such as
ours is in the present state of this country and of the worlde
is preferable for a Government, and better adapted to the
circumstances of the people of this country than any other'
My Lords, leaving this subject, I would first assume than
your Lordships are consulted upon this occasion, not alto'
gether as a matter of form, but that you have a delibera-
tive voice, and that you have a right to give the whole sub"
pet a full consideration.—( Hear, hear.) Now, my Lorclo,
it strikes me that even if you were about to adopt the prin.*
ciple of this Bill, which is to make an arrangement that oar
last, and I hope will last, for sixty or seventy years t°
some—that we have not that information before us to
which we are entitled. My Lords, I agree in the argil,
mentative part of my Noble Friend's speech. I agree
his historical details. I do not doubt, nor is there,.
think, anybody who will question that the change Willeh
took place at the restoration, and by which the Al°;
narch, instead of supporting all the expenses
the country out of his hereditary revenues, °7l
tained, in lieu! of those revenues, a certain fixed sum raise'
by taxes upon the people. It has not been doubted forth".
last 150 years, that this arrangement was an itnprovemea*
upon the preceding system, and I cannot help think'
ing that my Noble Friend gave himself unnecessarl
trouble to persuade your Lordships not to recur to
the ancient feudal mode of maintaining the Monarch).*
And so with respect to the change which took place at the
revolution as to the necessity of Parliament meeting from
year to year, and as to the transaction of the business
the country in Parliament, that this was a great improve'
ment was a proposition which nobody could dispute'
Then as to the change which took place on the accession
of his late Majesty, he was not aware that there existed any
doubt on any side of the House that it was an improvement °e
the old—and for the Crown as well as the country an 'iv
expedient as well as inconvenient course of mixing
the whole Civil expenditure of the country with the Cj
List. Upon those three points he was prepared to give 11"
full and entire concurrence to what had fallen from ta
Noble Viscount. With respect, however, to the principle
which the present Civil List was framed, he entertain j°
a doubt which no arguments that had been used by his Nob
Friend—no statements which he had laid before the 1-10°5-
—after all the attention and all the inquiry which he had
devoted to the subject, could remove. He professe
himself still to continue of the very same 'violet:
which he. had expressed yesterday week, that it was a lII°S
unwise, improper, and unstatesman-like mode of dcall
with such a subject, to legislate prospectively for a Pc:4o°.,
of possibly half a century. What limited understand'
.t.;
the country must be supposed to possess—what audac!lL
to foretell what might be the circumstances of the count
orir
or the Monarch for so distant a period as that—nYe'ia9
even for ten years hence. And yet they were about LO
expeteaf
down a mode for levying taxes on the people for the
ture of the Crown, and the Household establishmeigef
the Monarch, for all those various items which a
now deemed necessary to support the sPle'idothe
and dignity of the Crown. Here are we 113thoFe
dark with respect to the circumtances to whico, ttn
prospective arrangements must hereafter apply—ig"rtivesto
everydetail which may possiblyarise—taking upon oursei 831
frame a rule which is to last fbrages. We are to meet i° g7O.
every possible contingency that may arise in 1860 ore foci'
We are to decide for a period to which the eye °` oda)
alone can reach so as to give it even weight, form, or if egr
colouring. We are now, in the year 1837, acting 3s_fort
could tell what expenses would be necessary for the voting of
of the 'overeien, what the establishment and whole fo°ol,l nee
of the Royal °Household required, for the decent n
cessary, and no more than decorous and needful, staidoo
the Prince shall be then, in that unknown time. As_.), $ll,
these conjectures, or rather making no conjectures
but as it were blindly shutting our eyes, we sit down in'
late as if men were not changeable,and as if time madtien:ta—te-
roads and produced no change in the human or counre3vritabw
and circumstances. Lords. what is the
01_1 nesiod
consequence of such a proceeding ? In a !"
ccs rise-"'"a
things may change—money falls in value--prins.
__and
greater demand takes place and a scarcity e
then comes the Minister of the Mortar with his 9
Noble
to the niggardliness of Parliament, to which my
Friend in his retrospect alluded.
hadVimscooduentnoMaElloLsißoOn UtoßNthEe
niggardliness
the revolution.
—he had referred to the Parliaments before
Noble Friend
Lord BROUGHAM—I understood before
ti,et he alluded to
understood
the arrangement of 1830, but I now find
to have alluded to the niggardliness of
I understood 01
to say
etc:
the Parliaments before the revolutioon.lB3o,
of no loner
Noble Friend to refer to the change.,fil _
Uovernment witt!
mixing up the expenses of the Ci
Noble Friend had statel
11Ziament
the Civil List, and that my
had not consote_a.
that in that arrangement Parliamenthad not prevented estt
the dignity of the Crown, and .
a proaching tolen_
viance. I never heard of anything
Pver chargea
ardrnor do I believe that it vs as e
rds it
g• mess, 0 But, my Le , down
Parliament since the year 168 .
rise, and then •ous
happen that the prices of provisions willtwr.zed
by a
granc:rch
comes the Minister of the Crown, aualn,_iai. ow Mo. ,e_r.)
doubt, to represent the " (Hear,
message, no
and to demand an increased expenditure.

Should the country then complaiiri=4 the Parliament
1"Ild presume to say, "it was arranged in 1837—it watt
*flanged for your Majesty's life—that so much etsly hould
be granted ; it was arranged, no doubt, in the (lark, but you
had the benefit of any fall in the price of provisions—you
had the chance of any rise in the value of money—you
had the chance of things getting better—no doubt it has
turned out worse for you—there has been a rise in the
Price of provisions—or there has been a fall its the value or
roney instead of the reverse ; the answer would then
e---No, Parliament is niggardly--it will not con-
sult the due dignity of the Grown—nor the decent
support of the Royal Family." Now, my Lords, if there
be
any possibility of reasoning of the future from the past
So as to give us a right to estimatevrhat would be the result
of such a Message—what would be the result of such an ap-
Peal to Parliament—as certain as you look back to the past as
certain it is that Parliament would be orercome in the cone
test--that Parliament would give up its ground as it always
hitherto had done—it will then make a new arrangement,
and not suffer any one to plead the final and conclu-
sive nature of the arrangements now made.—(Hear,
and cheering.) Such, my Lords, was the case frequently—
it. the reign of Geo. 111., the arrangement was opened on
equent occasions—again and again. In the reigns of
Geo. IV. and the late William IV., such was not the
ease ; but, my Lords, in all probability, that
arose because of the shortness of the reigns of those
Monarchs. The former reigned for only ten years,
Mid William the Fourth unhappily reigned for only
Seven years after the arrangement made in 1830.
But my Lords, I am now propounding an arrangement for a
Civil List which is not likely to last for only six or seven years,
but for half a century. If lam told this is a great change,
and a great novelty, I say it is not like that greet
novelty and arrangement which the Noble Lord had justly
eulogised at the restoration. Are there no differences
in the circumstances of our condition now and in former
feigns ? William the Fourth, at the age of sixty-eight
ascended the Throne. George the Fourth, when the Civil
List was made, was considerably past sixty years of age.
Therefore, we are driven back to the reign of George
the Third, in order to find a parallel.—(Hear, hear.)
In George the Third's time, I would ask your Lordships,
whether what took place then bears any analogy to the
'present ? There is no analogy between the position
of the country now, and its position in the' year 1760.
Instead of a hundred millions of national debt there were
now a thousand millions, weighing upon all the resources
f the country, and fettering and cramping the industry of
the subject in every way in which it could be cramped. In-
stead of an establishment of seven millions, they had one
stow of twenty millions. Instead of the interest on the debt
being four millions it was near twenty-five millions. The
two cases could only be placed together for the sake of con-
trast, and therefore he held it no argument that, because
they had adopted one course in the year 1760, they should
therefore adopt the same in this year, regard being had to
the different circumstances of the two periods. But, even
if they were then in the year 1760, and had to make that
arrangement over again, after the experience which they
had had of the results of that course, he thought it would
Scarcely be considered advisable to adopt the same again.
In the year 1760 Parliament was then legislating, as they
'were now, for half a century prospectively. Then a final
arrangement was made that the Monarch should have
so much for all the days of his life. Men flattered
themselves that the settlement then made was to be
conclusive, and that the chances were to be taken by either
party as they might fall out, whether detrimental or benefi-
cial, What was the result ? In about seven years—he
Was quite sure not more than nine—the former arrangement
was found to be inapplicable, and the bounty of Parliament
Was again appealed to, on the ground that there was a
change in the value of money, a change in the state of so-
ciety, and, in fact, that the circumstances of the case were
altered altogether. The debt was increased half a million
Upon that occasion ; but still they went on making arrange-
raents, and nine years had not elapsed when a second appli-
cation came. Again the agreement was opened—the con-
tract was set at nought—and a further 600,0001. paid. Still
they persisted, in the face of all that experience, pointing
out clearly the wholesome and rational course, to pursue
the same track, and to attempt or pretend to pass a law
which was to last for half a century. Let it not, however,
be said, when Parliament was appealed to at a future time,
and when their successors came to remark upon their con-
duct—let it not be said that no warning had been given to
their Lordships of the consequences of the course they
were pursuing, and tleat no notice had been fairly and ex-
plicitly given of what, in all probability, would be the result
of their conducts They knew what would be the conse-
quences if tl%e contract turned out to be unfavourable to
the Crown ; but, if it proved favourable, did any one be-
lieve thr-s the arrangement would go for nothing ? If the
price of provisions should be raised, and the money should
not go as far as was expected—if the state and circumstan-
ces of society were altered, and men's minds were prepared
Ia look for greater refulgence at Court—then would their
pleading be that this settlement must go for absolutely
frothing, and the arrangement must be made again ; but if,
on the other hand, and he put this case as a bare possibility,
if the money should be found to go further than was a pre-
sent anticipated—if the rapid progress of manufactures in
this country should have the effect of rendering the sources
of expense more cheap—if, by the means of great improve-
ments in agriculture. raw produce should become lower in
Price—and if it should be found that, do what they would,
they could no longer hold by the Corn Laws—if they found
,that the people of this country would not allow the Corn
Laws any longer to continue, and would not endure to buy
corn and eat bread at 625., the quarter on this side the
Channel, whilst on the other the same, or better bread was to
be obtained at 305., and no more—it; then, they were forced
(of course, he meant their reasons forced, in despite of their
feelings and interest), if they were compelled, on finding re-
sistance utterly vain, to yield--he meant all resistance vain
Ito the arguments, which, one after another, kept pressing
upon their judgments—if then, by their reason, by their
judgment, and by their patriotism, they should be com-
pelled to yield and give up the corn laws, and if thereby
the price of corn should be lowered, and if 1/. should be
found to go as far as 30s. would now, by the combined
effects of itnprmed agriculture, improved manufactures, and
repealed Corn laws—if that should turn out to be the state
of things, then he would bee leave to ask any one calmly
to reflect and answer this short question :—" What chance
``nnld there be of the Crown or the Minister of the Crown
not Pleading in answer to any application for a revision
under the altered circumstances of this present arrange-
ment, and saying, as had been said over and over again in
the other House of Parliament and elsewhere, during the
life of the Sovereign this is a bargain, and a bargain which
must be kept ?'" So that when it was against them it
was to be a bargain and must be kept—it was to be final,
and could not be altered—it was to be absolute, irrevocable
—binding their fate ; in fact they were to loge by its
being a bargain, whilst the other party were to derive the
benefit of its not being tangible. When to an application
for a fresh arrangement they pleaded the contract made in
1837, the custom would be, as usual, that justice and
honesty, and a due regard to the dignity of the Sovereign,
required that that contract should be treated as waste
Paper. So much for a general view of the nature of such
prospective arrangements, a view backed by all the expe-
rience on the subject. He would now call their attention
to the state of imperfect information in which they were
left. If it were assumed that this system of prospective
legislation were to be adopted on the present occasion, he
Prayed them to . remark how entirely they were left in the
dark as to the present amount of revenue, which they were
about to give to the Sovereign. The question now was,
how much it was fit they should confer on the Sovereign
by way of revenue for the proper maintenance of the
dignity of the Crown ? Could any thing be more
natural than, before giving an answer to that question,
to inquire how much the Sovereign had already ?
The object was to give an ample and liberal pro-
vision, but not more than was necessary. The question
was, what was necessary for the due support of the dig-
nity ofthe Sovereign. All he had a right to know was,
that his Noble Friend said not that 395,0001. was the sum
necessary for the present Sovereign-335,0001. having been
found sufficient for the last—not merely that 10,000/. was
to be added—but that, in addition to that which her Ma-
jesty had without tree interference of Parliament, the sum
of 395,000/. wr.„ required. The Crown now possessed cer-
tain revenu...s ; and the question now administered to the
House `',as, in addition to the funds at present in its pea-
sessio at, with which Parliament had not meddled, how much
as. it necessary to give, in order that the sum total might
'3.e adequate to the maintenance of the Regal dignity. Per-
haps he could tell that 395,000/. was enough of itself ; but
then the very foundation of this Bill was, that besides the
'Unknown sum—be it. what it might—it called upon their
Lordships to say that the sum required was 395,000/. ad-
ditional. With regard to the funds, lie should like to
see any Noble Lord—whether a Member of the Go-
vernment or the Opposition—exhibit the confidence to
argue the proposition that these were private funds,
and not Fablic property, belonging to the Sovereign
Daly in ties right of the Crown. He could not ex-
Peet that such an argument would come from the
Ministerial benches, when lie remembered the ala-
crity with w bide his Noble Friend had acceded to his
tnotion the tither night for certain papers connected with
those revenues. But if any Noble Lords on the other
side should be prepared to argue in support of that propo-
sition he slim itild be ready to meet him, and to contend that
they were es much the revenues of the Crown as the
395,000/ w hich they were about to grant in the dark.
The debate on the proposition for the production of these
Papers came on to-morrow, and yet to-day they were called
upon to let ;islate thus blindly and in the dark. Something
bed been st rid the other night about an oath binding the
Officers of the Duchy of Cornwall to secresy, but there