The Sun.
London, England, 1819-03-31 00:00:00

ceived that distingnishing denomination when
Mr. Burke introduced his celebrated .Bill. His
Lordship said, .that he spoke from the authority
of his Majesty himself, who acknowledged 'that
he required in that arrangement. that what was
Bien called the PrA,37 Purse shoulenot he included.
In obedience to the Royal-command, the two
became for 'the first time separate funds,p:Olongh
time s'utior appropriated to: the rrivy rurse • camefrom, ihe Civil List. It was no more the
King's private,ptoperty than any other property
of the Crown ; anti 'Parliament, at the time,
never intended that it should he considered in any
other light than as toopetty opp4icable to the
public services of the Monarchy. The.argument
advanced in favour of the erant, that the Royal
Duke might , find it ieirisite to bestow pensions
or annuities ott Illerit,ions' persons for particu-
lar services, was, in his. Lordship's opinion, ab-
surd, if norfallacions. lf the Royal Duke were
empowered to make grants front the Privy Purse,
it &hold be no longer considered as private pro-
perty, because it was attachable by the Royal
Duke for the servicei'of the State. And it pri-
vate property, as' the suplporters'of Government
maintained, Wily didsMinisters em Royal
his.
Highness to violate such an engagement ? If pri-
vate property, it was unalienable, mod therefore.,
the power granted to his Royal Highness by Mi-
nisters was the power,of violating' the private
property of. the King—the power of committing a
robbery on time Privy Purse. The office with
which his Royal Highness was now invested, was
a great and important office.; and his Lordship.
had no doubt but that the Royal Duke would dis-
charge the duties with the strictest fidelity, ho.
tutor, and affection. But, from every view of the
proposition, his Lordship was induced to give his
vote against the grant..
The Elrl of LAUDERDALE explained.—He
glanced once more at time nature and tendency of
the Privy Purse ; extolled his Majesty's weII-
kUOVIO munificence ; and stated that the monies
of the Privy Pnrse•—tile private property of the
King—had always been applicable to the purposes
of grants anti Charities of various descriptions of
meritorious persons.
- The LORD CHANCELLOR maintained, that the
Privy Purse was as much the private property of
his Majesty as that of their Lordships was their
own particular private property. By the Acts of
the 39th and_4oth of his present Majesty, the

vereign was fully'and expressly empowered to buy
and sell property ot: any kind through the medium
of the Privy Purse, it. theretore became the pri-
vate property of his Majesty, and was thus sanc-
tioned by Parliament. Those therefore who
maintained a Contrary. .opiuion, acted from a mis-
conception of the lasv, or from the want of any
knowledge of it. By the 39th and 40th 'of the
present reign,, the personal property of his Ma-
jesty, including the Privy Porse, became as notch.
his private property as that ot any other indi-
vidual in his dominions. Those who framed the
Act (tad in contemplation every point which could
tend to secure the private property of his Ma-
jesty, and therefore acted wisely in every stt2p, so
AS to prevent any fwore disputes on the, subject.
His Majesty, by this arrangement, was empower-
ed to bequeath and bestow any property acquired
by the application- of the Privy Purse in any man-
ner and to any person ,he pleased. In case of
his demise without having willed away such pro-
perty, it did not revert like the Royal domains
to the Croton, but to the personal heir ot his
najesty, as his own private property. The Privy
Purse was thus,deemed inviolable and,inalienable,
and could not be applied' to the public service,—
If their Lordships approved of the principle as
applicable to private individuals, they could not
surely refuse the benefit of the same principle to
his Majesty or to his heirs. This Act of Parlia-
ment, founded on these two statutes, gave his
Majesty as solid a right to the Privy Purse, or to
the proceeds of it, in whatever tnanper, as his own •
private property, as the right of any individual was,'
established by an Act ot the Legislature. The
Plivy Purse, therefore, or the proceeds of it, ei-
ther in land or in other shape, gave his Majesty a
personal tight to all such property till the extre-
mity of life, till death itself. if God's I'rovi-
deuce should restore his Majesty to his health,
anti to the exercise of his Teasoning powers--.-and
such an event was not an impossibility—it would
afford our beloved Sovereign the greatest pleasure
to find, that during his absence from the func-
tions of Government the most salutary arrange-
ments had been adopted for his personal comforts
and private property.. Although virtually 'absent
frorn the throne, and its -powers anti splendour,
yet he still continued to he-Our King ; and not-
withstanding his Majesty might continue to be
visited. by the band of ProVidence, yet that'
hand of Providence alone could separate him
front; Iris people. Witty regard to the Grant
of 10,0001. a-year to the Royal Duke, for
the purpose of defraying the additional expellees
of his new and important office, his Lordship
stated, that he woUld have objected to it had it
come inthe shape of a gratuity. Front the per-
Son invested with such a high office, 'you could
not demand paltCy or trifling details of the ex-
pences incurited—not ,what such and such post-
horses, or such and such a journey cost—not
even the average stun requisite for tlre discharge
of such an office. Their Lordships ought to
place the Duke of York in such a-situation as to
increase rather than to diminish the dignity and
splendour of the Crown.

Lord KING objected not wily, to the conduct
of Ministeri, by forcing ,the unpopular grant of
10.0001. a-year through Parliament, but disap-
proved of so numerous a Cabinet as that now
coostituied. After the discussion of last year, his
Lordship hafir hoped not to have heard of the un-
popular grant now before thrnt. With every de-
ference and respect to his Royal Highness, who
in this instance. was merely the instrument of
the Ministers, his Lordship declared that he would
vote against that pact of the Bill. It was an on•