Star.
London, England, 1823-03-25 00:00:00

..

word that could lead to an opinion that the arrange-
knent made was not, just towards the individuals
whose interests were concerned ; neither bad he ricer
heard a word to that effect. His only objection was,
that-dining Otitod of 4.5 years a burthen was cast
upon posterity which did not fairly attach to it.—
With. respect to the pretended surplus of five mil-
lions, could that be called a surplus which was ob-
tained by loan, and for which interest was to be
paid, and to be paid by that posterity for the relief
of which those five millions were to be applied to the
Sinking Fund?
After a few words from Earl DA RYLEY, theA mend-
tittit was put and negatived, and the Bill read a third
time and Ordered to be returned to the Commons...

KING'S PROPERTY.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved that the King's
Property Regulation Bill be read a third time.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH wished to know wile-
ther,the Noble and Learned Earl on the Woolsack
was now prepared to answer the questions which he
had put to 4im on a former night?
- -

The LORD. CHANCELLOR observed, that the
questions put to him embraced several objects. They
were connected with a notice of what was passing in
the other House, and one part of the enquiry was
sshether it would be necessary to proceed by Bill.
Now with respect to the necessity of his Majesty's
proceeding by Bill to give -his personal property or
personal chattels to any individual, the object to be
considered was the situation of the person upon whom
the gift was conferred. His Majesty might dispose
of his personal chattels without a Bill, if that party
to whom they were granted were capable of taking
them without one. If money were wanted on the
part of the Trustees of the British Museum to take
the benefit of his Majesty's donation, then a Bill would
be wanted. It was his decided opinion that generally
his Majesty had the power cf giving his personal
chattels away in his lifetime, and had it not been for
the Act of the 39th and 40th of his late Majesty, it
would have been a *doubtful question whether he
might not dispose of them by will, as well as by Act
during life. ' His Lordship then quoted several au-
thorities to shew that the Kings of England had for-
meily possessed the right of disposing not of the
personal property alone, but of the lands of the
Crown. A change had been made in the reign of
Queen Anne, when a certain portion of lands had
been set apart for the support of the Crown, but be-
fore that time it had been allowed to alienate its own
property. The powers with which the Crown had
beets thus invested were still unchanged with respect
to the disposal of its personal chattels, and the exer-
cise of them was still lawful, he used that word as a
Lawyer, not a Statesman, to do whatever it was not
restrained from doing by Act of Parliament. The
doctrine formerly entertained was, that the Crown
might dispose of everything it had jury: corona. The
opinion of-Lord Holt was not doubtful on the sub-
ject : What,"'said he, « shall a person who has large
estates before he comes to the Crown, be deprived of
the right of disposing of them because he has come
to the Crown r' But in the time of Queen. Anne,
when so many great grants were made, the right was
carried to Such extents that Lord Holt's reasoning
became out of the question, and restraints were
passed. But there was nothing in the Statute which
affected the -power of the Crown with respect to its
personal chattels. The 39th and 40th of his late Ma-
jesty Stated what descriptions Of property the King
might dispose of. Since' that Acr had passed, he
could not bequeath such property, though he might
give it away in his lifetiMe.
Lord ELLEittliOßOUtli admitted the etplana-
tidal of theltioble and Learned Earl to be satisfactory
only so far as it proved that he firmly believed
the opinion which he advanced. He (Lord Elletsbo-
rough) contended that the fits corona was not the
Common law, -but an exception to it, and that for-
merly the property of the Crown was governed by
quite different laws. The Sovereign was not then
absolute -proprietor, but merely guardian of the pro-
perty. The:Noble Lord then entered into a history
of eeveral ancient Kings, to shew that they had not
the power Of ditliciting-of Crown propetty. He con-
tended that Lord Coke had stated distinctly, that the
King could not dispose of the jewels of the Crown,
e:shich were 'considered as an heir loom. With re-
spect to the Bill on their Lordship's table, he could
not-but consider it as a deClaration that his Majesty
intended to separate his private property from that of
the CI-Own. And when another Bill in the other
.House informed him that his Majesty was giving
Away his Library without an Act of Parliament, it
sttuck hiin that it might be done in order that the
King might have equal power to dispose in the same
manner of all other personal property of the Crown.
His late Majesty having many children, might na-
turally have wished for such a power, in order to
share his property among them ; but in the present
hist:owe that could not be the case. It was remark-
able-that Isis Majesty hid for eight years applied the
revenues of his Crown to the improvement of-his per-
sonal property. Other Sovereigns had lived in royal
palaces, and All that they had spent upon them had
been for the Public; but his Majesty had chiefly re-
sided. aild spent the Royal income on his personal
estates, of which 'lie now wished to have the hide-
-
pendent disposal. Had not the subject been consi-
dered in a different point of view, when, in 1816,
20.000/. had been given out of the Droits of Admi-
ralty to pinch* furniture for the Pavilion at Brigh-
tOn ? but *a* new light had broken on his Majesty's
Ministers. As for him, it appeared that the Crown
ought to be considered a sulEcient equivalent for the
loss of all other property. He objected to the prevent
Bill, that it gave the feelings of private property arid
of a subject to one who ought to be without. He
felt that be should not have done his duty if he had
not stated his doubts on the subject.
• The*LORD CHANCELLOR trusted that when
he had said that in point ciflavilhe King had aright
-t dispose of the property of the Crown, the Noble
Lord would not suppose that lie meant to extend it
to the jewels of the 'sown, which were leMpioperly
.oalled an heir-loom. As it was mentioned in the Act
.thist taitouid not.be alienated, it was an additional
reason for considering that property not of that de-
scription which might be alienated. He would also
. obsetve,.that his late Majesty had asked nothing per-
sonal by thelOth and 40th 01 his-reign, for the power
given by that Act was not for him alone, but for all
Lis successors, and was one which he had never used.

~~~

. 1
gle Earl of LIVERP6dt Saki,' •t:the n
in which the Noble Baron had
made it necessary, though hisobier
ssed h ims,.
'ions' did not
in fact apply to the Bill. before, the' ouse, but to a
transaction in another place, ihat he should enter
into some explanation. k was due, to. the-Govern-
ment, and to the Sovereign on itiThrcte,-thatlei
should repel the idea started by the Noble 'Bigot),
that there was some trick between, the liberal gift
made by his Majesty' to his people, and the Bill now
on their Lordships table. Ile *should ask his NptAr
and Learned F: iend on the Woolsack, whether-the
two transactions were not totally unconnected with
each other ? Whether his Noble Friend did not know
that his Majesty had been anxious to have the power
conferred by this Bill three years ago, whilst the•gift
of the Library had only been thought of within the
last few months? Deeply did he regret that the
Noble Baron should have founded such a charge on
a transaction which filled every mind in the country
with sentiments of gratitude, and did equal honour
to him who had collected that mass of human learn-
ing during sixty years, and to his Majesty who gave
it, not to the British Museum, not to any particular
institution, but put it at the entire disposal of Parlia-
ment, to be used and applied as it would think most
expedient. He thought it too much that such an act
of liberality should produce such insinuations, and
that it should be combined with a measure with
which it had no connection whatever, as a mere trick.
It was the wish of the august personage that Parlia-
ment should dispose of his Library in the way which
it would think most advantageous to the country.—
When the Bill on the subject should come before
their Lordships, then would be the time for the
Noble Baron to discuss its merits, and for him (Lord
Liverpool) to supply fresh explanation ; he would,
however, say, that it had no reference whatever to
the King's personal property. He should not enter
into the question, whether the 39th and 40th of his
late Majesty had been a wise measure; but he
would ask whether his present Majesty, when Prince
of Wales, having acquired property as a subject,
which he was then, and of which, as such, he had a
right to dispose, the House would deprive him of
that right because he had ascended the Throne ? He
put it on the ground of strict justice, he wished for
no favour, no liberality—liberality, in this instance,
was all on the side of the Throne—whether his Ma-
jesty having acquired property as a subject, they
would deprive him of that same power which he
might exercise as a subject, because he was on the
Throne? Should he be the only man in his domi-
nions who should not have the right of doing an act
of individual kindness to members of his family, or
to any others whom he might think proper? He
could not believe that there would be a difference of
opinion, in a case of which justice formed the Clear
and undoubted basis,

The LORD CHANCELLOR having been called
upon by his Noble Friend to say whether there was
any connection between the present Bill and the trans-
action respecting the Library, would declare upon his
honour that he had not the least notien that any•such
connection existed between those measures. On the
contrary, having been consulted on the principle of
the Bill, he happened to know when it had first beea
in contemplation; and it was not till years after the
question had been raised with respect to the King's
property, that he had heard anything about theli-
brary. If he had stated, as a lawyer, that with a sheet
of paper and a pen full of ink, his Majesty might have
originally relieved himself from the necessity of this
Bill, be should have stated nothing but what every
lawyer would know might have been done, but what
would have been less honourable than the conduct of
his Majesty, who had preferred obtaining the power
which he wanted from Parliament.

Lord REDEBDALE contended, that until the Act
of Queen Anne, the power of the Crown to grant land I
had been unlimited. It was true, chat when thoW
grants were not approved of, the Ministers, by Whose'
advice they had been made had been impeached, but
even then the grants had not been revoked. Why had
the Act of Queen Anne been passed, if the. Crown had
not previously possessed the right of granting lands?
But the fact was, that half the lands in the•kingdom
were holden by grants from the Crown.
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
Mr. Batman, and others brought up from the Commons the
Marriage Act 'Amendment Bill with amendments, to width they
prayed the concurrence of-their Lordships.
The lunendasents were then taken into consideration, and
agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to be returned to the Coat-
mous.—Adiounied.