Star.
London, England, 1816-05-16 00:00:00

• •
I induced by the Dab* oriPubenodth to alitit vPOO
her 413.000 mutually oat of that French. had,
was his only security againit the tyranny of Portia-
merit. This power, claimed by the Crown, would be
a temptation to conclude infamous treaties, in conse-
quence of money to 'be paid by a foreign Power;
and the question in future might ha an auction of co.
and a sale of territory. Half a million might
be demanded for Martinique, and £OOO,OOO ter
Guadaloope. Such a power was. snore tha,s a mere
liability to abuse ; there could be no use in vesting
such a power in the Crown, unless it was already
possessed of it, and could only lead to conduct simi-
lar to that in the time of Charles 11. The indemnity
on the part of the French Government was partly pe-
cuniary and partly territorial, on the policy of which
he should give no opinion ; but it was clear that
money was the price of territory, and the case bore a
strong resemblance, though circuitously, to the sale
of Dunkirk, in the time of ,Charles-11. Compensa-
tion for a national loss, ought not to depend upon
the sole will of the Sovereign, and those who bad
paid the Income Tax, should have their burthens
alleviated by means of the compensation paid by
France—(l/ear.) Those who held the affirmative as
to the right of the Crown, were bound to prove that
right; but the auihnrities to that purpose must be
subsequent to the Revolution, as no previous case
would properly apply to that before the House. In
170, when the House of Commons was supposed to
be unfavourable to the principles of the ttevolution,
a fourth of the ---,let had been claimed by

the Crown ;
1714, voted
dikharge the
been, that the
trustees. and

Bolingbroke and Mr. Manlier!), in /hose
was to have been vested fur the use of the Querr4.—
The same address also requested that the revenue of'
Minorca, and the rents of certain houses in Gibraltar,
should be applied in the same way. An answer was
returned on the 24th, and stated that the fourth of the
Assiento Contract had been granted to the South Sea
Company, her Majtsty conceiving that to encourage
trade was the best way to discharge the debts of the
country; and that the revenue of Minorca, and the rents
of the houses in Gibraltar, should be applied iu the
manner she thought more fit, for the public Service:
—A division had taken place, and the tellers were.
Lord Bolingbroke and Mr. Pultecey, as the Ministry,
(die Whigs) objtc;ed to' the money having bees
granted without the consent of Parliament. Mel
term then employed was, that the Haase mystified in
the disposal o the monies; and that as strongly
proved the question of tight, as if the House had re:
fused to acquiesce. On the 15th of January, 1765,
above four years after the passing of the Civil List
Act, a Message front the Crown came down to the
House, stating, that a proposal had been made by
the French King on the subject of the maintenanoel
of prisoners of war. Oa the 21st an Address oC
'Thanks was voted by the House, who expressed disk
opinion, that the pr.'persal of the French King should
be accepted. On the 221 of March, a copy of the
Convention was sent down to the House, by which,
5f600,000 was accepted, instead of £1,100,000 that
had at first. been demanded. • This communication
was accompinied by a cetoficate from Lord Bar-
rington, Auditor of the Exchequer, that the money
had been paid into the Exchequer. That fact was
important. The Message had been brought 4000
by Mr. Grenville, then Chancellor of the Eschequer,
and from the opinion of Parliament being asked and
taken, and the money being paid into the Exchequer,
it was self-evident it had been regarded as the pro•
perty of the public. No Miniger could have brought
down such a Message respecting the private property
of the Crown. list an attempt was now made to
withhold the army from the controul of Parliament,
and the statements on the subject of the money paid
by France could hardly be understood. The terri-
tory possessed by the East India Company had been
vested in the Company by the ring and Parliament,
fora certain sum of money ; but no pretension had
ever been started that that money become the perso.
nal property of the Sovereign, but only for the Use
of the public. The usage in the present case must
be from good times, must be publicly known, and
sanctroned by legitimate authority. It must not be
a case like that of ship money, nor like the sale of
Dunkirk, nor like a decision that had ever taken
place in tha case of general warrants. He could not
say that he would rejoice if proved. to be in error—
but, on the contrary, should lamtnt that a practice
so incompatible with the spirit of liberty, was sanc-
tioned by the principles of the Constitution. The
Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a series of
resolution. on the subject of the money paid and due
by France, embodying the leading principles of his
speech. The first resolution, that a sum of £700,000
had been paid by France in lieu of the revenue of the
districts occupied by the British army, was then put

from the chair.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQU&R
observed, that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in
the speech which he had delivered to the Hose, had
dexterously avoided any appeal to legal authorities,
and seemed to admit that all which Mad bees dose
was consistent with the law which was applicable tit'
the case. So far the argument, by his own admission,
was against him. In looking to the merits of the
case itself, there was a distinction to be let up be-
tween the monies levied before the Treaty of Paris
and the contributions after that Treaty as signed.
With respect to the first part of the wivnies received,
from France, there could be no question as to the'
vested right of appropriating thews i all contributions
made in a state of warfare were clearly at the dis.
posal of the Crown, either for the purposes of the
army, or any other measure connected with the ge.
meal object of the war. It was out of thvie monies
that the espenses of transportieg the works' of art
from Paris to their several destinations were defray-
ed, and the sum assigned for the erection of a monu-
ment to the memory of Cardinal York formed part
of the same common fund. This would distinctly ,
appear by reference to the Treaty, and on these
grounds the application was defensible, although k
might appear Oat it was not, in the strict sense of,
the language, for the public service. The Hon. And'
LeatnedGentleman had charged him with maintain-
log, that these different sums of money wert all druits,
o the. Crown but this was an otter mistake, for be
had Maintained no such doctrine ; and, hi peoofmq
the
• , be begged to sembuil the lime, that at the

:ope*ft of tbi Session he bad stated, tint al thew
IlionMs would be placed to the public rberViCe by
command of. the Prince Regent.--(Near, drar.)—;lt
was admitted then, that there was no difficulty with
reipect to the payments before the Treaty ; and as
for those after the Treaty, this principle must be ap-
plied, viz. that the Sev:reign receives all for the
benefit of the public, subject to the provisions of the
Twaiies, by which the contributions are made.—
'Admitting this to be the proper light in whichsto
view cite question, the whole money had been as well
applied as if it had been transmitted through Parlia-•
ment.—(Hear. hear.)—On that part of the subject
which related to the sums paid to the Allies, be had
to remark, that their necessities might be more press-
ing than our own, and must be presumed to be so,
as their countries had suffered the desolation of war.
It was more than probable, that they would apply.
the money to the rebuilding of their towns and vil-
lages which had been burnt, and in applying the
means of subsistence to their unfortunate subjects.—
Indemnities must have been proviJed for these sacri-
fices, and if they bad not been met in this manner, they
might have been called for in another way less unob-
jectionable. He apprehended it was quite clear that
the contributions were net to be applied to the private
purposes of the Crown, but by the treaty it expressly
appeared that they were to be applied to the public
service. With respect to the question, how tar the
sums would be adequate or not to the purposes set
forth, was immaterial to the present argument.—
The itional '-iple involved in the
tmitted that the

were

Id be *

Ihe Honour:thle

_ ts, which he cow
came to notice, wasohe donation to the army, and
here he was quite ready to admit that if it could be
fairly considered as a donation made by foreign
powers, it would be a just subject of suspicion
(Harr, hear).—But such a construction was foreign
to the convention. The convention states, that in
consequence of the occupation of Paris by the Allied
troops, this sum of money should be given to them,
from the general contributions. The Honourable
and Learned Gentleman himself did not deny the
wisdom and justice of the grant, and the propriety of
it was admitted throughout ie whole kingdom—
(Hear, hear.)—He could not see in what respect this
dared from former donations to the army, as for
instance, that which toms given for the taking of Java.
He was quite sure that there never was one more
Moderate, considering the brilliant and important
services which bad been performed. It was given
for the capture, of Paris, which might have entitled
the soldiers to something more, had the army levied
a contribution for itself. He was willing to acknow.
ledge that, considering the relative situation of the
Crown and the people in the present times, compared
!'with the former periods of ourtistory, but little weight
was due to precedents, in the decision of such ques-
tioas now. However, the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman had stated that an address was sent up to
Queen Anne, requesting the grant of the money she
received in virtue of the Assiento Treaty, to the pub.
lie service. Now he could not but think this an un-
fortunate precedent for the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman, as it made directly against him ; for the
fact of the House sending up such a request, was a
eskeogoition of the right of the Crown to dispose of
the money as it might think fit, and the Queen main-
tains this right by the answer which she makes of her
having applied it to the promotion of the commerce of
the country, which she conceived the best of purposes.
The other precedent quoted in the definitive Treaty
of Peace of 1763, arose from a balance claimed by
this country upon a settlement of accounts for the ex-
penses of prisoners of war. The amount due war
5e900,000, and the French Government annually to
pay this offered 4700,000. The Crown sent down
a message to the House, communicating the fact,
and to take its determination on the subject. But it
would be seen that this was not a contribution or in.
demnity. It was a balance arising out of expenses
which Parliament bad defrayed, and the Crown could,
not mistake that this was Parliamentary money, and
a business entirely within the jurisdiction of the House.
(Hear, hear.) Therefore, nothing could be more
proper than that the House should be asked if it
would take the sum offered, and the House consented.
He did not deny that this was a constitutional prece-
dent, but he did deny' its analogy to the case in dis.
cussion. There was one precedent more upon which
he should make a few observations : which was the
suns paid by the East-India Company for the renewal
of their Charter. The Honourable and Learned
Gentleman says, why not the Crown keep this money,
upon the ground of its being a territotial grant f but
the fact was, the Charter was much more than a ter.
Etorial grant, it was to give an exclusive trade to the
ast, and vest them with civil and political dominion.
Nothing could be more futile than to suppose that
the Crown could by any treaty acquire that sum of
money. which would enable the Sovereign to assail
the Constitution—nothing of the kind could ever
enable him to stand indeptadent of Parliament. The
immesh of this boasted sum, from which such ef-
fects were contemplated, was 'little more than five
millions in five years. Could Parliament now profess
to feel any apprehensions for the discretion of the
Crown in the use of-such a sum, when, the very last
year, it had, by a vote of credit, placed six millions
la the disposal of the. Crown—(Hear, hear:)—The
pretence of this; leading to repeated exactions from
ovanquished enemies, on the part of the Crown for
its own advantage, was too weak to •be seriously
met in argument. Treaties between this counts,'
and any foreign Power must be published, and
the conditions thereof submitted to the House, and
not like the Treaty of Charles with the French King,
be kept an entire secret from the Legislature.--,
He next remarked, that although the/Intl:1 army in
France was to be paid with the contributions of the
French Government, still they would be under the
ccultroul of Parliament : and, in fact, the army is to
be paid by a vote of the House,. which took place
after it was announced to the House that this expense
would be met by these payments. The reason why I
the proposal of appropriating these sums at once to,
the support of the army in France was founded on a'
supposed analogy of the East • India Company's
whiny expenditure, for which no vote was taken
in the supply, because those troops were under,
the worts) of the Coots/. Du; gage it hite

,

. _
ie Assiento Contract had been claimed by The constitutional principle was not ii
when the House of Commons on June 9, Amount of the coutributbns. He ads
an address• that it should twitrpledk_ AN Pio 4 ;he arms kw.,4lbliorti4
It
t debts of-the'sation. The rumour bag I. -ais by
le money was to have been vestedin that at the of that term there wool
these trustees were to have been Lord of A 500,000: Another branch of thi
and Mr. Marsharn, in whose names it and Learned Gentkmaa's arguments,