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

been paid to this
an amount that
Parliament, as it
millions. But the
sum, or a sum still larger, .. droit
might he dealt with as personal income, aid was to
be left entirely to the disposal of the Sovereign.—..
Should ,that be the case, then at the. end of a pro.
vatted war, the Sovereign would have a source of
revenue independent of Parliament, and contrary to
all former usage. None could deny that such a ques-
tion, was important, and affecting the. vital interests
of the Constitution, as such a doctrine tended to con-
tract the authority of Parliament, and to remove the
bolwarks of the Constitution. The grounds of such
a claim ought to be called for, and whatever might
_ be the result,. it was the duty of a Member of Par-
horneot in bring the question before the House. In
the observations he meant to offer, he should try to
be short ; nor should he load the question with legal
quotations, unfit for such an assembly as that House,
but should be guided by the great rules of the Con-
Laotian and of justice. He hoped he should not be
told that it no statute was violated, that the doctri se
was well founded. As there were many offences
that were no breach of a statute, so there were many
offences against the Constitution that was no breach
of any positive law. He should be perfectly dispas-
sionate, sand should' impute no deliberate breaeh of
the Constitution, but only a proceeding tint ought
to be guarded against in future. The King tf France
had meted to pay a certain sum to' the iussiy o( oe.
AuPazioa, and. it had been stated by that
vto vota Of Parliament would be called for to protteleil
for the charge of these troops. But that was a roust
extraordinary proceeding, considering the conical].
tional guards against a stamling military force ; one
of which was peculiar to the House of Commons, as •
all Money Bills must originate in that House. But
As far.as the army in France was concerned, Ministers
had proposed to set aside that constitutional principle,
and instead, as at the revolution, of substituting right
for might, to substitute might for right. That ground,
however, had been afterwards abandoned by Minis-
ters, and a vote had been submitted to the House.
The charge of the army in three years would exceed
the whole of the sum to be paid by Fiance as an in-
demnity, and at all events there would not be a ba..
lance of mote than half a million to this country.
The treaty professed to indemnify Great Britain, and
no explanation was afforded why that indemnity was
to be reduced to halt a milliim, though four millions
had been promised for pay and indemnity. Of that
he complained, as it was a mere contingency, if there
would ke any surplus to Great Britain. One million
fete hundred thousand pounds was to be paid for the
burthen of the war upon Great Britain; and that
Cum must have been accepted by the British Govern.
trent, either to be paid to the soldiers, or to be ap-
plied to the public services. But from the circum-
stance of the capture of Paris being stated as one of
the reasons for the payment, it would seem that there '
was an engagement of honour to pay it to the troops.
It that as the case, then there was a novelty (1 a
very alarming kind—a &nation from foreign Princes
to British troops ; and a principle of gratitude of a
most dangerous tendency w is established horn a Bri-
tish army to those foreign Princes. But it might be
said, the Crown might dip ea of the money in any
other way ; and then it would fall under the general
question, and must be defended as a donative to the
Army from the British Crown ; which would form a
Smut alarming precedent, not that he meant in the
smallest degree to detract trom the glorious services
of the army, but, only wished the reward to be given
by the Crown and by Parliament. The question (or
eonsideeration was, if these sums paid by France were
at the disposal of the Crown as the droits of the Ad-
miralty were claimed to be, and to be applied teepri-
Tate enjoyment as private property, he by no means
wished to curtail the proper splendour of the Crown,
or to withhold the mean of munificence and bounty.
If the means were inadequate, they should be in-
creased, but not at the expense of the right of the
}louse of Commons, and the liberties of the country,
(Hear, hum) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
claimed the whole as droits of the Croon ; and he as
a Minister of Finanoe, and as a lawyer of great expe-
rience, was entitled to much respect. Upon him it
was incumbent to state the grounds of his new opi-
* Ilion which had never been advanced by any profes-
sional man before, especially as the assertinwhad not
been made in the warmth of debate. An act of
ownership had taken place on the part of the Crown,
and part of the money bad been applied in a manner
that however in itself commendable, formed no part
of the public service. A letter, dated Dec. 26, 181.5,
had been sent from the Board of Treasury to the Com-
missary in Chief, directing, that the sum of 200,000
francs should be applied out of the money paid by
*France, to defier the expense of a monument to the
Cardinal of York. Had that sum been paid from a
private income it would have been much to be praised,
but the public money should riot have been applied
to paying such funeral honours. To such o proce-
dure, as at best ambiguous, and in fact a libel on the
revolution, he felt the most strenuous objection. It
seemed ostentatiously to imply that he was entitled
to Royal honours, because he was descended from a
family that had once been Royal, but which bad
ceased to be so by an act of justice. He (Sir James
Mackintosh) was disposed to treat kim as a Prince
from courtesy and compassion, but not as having
any claim to the Royal dignity. The money applied
to transport the works of art might be for a public oh-
. ject, but that could not be inithe case just alluded to.
'though the sum was small yet the principle was the
same, and if part might be applied, so might the
whole. He must protest against such an application
till he was eoneinced by argument, or silenced by the
decision'ot a majority of that House. He saw no
round for such a claim, and the enur lay upon" those
who put it forward. The constitutional principle
was, that the Crown was dependent upon the House
of Commons for the money necessary to supply the
various calls of Government, arid that principle was
the great security of public freedom. Should such;,
an application be admitted, all the censure must be'
retracted that had been heaped upon Charles ll.—lt
, might be said that Ministers were responsible, bat
that responsibility would depend either upon" the
power being legal, or the necessity obvious. James 11.
s a his own life, lately published, had thrown most
light upon the subject of his brother's connexions
swab Trams ail caetflttined that the King had glen'

entintirbyt.ibliiitiVatr Gel er,naltillt•
wits will' Itafitity the attention of
t was eat 'Sea than the sum of six
Ic main qdestion was, whether that
till larger, as a droit of .the Crown,