ciple of guardianship was no doubt abo- precedent? Evidently, that the king lished by the act of Charles 2nd. By had no prerogative that empowered him this act it was conceived, that all the to receive those rents. If he was vested feudal system was swept away; yet if, with such a prerogative, why make any for the sake of argument, it be admitted application to parliament? Why were that it was not, still the guardianship in terms stipulated? Why comply with a chivalry is not applicable to the present petition so worded, and thus called a pecase. Another doubt was, whether the tition of right? But as the king assented king by his prerogative, or some other to it, the learned gentleman conceived attribute, was not entitled to receive the that this assent proved his second proporevenues of the duchy. But, if there sition, namely, that the king's eldest son be any thing of prerogative in the case, has a right to the duchy. Surely he should must it not arise out of the grant itself? not here be told that Henry 6th was a That this, however, is not the fact, will weak prince: for, granting that he was, appear from a reference to the several did the charge of weakness apply also to reigns that have succeeded the reign of his parliament, who advised him to com~ Edward 3rd. The first grant was made ply with the petition? Indeed, here the by Edward 3rd to his son, the Black learned gentleman thought he might Prince. Upon his demise, his son, af- safely rest the justice of his case. But terwards Richard 2nd had livery of pos- he felt anxious to state other instances, session of the duchy. When Henry with a view of removing every possible 4th ascended the throne his son had ground of doubt. In the year 1472, Edlivery of possession, though then only ten ward 4th, by the advice of his privy council, years of age. Henry 5th died abroad, granted the duchy and livery of posseswhen his son was no more than eight sion to his son, then only eight months or month old, and then there was no time to a year old. The patent recites, the give him livery of possession. But the reign eldest sons, being born dukes of Cornof Edward 6th afforded by far the most de- wall, are in that capacity entitled to livery cisive case. In 1453, his eldest son, after- of possession. These were the exact wards Henry 6th, was born. In 1455, an words: this charter of livery was ratified act was passed, stating that as his son and confirmed by the consent of the Lords was born duke of Cornwall, and as he Spiritual and Temporal, and also by the had right of possession, there should be Commons; which proves beyond a doubt, delivered to him (as to his eldest son) the that there this no nonage with regard to lands, rents, and revenues of the duchy, the duchy. In 1495, upon the accession that he might enjoy the same in as full a of Henry 7th to the throne, he had no manner as they had been enjoyed by his son born, and the revenues of the duchy predecessor, Edward the Black Prince. were vested in himself. But it was at the The act then recites, that as he was under same time expressly ordered, that if he age he should have certain persons to act had a son, he should enjoy the duchy, for him. It next enacts, that from the rents, &c. in as full a manner as any of 12th of November 1455, the king shall his predecessors. The property of this have the rents and revenues of the duchy, duchy seems to be held by an extraorditill the prince shall attain the age of four-nary limitation; it remains with the king teen, deducting certain sums to be applied to purposes specified in the act. In 1459, the council of the prince presented a petition to the king, complaining that the duchy had been materially dismembered, and praying that as his son was duke of Cornwall, and as such entitled to the rents of the duchy, he might enjoy those rents and revenues in as complete a manner as they have been enjoyed by any of his predecessors. This petition was moreover stated to be a petition of right. It was discussed in parliament, and, with the advice of parliament, the king acquiesced in its prayer. What is the legitimate inference to be drawn from this when he has no son, but it goes to the son the moment he is born, and again reverts to the king should the son die. King Henry appointed certain sums out of the rents of the duchy for the relief of his subjects from some grievance of purveyance. The next year a son was born to him, and the king immediately gives him livery of possession, and acknowledges that he is of full age. It was the opinion of justice Doddridge, that the king's eldest son is not only of age, but that the king is by law forced to give him posses sion as if he were of perfect age. In 1486, prince Arthur was born, and had livery of possession given him immediately after his birth. An act was also passed, re- royal highness, an act was passed enabling pealing the assessment that had been made the king to grant leases of lands in the of certain sums from the duchy towards the duchy, and that act recites, that "whererelief of the subject from the grievance of as the prince is seized of the duchy of purveyance, and the receiver was directed Cornwall." What is the meaning of this no longer to pay them. On the death of seizing, but that his royal highness's right prince Arthur in 1502, Henry, afterwards to the revenue was the same as that of his Henry 8th became duke of Cornwall, and predecessors? These were among the was discharged from being duke of York, prominent circumstances on which were because, in the former capacity, he had founded the rights and claims of his great and valuable possessions. Large royal highness; and if any doubts rested fines, which had been levied in the duchy, upon them, was it not most advisable to were also put to the account of the prince. have them duly examined into by parliaHenry 8th's son was of course born duke ment? All the cases referred to appear of Cornwall; but when his charter of uniform and consistent in support of the possession was made out he could not pre- validity of the claim; and it was difficult cisely say. In the reigns of Edward 6th to see upon what grounds the appointment Mary, and Elizabeth, there was no son.- of a committee could be resisted. Is it The learned gentleman next proceeded to be objected, that in some reigns the to the reign of James 1st. There it was king has not granted livery of possession supposed that some very formidable ob- as regularly as he ought? Or, if so, jection would be found to the prince's does this irregularity weigh in the least claims. He had given the subject much against the title? and will it be wondered attention, but, notwithstanding, he was at, if the relation that subsists between unable to discover any circumstances the monarch and the heir apparent be duly in that reign that militated against, but, considered? Now, let it be asked, wheon the contrary, many that plead in fa- ther the public have received the revevour of, the right. James 1st was indeed nues of the duchy? If the proposed anxious to withhold this property from his committee be appointed, it will soon apson; and had it not been for the character pear, that all revenues, except a small and conduct of justice Doddridge, who sum of 12,000l. and of 16,000l. were carwas his adviser, his son might have long ried to the Treasury, which the late chanbeen out of possession. An act was at cellor of the exchequer would not be dislength passed, which recites that the eldest posed to deny, for that right hon. gentlesons of the king were entitled to become man stated, in 1795, that the revenues of dukes of Cornwall: and hereby the king the duchy had been applied in aid of the is forced to admit the right, and to con- civil list, and as such were recognized by fess that eo instante his eldest son is from parliament. If now the title of his royal his birth duke of Cornwall.-The reign highness appears so clearly made out, next to be touched upon was that of will the House compel him to resort to Charles 1st. When he granted livery of legal means in order to establish his possession to his son was not clear. Charles right? Indeed, it appears so clear, that 2nd had no issue, and James 2nd abdi- no candid man can deny its justice-no cated the throne. William 3rd and Ann honest man resist it. And here the learned had no issue. When George 2nd came to gentleman begged leave to remind the the throne, his son was under age, but, im- House of the manner in which the premediately on his coming of age, an ac- sent discussion had arisen: it did not arise count was rendered him of the revenues in consequence of any complaint, nor of of the duchy, from the time of his father's any demand, on the part of his royal accession. Surely, a case of such modern highness: it was entered into by the period was well calculated to remove all House itself. It should also be recollected, doubt. In 1760, his present majesty as that one material object with his royal cended the throne, and, in 1762, the highness was, to take no step that could prince of Wales was born. From the in- embarrass the decision of the question stant of his birth his title commenced, respecting the civil list, or tend to excite and was perfected. As duke of Cornwall, the slightest degree of contest. There he was entitled to the revenues of the was another, and, he trusted, a laudable duchy. No act was deemed necessary-motive, which actuated his royal highness no charter of livery required-since the in bringing forward the question: that act of Charles 2nd. After the birth of his motive was, that he might stand well in the eye of the public, and show that, if his rights had been duly acknowledged, he should have been no burthen on the people that his expenses, whether incurred prudently or otherwise, would all have fallen upon himself.-Mr. Sutton described the situation to which his royal highness had been reduced, in consequence of his not having enjoyed what he conceived to be his just right. He was compelled to slide into retirement and obscurity, and to see the exalted station and rank to which he was born, disrobed of the splendor and magnificence that were due to it. He should anticipate how the committee, if appointed, would view the question; but if the result of their inquiry tended to confirm the claims of his royal highness, he should then have to propose that the surplus of the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall should be applied to the discharge of his royal highness's debts. The learned gentleman concluded with moving, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire what sums of money are due to his royal highness the prince of Wales, from the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall-by whom, and by what authority, its revenues have been received from the birth of his royal highness until he attained the age of twenty-one, and how these sums have been applied? Also, what sums of money have been advanced to his royal highness from the time he came of age until the the 27th of June, 1795, for the discharge of his royal highness's debts." Sir Ralph Milbank heartily agreed with every sentiment which had been uttered by his learned friend. He wished his royal highness should have fair justice done to his claims; and he saw no mode which offered the means of obtaining that justice so well as the one now proposed. Mr. Fuller said, it appeared by the Journals, that Mr. Humphrey Morris, a member of the House, having been appointed warden of the stannaries in 1763, a motion was made for a new writ; but which, after a debate, was rejected; it being determined that the office was not a place under the crown. It was to be inferred, therefore, that the prince of Wales was seized at that time of the duchy of Cornwall. Mr. Chancellor Addington said, he did not know how he could give a stronger proof of the confidence he felt in the motives and principles which actuated his own conduct, than in rising now and delivering his sentiments, after so clear a statement of the case, and so able an address as had been made by his hon. and learned friend. In many parts of that speech, though there was much to admire, his learned friend did not convey convic tion to his mind. He had stated, with greal ability the right of the prince of Wales to the duchy of Cornwall; and he had stated it as attaching to the prince from the moment of his birth, in like manner as if he were of full age; but, whether or not the right was so indisputa ble as the hon. and learned gentleman had contended, there were considerations which operated upon his judgment, and rendered it impossible for him to assent to the motion now made. His learned friend had assumed the right of the prince of Wales to the revenue of the duchy from his birth; but he meant to go into the committee upon very precise words, as they appeared in his motion, which was to inquire "under what authority, and so forth," together with a power to search for precedents, for the purpose of investigating the grounds on which he rested the claims of the prince of Wales, as they might appear on the Journals of p parliament. But, he would ask, could such a motion be submitted to that House consistently with any authorized precedent? What did it amount to? That the committee should have the power of examining the Journals of that House; for his learned friend could not expect the House would enter on the second part of the subject previous to its disposing of the first, namely, that of taking any account of the revenues of the duchy. His learned friend proposed that investigation of the Journals which, he said, would satisfy the committee, and whose report on that subject would satisfy the House, of the propriety of the claims of his royal highness; and after that investigation, his learned friend proposed that the House, being satisfied of the right, should proceed to take an account of the revenues of the duchy; a combination of duties intended to be imposed upon that House, never before included in any motion that ever was adopted by, or indeed, he believed, submitted to it. His learned friend had gone through a very ample field of precedents, in which he was not disposed to follow him; nor, in his view of the subject, was it necessary; for he thought his learned friend had fallen into a fundamental error, not from want of Who service of the public? Was the proof to be found in the Journals of parliament ? He knew, that during the minority of the prince of Wales, sums of money arising from the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall, had been voted to be applied to the purposes of the civil list, and that 94,000l. of this property came under the head of public services. The House would recollect what the circumstances were which attended this transaction, and they would be fully aware, that it did not always follow that a sum intended to be applied for the public service could be said to be actually for the public service. He was entitled to call on gentlemen who contended, that this claim was a claim upon the public, in consequence of the application of the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall to the use of the public, to show from documents, how and when that application of that revenue took place? His learned friend had stated a wish, on the part of the prince of Wales, to give satisfaction to the public. ever had the happiness to be acquainted with his royal highness must be well aware of the truth of that assertion. It was a pleasure to the public to reflect, that such sentiments were entertained by that illustrious prince. It must give satisfaction to every good man that his royal highness had an anxiety to stand well in the opinion of the public. Any man who could entertain a contrary feeling or a different wish, must be void of honour, dead to every generous impression, and ought to be branded as a monster and held up to the scorn of the public. But this was not mere matter of personal anxiety, even in his royal highness, manly and virtuous as that feeling was; that the prince of Wales should stand well in the opinion and affection of the public, was a matter in which the public itself was interested. But, the learned gentleman had stated, that if this matter was fully investigated, it would appear, that when the sums which his royal highness had received were put in opposition to what he was entitled to, his royal highness had not been the occasion of any burthen to the public. Now, as to the state of accounts in this particular, as they applied to sums voted, he had occasion to lay them before the House on a former occasion, in stating the circumstances of the civil list; but he could not consent to the course of proceeding proposed by the motion now before the ability, but from not having applied his talents to the subject in the way in which he conceived it ought to be considered, and particularly according to the practice of the last two centuries. His learned friend contended, that the effect of the act of Charles 2nd, which he quoted, was to abolish tenures, as he had stated the case to apply to the claim of the prince of Wales to the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall. He had great respect for the opinion of his learned friend; but there were others for whose opinion he had also great respect, and which opinion was contrary to that expressed by his learned friend; the technical expression of which was, that in this case of guardianship, in chivalry, the guardian while the ward is declared to be seized, until application for release, being in possession, has a right to the rents and profits belonging to the ward: that the guardian was entitled to the profits and revenues after seizin and until livery is demanded, &c. This was applicable to the case of the prince of Wales. There was no demand of livery made on his behalf, as duke of Cornwall, during his minority. This he understood to be a point of law, on which opinions of the highest authority were adverse to this claim. He was not prepared to give a decided opinion upon it; it was not necessary he should; it was enough for him to know that doubts were entertained by those who were much better qualified than he could pretend to be to form an opinion on it: knowing that these doubts were entertained, he thought it improper to take the step now recommended; for until it was found, that legal redress out of that House was unattainable, he should think the House would be going out of its proper course, by entering on an investigation of the subject. He did not presume to state what these means for legal redress might be, but this he knew, that some of the best informed men were of opinion, that a petition of right was the proceeding proper to be adopted in this case. His learned friend's second head of observations was one on which a few words ought to be bestowed; and here the question was, whether the public had received the revenues and profits of the duchy of Cornwall? This was a part of the case which had about it considerable delicacy. Where was the proof that any part of the duchy of Cornwall had been directly applied to the House; and he called on the House to do him the justice to believe, that he had but one object in view, and that was to arrive at truth. The motion was of two parts; that of deciding upon the question of right, and that of taking the account. Upon the subject of the right, he had stated what had occurred to him by way of answer to the application to the House: he believed it to be by means of a petition of right: he must, however, not be understood to recommend that, or any other proceeding. As to the statement of the account, it appeared that the sums issued for his royal highness out of the civil list were monies which arose out of a fixed allowance, and which it was unnecessary to trouble the House with the detail of; there was an aggregate of 128,481. there was besides an extraordinary allowance of 50,550l. a further sum between the prince of Wales and the duke of York, of 32,000l. the proportion of which that fell to the share of the prince was more than a moiety, but the amount of the advances in the year 1783 was 211,3901. Now, deducting 16,000l. of this aggregate, there would then have been received by the prince at the period he alluded to, upwards of 195,000l. This was applicable only to twelve years of the nonage of the prince of Wales. He believed the average of the allowance of his royal highness during the rest of his minority was 13,000l. a year, so that the whole sum was 233,7641. for nine years. When the prince of Wales came of age, there was a grant made to him out of the civil list, of 50,000l. for his revenue, and which was received by his royal highness until the year 1787, at that period an augmentation of the revenue of his royal highness took place out of the civil list, which was then raised to 60,000l. per annum. The whole amount from that period to the 5th of January 1802, was 865,000l. The whole sum advanced out of the civil list to the prince of Wales, since he came of age, was 1,725,000l. out of which there might be particular items deducted; such as the sum laid out on Carlton-house and some other arrangements that were made, the particulars of which were laid minutely before parliament in 1795. But, under all the circumstances of the affairs of his royal highness, supposing the advances which were made on the one hand, and the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall taken on the other, without [VOL. XXXVI.] touching the question of right, he doubted very much the accuracy of the calculation by which it was found that a considerable balance would be in favour of the prince of Wales. It could not but be matter of joy to the House to hear, that his royal highness intended to appropriate any thing he might receive, to the payment of his debts. The station of heir apparent of the crown, was so high and so onerous, that it perhaps required more than was allowed to him when he came of age. It was much to be wished, for the sake of the feeling and comfort of his royal highness, and indeed upon public grounds it was desirable, that he should be put in possession, as soon as possible, of the means which were granted by parliament. It was to be desired by the public, that every branch of the royal family should be supported with splendor, for the public was interested in that very appearance; and, however the oddity of the expression might excite a smile, he was of opinion, there was much sense in what was once said at the bar of the House of Lords by sir Fletcher Norton, namely, that all the branches of the royal family should be supported with a degree of splendor peculiar to themselves -that their affluence ought to be a conspicuous feather in the cap of state; it was a feeling proper to be cherished by a statesman, for respect to splendor was founded in the nature of man. It was his earnest wish that the payment of the debts of his royal highness should be accelerated as much as possible. It was with considerable reluctance that he opposed a measure that had for its object the attainment of so desirable an end. He knew it might be said, that a guardian, or a father, was not at liberty to make use of what might be left to his son during his minority, but that he was to apply it to the nurture and education of the infant during his minority, and account to him, when he came of age; but, considering the circumstances which attended the creation of the prince of Wales, for the first time duke of Cornwall, which was that of Edward the Black Prince, he thought it hardly possible to conceive, that it was then intended the whole revenue of the duchy of Cornwall should be appropriated by the duke of it, and yet that the king should have all the charge of the maintenance of such prince during his minority. He was not saying that the claim was unfounded; if it was a claim fit to be made, it was fit to be [2 E] |