which certainly was not only burdensome to the individual, but struck directly at the very existence of English literature. On the 17th of February, Mr. T. M. Sutton (solicitor-general to his royal highness the prince of Wales) took an opportunity, upon the chancellor of the exchequer's having moved for a select committe to take into consideration the arrears of the civil list, of calling the attention of the house to the arrears due from the dutchy of Cornwall to the prince of Wales, as his distinct and inalienable right. He stated, that from 1762 to 1783, the years of the prince's minority, the arrears amounted to 900,000l. and that 221,000l. having been voted by parliament at different times, for the use of his royal highness, there remained a balance of 679,000l. In stating the above, he observed, that notwithstanding the sole, undivided, and unalienable right in the prince of Wales to those revenues, it is now found, that for and during the space of nearly his whole life, one part of them has been applied to the civil list, and another to public purposes; that is, in fact, all to the purposes of the public; insomuch that if any question arose, it might be said, that no immediate claim exists between his majesty and the prince of Wales, but between the prince of Wales and the people. And with sincere and undisguised assertion he then declared, that knowing, as he did, the genuine, open, and unaffected sentiments of that illustrious personage, he could take upon him to say, that were the case even otherwise, that personage, distinguished equally for his filial affection, as he ever has been for his urbanity and goodness of heart, would undergo any inconvenience, suffer any affliction, rather than set up a claim against his royal father. These were his unalterable sentiments, these were his determined principles. His majesty, it was true, had received the products of the dutchy of Cornwall during the minority of his royal highness; but it was the receipt of them alone that enabled him to support his establishment without calling upon the public to make good the deficiencies that must otherwise have arisen. The public, of course, derived the full benefit of the reve nues of his royal highness during his minority: and between him and the public the account, therefore, stood at present, the former being, to a considerable amount, the creditor of the latter. Mr. Fox, in reply, said, "I shall certainly trouble the house with a very few words. The house is much obliged to the learned gentleman for the very clear and able manner in which he has stated the claims of his royal highness the prince of Wales with respect to the arrears due to him for the dutchy of Cornwall. I agree with my learned friend in almost every word that has fallen from him, at least as connected with the subject of his royal highness; and I do most sincerely hope, that the house will take up the matter which he has this day suggested. I not only perfectly agree with him, but I approve highly of his wisdom in stating the subject in the way he has done. There is perhaps no blame attributable either to the present or any former administration. I have thought it necessary to say a word or two in consequence of the H 3 learned RHODES HOUSE learned gentleman's having intimated, that the claim of the prince of Wales has never been asserted. It never has been effectually asserted, I admit; but that it was asserted is a fact of which I must remind the house. It is a question which did appear to me to be well worthy the attention of the house. I shall not renew the discussion of the question myself, not because I am not actuated by the same opinion I was formerly, but because I am desirous it should be brought forward by some other gentleman more likely to introduce it with effect. I wish the learned gentleman would state some proposition. He thinks it would come with more propriety from another; that is a point on which we differ. The prince of Wales has considerable claims on the public, and I think his royal highness cannot be better advised than to bring them to the bar of the house of commons; who, in consequence of having overlooked his claims, have voted him considerable sums for the adjustment of the demands against him. Now with respect to these sums, I am clearly of opinion, that whatever has been voted on account of the debts of his royal highness ought to be deducted. It is, in my opinion, the greatest hardship under which any man, in any situation, could have been placed, to have been obliged, on various occasions, to have the amount of his debts stated to the public, to have been subjected to all the comments and observations which were made with regard to his royal highness, when at the same time he was entitled to much more, as a right, than he was requesting as a grant. The honourable gentleman has stated, that it was not the will of his royal highness to make any complaint to the house. I think his royal highness has acted right. I have every good wish towards the heir apparent, and it was a most painful duty to me to state what I did when the 70,000l. was first proposed to be appropriated out of the 120,000l. granted by parliament towards the liquidation of his former debts. I think I owe it to his royal highness to state the question shortly, not as affecting him, but as the more immediate business of the vote of this night. I thought the sum of 120,000l. not too great a sum for the prince of Wales. The honourable gentleman had stated, that prince Frederick had 100,000l. in the year 1742; he might have adopted a better mode of comparison, by considering it with reference to the increase of the civil list. I thought that 120,000l. a year was liberal, but not extravagant. Why then did I suggest to the house, and support the proposition, that this should be reduced to 50,000l. by applying the remainder to the payment of his debts, notwithstanding my opinion, that if in consequence of too small a provision he had incurred debts, it became parliament to pay them. I did it, because his royal highness had declared the income granted to him was sufficient. I said, it was not for his royal highness, after such a declaration, to come to parliament, and desire it to pav his debts. I mention this today, because I think it will be found to apply to the question respecting the civil list, and will become material when that subject is discussed. On the question immediately relating to the motion be fore fore the house, I shall say a few words. As the message has been presented from his majesty, and been referred to a committee of supply, (a proper respect to his majesty, though perhaps not one which the house ought as a matter of course to comply with,) I shall support the present motion, without entering into the subject. If it is to go to a select committee, it may be as well to avoid previous investigation; but it is not to be supposed by assenting to the motion I give even a momentary approbation to the application to parliament to discharge the arrears due upon the civil list. Although I am ready now to give my vote upon the subject, and state my reasons, yet the proper time will be when the accounts are discussed. There is one thing which I wish the house to attend to. It is a very material circumstance in the history of this country, that since the revolution, the practice has been to grant, soon after the king's accession to the throne, a civil list establishment for life. I know there are many persons who doubt the propriety of such a custom. I have at my leisure considered the question, and I am clearly of opinion, that our ancestors were right in giving a civil establishment for life upon the king's accession. It is granted upon the principle that you are giving an ample provision for life, and at the same time that it is a limited one: but if the civil list is to come repeatedly to parliament for payment of debts, it is highly absurd to call it a limited civil list. See to what the argument will go; will it not be the strongest argument in favour of the measure of grant ing the civil list from year to year, or from time to time? If you think parliament is not able to judge what sum is sufficient to give his majesty for life, you ought not to suffer parliament to give it. You ought not to grant his majesty 900,000l. a year as a provision for life, and at the same time remain subject to the payment of the debts he may contract beyond that sum. If there is an excess of expenditure beyond that sum, you are liable to make it good; but on the other hand, if the expenditure is less than the grant, there is no likelihood of the public getting any part of it back again. It is the very essence of a civil list that it should be limited; and his majesty ought not to be permitted to come to parliament to desire it to make the civil list equal to his expenses; but he should take care to square his expenses to the civil list. I believe gentlemen will find the application to parliament to pay the arrears of the civil list very rare; for the principle of a limited civil list proceeds on this, that the expenditure should suit the income, and not the income suit the expenditure. I will not go at large into the question, but observing only, that the politics of the present reign show I do not allude to any thing that has occurred in the course of it, I will content myself with remarking, that if the civil list was voted from year to year, there would be this disadvantage, supposing the state of politics to be the same as in the reign of king William and queen Anne, and perhaps a part of the reigns of George the First and Second. Are we sure that a prince who wanted money, and for purposes in which the in H 4 terest terest of the nation was not concerned, would not, if he was such a character as king William, apply both to the whigs and the tories and it might be a question whether those should not receive his support who paid him the most. With a view to the payment of his debts, a king might make choice of his minister not so much for his capacity, his integrity, and his public character, as on account of his being a person who would at various times be ready to apply to parliament and facilitate the paying of the arrears of the civil list. If you give a prince a nominally limited establishment, and at the same time afford him a hope that you will also pay his debts, you place him in a situation of running into great expenses, to defray which he must afterwards depend on parliament. That is a sort of dependence on parliament which I think ought not to exist with regard to a king. Upon the first view, therefore, of the subject, I am against paying the debts of the crown; they may be paid by setting apart a certain portion of the civil list, in the same manner as has been done with respect to the establishment of the prince of Wales. The house will certainly act with great injustice, if the rule which was applicable to the debts of his royal highness is not to be applicable to the debts of the civil list. As to the question relating to his royal highness, it cannot come before the house so well as if brought forward by the learned gentleman; but if he does not, I hope his majesty's ministers will submit it to the house as early as possible; for let me ask the house, whether it is fit or just that his royal highness should be in the situation in which he is placed, when at the same time he has a claim upon the public for a debt of such magnitude? I shall be happy if any mode can be stated by which the question may undergo legal discussion, previous to its being considered by the house. I for one, as being part of the administration of 1783, take blame to myself for not having put it in a course of inquiry. When we consider that the claim was in his royal highness the moment he came of age, we ought to censure our own negligence in leaving it to be agitated now, when he is in his fortieth year. It is neither honourable to the country, or to his royal highness. Surely the house has waited long enough; and after such a delay, it would be fair to inquire how far the revenues of his royal highness have been applied in aid of the civil list." The honourable member concluded by stating, he was clear the claim of the prince ought to be paid by the public, and that it was material and important that the question should be settled. Mr. Pitt." I too mean to trouble the house but with very few words. After this claim of his royal highness has been stated in the manner it has, and with so much propriety and ability, it does become the ho nour of the house that some proper mode should be adopted for putting it in a course of inquiry. I should think it improper to offer an opinion till I have heard every thing that can be offered upon the subject. Whatever preconceived opinion I may have formed in consequence of its having formerly been my duty to look into the subject, I should feel it improper to state that opinion till the question is fairly discussed. With respect to the other part part of the subject, I agree with an ultimate decision; and I rejoice that my learned friend has taken the step he has to introduce it to the consideration of the house." After some observations from Mr. Nicholls, a committee was moved for and appointed to consider the papers respecting the above claims. On the same day leave was given to bring in a bill to repeal the countervailing duty on American vessels; the American government having agreed to take off the duty it had imposed on British shipping. The period of the conclusion of the definitive treaty still continuing undecided, on the 3d of March administration was again driven to the necessity of demanding a supply on the war establishment for sixty-one days; the sum to be raised for the army was 1,270,0951. Mr. Elliot, Mr. Wyndham, Mr. Baker, and Dr. Lawrence, pressed on the house the fraud and perfidy of France in every transaction of that power since the signing of the preliminary articles. That the hand that signed them on the part of Great Britain, had signed the humiliation, the disgrace, and the declension of this country; that the situation of the two countries were materially altered since that treaty ; and that the house was not bound by its former opinion upon them, if the circumstances which led to that opinion no longer existed. The acquisition of Louisiana and of the island of Elba he here particularly adverted to. Lords Hawkesbury and Castlereagh, and the attorney general (Law), defended the measures of govern |