referred to the famous case of ship-money, which was argued in the reign of Charles I. and in which it was held, by the most eminent judges of that day, that all the natural profits arising from captures at sea, as well as the profits of lettres of marque, ought to be applied to the guarding and protecting of the national interests at sea, and could not; upon any principle, be considered as constituting a right by prerogative. He maintained, that even in the worst of times, not only parliamentary grants, but royal prerogatives, were considered as destined to the service of the country; and he quoted a dictum, which had been repeated by Sir William Scott in the court of admiralty, capta bello cedunt reipublicæ, and from this he inferred, that prizes must belong to the state, and not to the crown. That before the Revolution the expences of war were not regularly supplied by parliament, but generally by the crown from those very funds which were now described as the private property of the king; that parliament has often interfered with the prerogative of the crown, when that prerogative was turned into abuse, that upon this principle the temporalities of bishoprics had been taken from the crown, when a shameful and lavish use had been made of them: That the principle of parliamentary interference with the royal prerogative, was recognized in the reigns of William and Mary and Queen Anne; and even in the present reign, an act had been passed which directed the commissioners of Dutch prizes to pay the prize droits into the bank of England, and not to the receiver-general of droits. That the mode of receiving and issuing the various sums which compose the fund in dispute, is quite unconstitutional; that the droits of admiralty are received by the registrar of the high court of admiralty, and

remain in the hands of the receiver-general of droits, commissioners of prizes, and the bank of England, but never find their way into the exchequer ; that the money is taken out of the bank of England in a manner which infers no responsibility-not only under the authority of the privy seal, but of a warrant under the sign manual only 3 that the fund under consideration is, perhaps more than any other, liable to abuse, and might be turned to purposes most detrimental to the real interests of the crown and of the country; that it gives the crown an interest in commencing hostilities in a way the least honourable to the nation, and the least consistent with that good faith, candour, and magnanimity, which form such proud features in the character of the English people, and that the fund in question is that from which the most worthless minions of faction will, in all probability, be remunerated; men, whom even the minister would not dare to place openly on the pension list with such names as those of Nelson, St Vincent, and Wellington.-That having thus urged his objections to the principles upon which this fund was left with the crown, he was not called upon to specify abuses which had actually occurred; but, at the same time, he could not help alluding to the great surplus of expenditure on the civil list, to the provisions out of the droits of admiralty which had been made to the princes, and to the large allowance granted to Sir Home Popham, all of which at least rendered the administration of this immense fund extremely suspicious. He concluded, by moving, that the possession by the crown of funds raised otherwise than by the grant of parliament, is contrary to the principles of the constitution; that it is the peculiar duty of the House of Commons to enquire into the nature of all such

funds; that the prodigious increase in the value of the droits of admiralty calls for the immediate interference of the legislature; that their amount is now nearly eight millions; that this enormous sum has been at the disposal of the crown, although parliament has made ample provision for the royal expenditure; and that the House of Commons, having taken these matters into consideration, will adopt the most efficient means for bringing this fund under the immediate controul of parliament.

In answer to these arguments it was justly observed,that the precedents and authorities which had been relied on to prove the right of parliament to interfere with the droits of admiralty, were all of a very ancient date, and prior to the Revolution; that, since that great event, there have been in the Commons House of Parliament many intelligent lawyers, extremely jealous of the prerogative of the crown, who have never questioned its right to the droits of admiralty; that it has been the practice for a century past to fix the revenue of the crown at the beginning of each reign; and as continual applications to parliament to supply the gradual increase of expenditure which arises from the depreciation of money and the increase of prices, would lead to great inconveniences, it is far better that a fund should be at the disposal of the crown from which deficiencies may be supplied, this fund, at the same time, remaining subject to the controul of parliament, which can always interfere to resist abuses in the expenditure. It was well observed by some members, that if a grant such as this of the droits of admiralty be incompatible with the constitution, so must all the acts which settle the civillist revenue, since, by each of them, the legislature leaves at the disposal of the crown, property not immediately

granted by the parliament.-That the clamour which had been raised about the excess in the civil-list expenditure was quite unreasonable; that the circumstances which had occasioned this excess were known to the whole country; and that even Mr Justice Blackstone, a writer not disposed to compromise the rights of the people, had acknowledged the insufficiency of the civil list to answer the claims upon it. That the amount of the droits of admiralty had been very greatly overrated by those who supported the motion; and that it is highly expedient to have a fund of this kind at the disposal of the crown, with a view to some of the most important branches of the public service. Many cases may occur in which captors, acting with the most perfect bona fides, may commit errors, which, but for the interposition of that government so faithfully served by them, might overwhelm them with ruin. Mr Rose, in the course of the debate, mentioned a memorable instance of this kind. He stated, that the late Lord Nelson, then Captain Nelson, when stationed in the West Indies, soon after the American war, had actions brought against him for upwards of 90,000l. for having enforced the navigation act. The case of Captain Nelson was carefully investigated by government; it was found, that although he had acted with a laudable zeal for the public service, the proceedings instituted against him might have ended in his ruin; but the ministers wisely interfered to give him that support which he could never have received, if the droits of admiralty, the only fund applicable to such purposes, had not been at the disposal of the crown. Many such cases must occur in the course of the public service, which, from the constitution of parlia ment, could never be brought under its review. As a question of right,

therefore, this motion could not be supported; the right to the droits of admiralty has been vested in the crown for upwards of a century; and whatever may have been the opinions entertained at an early period, the various civil-list acts which have been passed since the Revolution, unquestionably continue this fund with the crown as a branch of the prerogative. Whether it be expedient that this prerogative shall still remain untouched, and that the droits of admiralty shall continue at the disposal of the crown, subject however to the controul of parliament, when a proper case for interference is made out, is a different although not a more doubtful question. The history of parliamentary interferences with the royal prerogative, shews that it has not been usual, and is not of course constitutional, wantonly to trench upon any prerogative, until a case of abuse shall be clearly established; and, as it was not seriously pretended, in the present instance, that abuses existed, there could be no reason for acceding to the motion. These arguments had their proper weight with the house, and the resolutions of Mr Brougham were accordingly negatived. He afterwards made an attempt to get a committee appointed to enquire into the alleged abuses of this fund; but the house negatived his motion.

Another subject connected with the arrangements of the household and of the civil list was brought forward by Mr Creevey. About the beginning of the reign of Charles I. a grant of the whole island of Barbadoes, then of very small value, was made to the Earl of Carlisle. During the troubles of the civil war and protectorate, how ever, many persons went over as settlers, and Barbadoes soon became a prosperous colony. The Earl of Carlisle died very much in debt, and his son transferred the grant of the is

land of Barbadoes to the Earl of Kinnoul. After the Restoration, however, the creditors of the Earl of Carlisle having made some claim on the island, which threatened to disturb the right of the settlers, a deputation of the latter came to England, and made a tender to the crown of certain rights and duties, on condition of their being secured in the possession of their property. The patent in favour of the Earl of Carlisle was accordingly surrendered; an annuity of 10001. was settled on Lord Kinnoul; the property of the planters was secured against all challenge, and the right of the crown to the duties was established. It had been agreed, that these duties should be collected in the shape of an impost on the dead commodities of the island, at the rate of 4 in specie for every five score; and the duties have since got the name of the 4 per cent. Leeward Island duties. Part of this revenue was to be applied to lo cal purposes in the island of Barbadoes, but the remainder was reserved to the king. In the reign of WilliamIII. this fund was recognised by two acts of parliament as part of the hereditary revenue of the crown; and although it was agreed, in the reign of Queen Anne, in consequence of an application from the colony, to apply this revenue to repair the fortifications of Barbadoes, no surrender of the fund, on the part of the crown, has ever been made, nor has parlia ment attempted to interfere with its application. At the beginning of the present reign, this fund, like the droits of admiralty, was reserved to the crown, and of course the prerogative right cannot well be questioned. Mr Creevey, however, was of opinion, that these duties were the property of the inhabitants of Barbadoes, and ought to be applied to colonial purposes an opinion in which no one

concurred with him. He thought, at all events, that the house should resolve that these duties ought to find their way into the exchequer that they ought to be applied in aid of the public expenditure, and not reserved as a part of the prerogative of the crown; but as this proposition implied an unnecessary and unjustifiable encroachment on the prerogative, he was not supported in his attempt to disturb it. He finally maintained, that the abuses in the application of this revenue called for parliamentary interference; but as he was unable to specify any such abuse, his motion for a committee was negatived.

The questions connected with the civil list naturally excited very great interest; and it is not wonderful that every effort was made to ascertain the nature and amount of the expenditure. A motion was accordingly made by Mr Eden for a select committee, to enquire into the charges on the civil list; and as ministers had nothing to conceal, they readily agreed to the proposal. A circumstance deserving of notice occurred in the course of the discussion. The charge on account of foreign embassies constitutes a very considerable branch of the aggregate charge upon the civil-list revenue; and in the accounts presented to the house, in consequence of the motion, large sums were stated for the mission of Mr Arbuthnot to the Porte, and of the Marquis Wellesley to Spain. It was strongly insinuated that many errors had crept into these accounts; but a short explanation was found sufficient to remove every suspicion. Mr Arbuthnot was present in his place as a member of the house to answer for himself; and Mr Richard Wellesley was prepared to explain every thing on the part of his brother. So minute and satisfactory were the explanations given by these gentlemen; so clear of

all suspicion did the accounts of the embassies appear on the closest scrutiny; nay, so deeply was the public indebted, in a pecuniary point of view, to those who had served it with zeal and ability, that men of all parties assented to the justice of the charge made upon the civil list on account of these distinguished persons.

A message from the Prince Regent was sent down to the House of Commons, recommending that a suitable provision should be made for the princesses. By acts passed in the 18th and 39th of his present majesty's reign, the king was empowered to make a grant (contingently in the event of his majesty's demise) of 30,000l. as an annuity to the four princesses who were in life when the acts were passed. If the number of the annuitants should be reduced to three, each of them was to have 10,000l. a-year; if to two, 20,000l. a-year was to be divided between them; and if to one, the survivor was to have 12,000l. a-year. Such was the provision which parliament had enabled the king to make for the princesses in the event of his majesty's demise; but the melancholy circumstances which had recently occurred seemed to place their royal highnesses in the same condition as if the demise of the crown had actually taken place. The princesses had hitherto lived in family with their royal parents; but as they might now desire a change in this respect, and might even prefer to live separately from each other, it became necessary to make suitable provisions for them. It was proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that to each of the four princesses the sum of 90001. per annum should be granted, exclusively of the grant of 40001. from the civil list, a sum which, as it was payable during pleasure, could not with certainty be relied upon. He proposed

abo, that upon the death of one of the princesses, the survivors should receive the sum of 10,000l. per annum each; on the death of a second, that the two survivors should continue to receive 10,000l. each; and on the death of a third, that the sole survivor should receive 12,000l. per annum. By this arrangement, it was intended that the former resolutions of the legislature, with regard to their royal highnesses, should be carried into effect, making allowance for the change of circumstances occasioned by a fall in the value of money.

To a proposal, apparently so reasonable, various objections were offered. Mr Creevey was greatly alarmed by the proposition for charging this allowance to the princesses on the consolidated fund; and although he admitted that there was a large surplus of that fund, and that the public creditor was of course most amply secured, for the present at least, yet was he alarmed lest the fund might ultimately become inadequate to answer the demands which might be made on it. This view of the case was somewhat extravagant, and few of Mr Creevey's own friends ventured to support him in it; but he had another cause of complaint, which appeared better founded. He asked, Why this provision for the princesses had not been proposed when the house was engaged in a general settlement of the civil-list revenue? and added, that by bringing forward measures in detail for the support of the royal family, ministers were enabled to conceal the real state of the expenditure from the country.

Mr Whitbread took different ground in his opposition to the measure. He contended, that the 10,0001. which had so lately been granted to the queen, had been voted by the House of Commons on the supposition that the princesses were still to continue to live in

family with their royal parents. But, in this view of the case, he had misunderstood the late arrangements; for it had been expressly stated, that the additional grant was to be voted to the queen, solely on account of the expense to which she might be put by the melancholy situation of the king. He thought that the allowances to the princesses might very well be paid out of the immense fund which had so lately been voted to the Prince Regent ; although, when making this statement to the house and to the country, Mr Whitbread could not have forgotten, that the civil list, as transferred to his royal highness, was less by 50,0001. than that which had been enjoyed by the king-Mr Tierney thought, that as there was no reason to believe that. the princesses would not continue to live together, the proposed grant was extravagant; although he admitted, that if they should determine to live separately, the provision would be no more than reasonable. Mr Tierney thus in effect declared, that such a provision only ought to be made for the princesses as should confine them to a manner of life which they might find disagreeable or inconvenient.--Mr Ponsonby had still another reason for opposing the grant. His objection was, that the present measure would put the princesses in immediate possession of their provisions, while they had formerly obtained nothing more than a contingent right to them to become effectual on the demise of the crown. He forgot that their royal father had already lost the power of executing the intentions of the legislature in their favour; that as to them the demise of the crown had already in effect taken place; that the king's superintending care had been withdrawn from them; that it depended upon chance whether the provisions origi nally intended should ever be made