worthy of the management of a large income, by his prudence, which was the only virtue he was ever charged with wanting. After some observation from Mr. Banks, who thought that the prince ought to prosecute his petition of right, the resolution moved by Mr. Addington, was unanimously agreed to in the committee. His majesty's message on this subject, was taken into consideration in the house of lords, on the 25th of February. Lord Pelham, after a very few preliminary observations, moved an address to his majesty, similar to that moved in the house of com mons. Lord Carlisle seconded the motion for the address, but wished the question, had been decided on the petition of right. After a few words from lord Moira, in praise of the conduct of his royal highness upon this occasion, the address was unanimously agreed to. On the 28th Mr. Tyrwhitt brought down a message from the prince of Wales, in which his royal highness, after expressing his gratitude for the liberality of parliament; declared that there were claims still upon him, both in honor and justice, for the discharge of which, he must still set apart a considerable sinking fund. Mr. Calcraft gave notice of a motion, to enable his royal highness immediately to resume his state and dignity; which Mr. Erskine declared was without the prince's knowledge. On the same evening, a bill for extending the period for exercising the militia from twenty-one to twenty-eight days annually, was brought into the house of commons, by the secretary at war, and was passed there without any serious opposition. It was brought into the house of lords, on the 3d day of March; and, on lord Hobart's moving for the second reading of the bill, The duke of Montrose took view of the relative and positive strength of France, in the present moment, which made the proper training and discipline of our militia, a very serious and important consideration. He considered twenty-eight days too few, and wished that at least one third of the militia, should be exercised double that number of days. He thought it necessary to augment the national defence, in proportion to the increased danger of the times.. After a few words from lord Hobart, who complimented the zeal shewn by his grace upon the present occasion, the bill was read a second time, and afterwards passed, without any opposition whatever. On the 4th of March there was a very long and interesting debate in the house of commons, on the motion of Mr. Calcraft, respecting the prince's establishment. That gentleman began, by stating, that the motion he was now to bring forward, originated solely with himself, and that he had not communicated with any person on the subject, previously to his giving the notice. He said the country was anxious, to see the heir apparent resume that state and dignity, due to his exalted rank; which, notwithstanding the liberal grant of parliament, could not now be done, unless there were some arrangements made made for those claims, which affected the honor and justice of the prince, and which otherwise he must levy upon a considerable part of his income, to discharge: He therefore moved, that a select committee should be appointed, to inquire into the extent of those claims, which had been signified to the house, in the message from his royal highness. Sir W. Geary seconded the motion. Mr. Erskine said, that when on a former day, he had asserted this motion was brought on, without the knowledge of his royal highness; he by no means meant to say, that it was on that account improper for discussion in that house. His royal highness felt grateful for the kindness of his majesty, and for the great liberality of parliament. He was amply satisfied, and personally felt himself no way interested in the motion. If he therefore coincided in the motion, it was as a member of parliament, and not as servant to the prince. As to the prince's claims for an account of the revenues of Cornwall, they were most undoubtedly valid; but he did not mean to say that what was expend ed for his education and support during his minority, should not be charged against that account. previous question. Mr. Curwen seconded the motion. If his royal highness found himself still involved in debts, it would be right of him to pay them; but he could hardly expect the public to be satisfied, with a burden which might appear to them as proceeding from extravagance. thought a committee would be inconvenient, as, if debts appear that the committee did not think fair, it was not to be supposed that parliament would pay them. He Mr. Hilliard supported the origi nal motion. Mr. Johnstone objected to the motion most decidedly. At a time, that such large revenues were raised upon the subject, he could not consent to such an increase of the public burdens. As to the Cornwall He claims, he thought the time for the prince to urge his right, was in the year 1795; but then he preferred appealing to the liberality of parliament. He said, there was another very good reason for not prosecuting this claim. The whole amount of the revenues of Cornwall, from his birth to his coming of age, was but £234,000, and the expences were at least as much; therefore, it did not appear that Ꮐ was glad that the subject was now at rest; and he was only anxious for the honor of the prince, that it should be known, that he had, out of his own revenues, paid, within the last eight years, the sum of £375,000; and that now, at forty years of age, he did not owe one shilling to the public. Mr. Fuller supported the motion, as did Mr. Cartwright. Vol. XLV. there there would be any thing coming to him out of those revenues. Mr. H. Lascelles opposed the. motion. He thought the Cornwall claims were only held over the house in terrorem ; while indirect applications were making. Mr. Burdon thought, that if such a committee were appointed, it would be in the awkwardest situation that ever a committee of that house was placed: it could not pretend to inquire into debts of honor, which certainly an act of parliament could not mean to consider. Mr. Tierney voted for the committee, but would not pledge himself to vote the payment of all sums that might be found undischarged; but, as a member of parliament, he wished to know what the circumstances were, which prevented the prince from resuming his splendor. He contended that his royal highness was the least expensive prince of Wales who had ever existed; and that £30,000 was all that the public had advanced to him by extraordinary grants; if the revenues of Cornwall were deducted, as they ought to be. The £125,000, which was assigned for the prince, in 1795, was not more than the £100,000 per annum, which had been given to his grand-father, in 1733. He believed, considering the difference of times, that it was not so much. He concluded with giv ing his hearty assent to the motion. The chancellor of the exchequer said, that knowing as he did the sentiments of his royal highness upon this subject, the present motion was to him rather matter of surprize than of any other sensation. In point of regularity, no proceedings could be taken on the present motion, without a previous recom→ mendation from the crown,: The message that had been sent down, had nothing to do with the payment of the prince's debts, which had been provided for by a previous arrangement; after that arrangement of 1795 it was impossible for his majesty to conceive, that any fresh debts could have been incurred; nor could the house take notice of such debts. It would be disgraceful to have entered on the journals, a third proceeding for the payment of debts. He insisted that the Cornwall claim was by no means as clear as had been stated, and that some of the first law authorities were of a contrary opinion; and besides, parliament had given large sums, far exceeding the amount of those claims, for the payment of the prince's debts. He therefore opposed the motion. Mr. Fox supported the original motion: he had himself no doubt of the validity of the prince's claim to an account of the revenues of Cornwall, and he did not think any person could advise his majesty to resist them, on the ground "that he had educated the prince of Wales handsomely, and given him the same masters as his other sons, and therefore that he ought to be paid for it." The debts of the civil list, had been several times paid during the present reign; particularly in 1769, 1777, and 1782, and no other ground was alleged for the debt, except the high price of the articles of life. Although he did not much approve of this prac tice, yet he thought the principle would apply, as strongly at least to the situation of the prince, as to any other whatever. Mr. Mr. Sheridan supported the original motion with great force, and answered the objections in the happiest vein of humour. He consider ed, that coupling the message which had been sent by his majesty, with that which came down from his royal highness, the house had documents enough to see, that the intentions of his majesty could not be carried into execution on the sum now voted; and therefore it was competent to them to increase the vote an honorable member (Mr. Johnston) had said, that in 1795, when the spirit of jacobinism was abroad, less objections were made to increase the splendor and dignity of the royal family: this was was indeed a strange principle for supporting royalty. It reminded him of the story ofthe conversation of the two owls in a ruined castle. One of them said "Long live king Mahmoud! as long as he lives to carry on his devastations, we owls will never want ruined castles to build our nests in." The royal family might say on the same principle "Long live the Jacobins ! as long as they exist, we shall enjoy all the splendor and dignity due to our rank; but the moment the spirit of loyalty returns, and the love of monarchy resumes its place in the hearts of the people, we shall be thrown on the shelf." In reply to Sir Robert Buxton, (who appeared to despise all external trappings, and think that virtue alone was the only true dignity of a prince,) he said he was ready to admit the principle; but not to confine it entirely to the heir apparent for instance, if all the great officers of state would consent to rest upon their virtues, it would be very well: if the speaker, when going to present an address to his majesty would dispense with his gilded coach and mace, and walk to St. James's, wrapped up in his virtues, and a warm surtout, with the privilege of carrying an umbrella, if it should rain: if our judges would lay aside their state, and go their circuits in the mail coaches; and the gentlemen of the bar move as outside passengers: if the lord mayor and sheriffs, instead of their gilt barges and Guildhall banquets, would come down in hackney coaches, and dine at Dolly's chophouse on their return: then indeed it would be undoubtedly right, that the prince should conform to the prevailing customs, and lay aside all his state and splendor. Mr. Sheridan concluded a very hu morous and argumentative speech by supporting Mr. Calcraft's motion. Lord Hawkesbury defended the arrangement which had been proposed by ministers, in consequence of a message from his majesty; the house could not, as members of parliament, look into any debts contracted by his royal highness since 1795; the discharge of such debts (if they existed) must be left entirely to his own honor and prudence. No new account ought. now to be entered into about debts, and there was nothing, in either the message or the proceedings of parliament thereon, respecting his speedy re-assumption of his state. Sir John Wrottesley and Mr. Smith spoke in favor of the motion, and lord Castlereagh against it. The house divided upon the provious question: the ayes were 184, the noes 139. On the 14th day of March, the Prince of Wales's annuity bill was read a second time in the house of lords; previously to which, lord Pelham made some observations on the length of time, the prince had lived in a state of comparative obscurity; and the universal wish that seemed now to pervade the house, and the public, that he should be relieved from his difficulties. Lord Moira stated, that on account of debts, which the prince found binding upon him, both in honor and in justice, he was prevented even now from resuming his state and dignity; but felt grateful to parliament, and content with the allowance they had made him; and had instructed his counsel to drop the proceedings respecting Cornwall. The earl of Carlisle felt, that this provision, was not sufficient to enable his royal highness to resume his state; but in the present circumstances of the country, he thought no more could be done. The earl of Darnley was of the same opinion, but did not consider the situation of the country so perilous as to justify despondency. The duke of Norfolk thought, the allowance for the prince insufficient; and that a person of his clevated rank in the state, ought not to be left in a situation, where he was eclipsed by many lords and many commoners: he knew how ever, that votes for a grant of money must originate in the other house. Lord Caernavon disapproved of the bill, as inadequate to its object, and as unconstitutional, in getting rid of the Cornwall claims, which was a civil list debt, without any inquiry. The earl of Moira, in explanation, denied that the abandonment of the Cornwall claims was at all the effect of a compromise: his royal highness had only made that claim for the benefit of his creditors, but when he found that the allowance now proposed would en nable him to satisfy his debts, without recurring to it, he abandoned it with pleasure. The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed. The original proposition which had been made by ministers, for giving the prince of Wales an annuity of £60,000 per ann. for three years was the final settlement of this important business: for in a few days after, an event took place, which caused the prince to signify to the house by Mr. Erskine, (his chancellor) that he could not think at such a time, of increasing farther the burdens of the country; and that he was perfectly satisfied with what parliament had done. This large division against Mr. Addington, in the house of commons, the greatest he had yet en countered, sufficiently manifested the sense of the house, to be with the prince of Wales; and the public beheld, in the minister's conduct upon this occasion, either a mysterious ambiguity, or a low spirit of chicane, equally unworthy the high situation he filled. It was recollected, with surprize, that administration had refused to entertain, in the course of the last session of parliament, a proposition for considering the amount of his royal highness's claims, as the creditor of the public; and the reference he proposed to make upon them to the judgment and wisdom of the legis lation, |