Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

adopted, and ought to be so without delay. But a doubt was entertained on the subject. In 1783, when the duke of York came of age, there was much difference of opinion on the subject of the title of his royal highness, as now insisted on; and it was matter of surprise that the claims, as they were now stated, had so long escaped the vigilance of so many able men as had their attention so particularly called to this subject. He did not think he should be justified, under the present circumstances, in recommending to the House the adoption of this motion. There was one general objection, that of its blending two objects, in themselves naturally distinct, the question of right and the question of account. But his leading objection was this, that wherever there was a wrong in this country, there must be some redress. Such a point, in his opinion, ought not to be entertained in that House. If it had appeared in proof, that no application for redress could be made elsewhere, or had been made elsewhere in vain, it would then be time enough to apply to that House; but in the present posture of this case, he must oppose this motion, as one which did not come under the legitimate functions of that House. Nothing but absolute necessity could justify its adoption. He was unwilling to negative such a proposition as this, because it might be made a question elsewhere; but he could not support it, and would conclude with moving, "That the other orders of the day be

now read."

| king himself at that period, as well as the parliament, considered the right of the prince of Wales to the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall to be clear and unquestionable. This, indeed, was obvious by that king coming himself in person to his parliament when the prince was only two years of age, to take some of it away, but still more from the petition of right decided two years afterwards, when the entire revenues were restored. This was a full recognition of the right, by parliament, and by a monarch whose interest and disposition to the contrary had been so manifest; and this decision, without a whisper to the contrary, remained untouched to the present hour. It was true, that when Charles 1st was prince of Wales, it became a question, whether he was so entitled, but his title was only doubted upon the legal construction of filius primogenitus.-In the present instance there was but one point for consideration; viz. whether these parliamentary proceedings and other documents were sufficiently satisfactory, or whether a doubt remained for the decision of another tribunal. For his own part, he thought them absolutely conclusive, and consequently a sufficient foundation for the determination of the House without further controversy. He then went through the history of livery of seisin as dependent upon tenure until abolished by the 12th of Charles 1st, and said, that no prince of Wales had had livery of the duchy of Cornwall.-George 2nd, when prince of Wales, had no livery of seisin; his present majesty had none, and the present prince of Wales had none.-The claim, therefore, was not a doubtful one to be settled by a legal decision, but one that had been recognized for ages, and confirmed by repeated acts of parliament. Indeed, the only reason for asking the aid of the House of Commons was, because, though a petition of right had for a long time been prepared, difficulties had occurred in its progress; the best endeavours had been employed, but no certain advance had been hitherto made towards a decision. With regard to the account, he would say nothing, except that it was on all hands agreed, if the right were found to be with the prince, that his royal highness had not, in any period of his life, been the smallest burthen to the public.

Mr. Erskine rose to support the motion, and maintained that the length of time that had elapsed from the origin of the grant to the present period, was no answer to the claim, and if the law was clear, the House would be so far from being out of its course in entertaining the motion, that it would be in the direct discharge of its duty to the public. The only proper way of ascertaining the law upon the subject would be by referring it to a committee; and if upon the report, the matter appeared to be doubtful, it would be then time enough for the House to say so, by declining to proceed any farther. Mr. Erskine then took an historical review of the statutes and other records, from the time of the grant of Edward 3rd, to the Black Prince downwards; all of which, he said, were in favour of the right, and that it appeared from the statute of Henry 6th, that the

The Master of the Rolls observed, that the proposition of his learned friend had

been submitted to the House with every | in the duchy of Cornwall. His learned possible advantage which could arise from friend had contended, that the claim of Luminous statement, or a display of the his royal highness was a legal claim, soundest judgment and discretion. How by which nothing else could, with any ever he felt himself under the necessity of propriety, be meant, than a claim founded opposing the proposition, it was impos- on principles of law. If this, then, was sible not to feel respect for the motives the case, what had the House to do with by which it had been suggested, and he the discussion? Was it by a committee was ready at once to allow that the anxiety of the House that the rights of property of his royal highness for the discussion were to be tried? He wished his learned of his claims, arose much more from a friend to state, what was the kind of juriswish that the real state of the account be- diction which they were to exercise on twixt him and the public might be ascer- this point. In the first place, the existtained, than with any hope of immediate ence of the right was fully asserted, and advantage. Still, however, the proposi- then a committee of the House was to be tion was one which called upon the House converted into a court of judicature to to exercise judicial functions and legal in- decide on its validity. If the case had vestigations; and no disposition, however been doubtful, it was allowed that it ought strong, to display marks of affection to to be referred to a regular court of judihis royal highness, should induce the cature; but he would contend, that if House, consistently with the order of every member were convinced that the their proceedings, to entertain such a dis- right did exist, the House could not accussion. Discussions collateral with the cede to the proposition. If the doctrine general subject now under consideration held on the other side were once admitted, might indeed be introduced, but they and if the House were thus to take upon were wholly unnecessary, and for this rea- itself to decide what rights were clear; son he would not enter into them on the would there, he asked, be any protection present occasion. On a similar principle, against the grossest infringements on prohe would forbear to give any opinion on perty of every description?-The House, the claims of his royal highness, for if it it was said, was never to interfere, except should hereafter be found expedient to when the case submitted to their consiinstitute some legal inquiries, it might deration was perfectly clear; but how perhaps fall to his lot to assist in framing false and dangerous did such a declaration the decision which might be given; and appear when applied to analogous circumsure he was that he would enter on any stances. Did it not daily happen, that in such investigation without the smallest one court of judicature, a point appeared portion of bias on his mind. True it was, quite clear, which, on being considered that in 1795 he had, when the general by the court of review, seemed altogether subject of his royal highness's affairs were as ambiguous and obscure? Suppose a under consideration, expressed doubts how point were decided a hundred times, and far the claims in question could be legally a litigant chose to think it clear in his fasubstantiated; but it would be recollected vour, would that be any ground for him to that he had, on the same occasion, con- come to the House and demand their defessed that he was far from being possesscision? Did not his learned friend who ed of documents sufficient to found any spoke last in every term submit motions decided opinion. As he had alluded to to a court of judicature, on points which this period, he could not omit pressing almost all the profession allowed were unupon the attention of the House, that at answerably clear? It thus appeared, that period not a single individual, as far then, that the grand argument for the as his recollection extended, had held adoption of the proposition, from the clearsuch high language on the subject of the ness of the prince's claims, was totally falclaims as that which was now employed. lacious, and therefore any farther objec Even an hon. general who had taken a tion might perhaps be considered as an very active part in the discussion, had act of supererogation. not spoken of them in such terms, nor was a proposition then made by him for introducing a clause into the bill then framed, instructing the prince's commissioners to institute suits for the recovery of debts due to the prince on his revenues §

[ocr errors]

He would, however, shortly advert to another part of the argument of his learned friend. He had no hesitation in admitting the truth of all that was said about the prince of Wales being lord of the duchy of Cornwall at the moment of his birth; but, unfortunately,

one of the doubts which might be enter the civil list or to the public. If any retained, arose at the time when their dis-storation was to be made to his royal cussions ceased. No one doubted the highness, it could only be on the principle truth of this general proposition; it was that the revenues had not been applied to clear from the acts of parliament which the purposes intended. The question, had been quoted. It was not, therefore, therefore, in this view, resolved itself into that he had doubts on this point that he the same thing as to the object of the resisted the appointment of a committee; committee's inquiries. What, besides, but it was the livery at an early age, when was to be the result of the opinion which the prince of Wales was in a state of in- the committee (supposing it to be appointcapacity to exercise any function of life, ed) might form? Was it to bind the prewhich formed the grand subject of doubt. sent king, or was its influence also to exDuring the continuance of this state of tend to future kings? Was it, on the idea incapacity, the whole management of the of its being unfavourable to the prince's revenues necessarily devolved on his ma- claims, to deprive his royal highness of jesty, by whom alone every thing respect the privilege of applying for redress to a ing them was to be directed. Not a single regular court of judicature, or to prevent officer employed in the collection of these future princes of Wales from asserting revenues was subject to any control but their rights; or was it to be of that dethat of the sovereign, nor could carry scription which was to leave it to the opwhat he had collected to any place but to tion of future princes of Wales to try the the Treasury. To the king exclusively fate of another appeal to the House, or to belonged the management of the education a court of judicature? All these consiof the infant prince; and he it was who derations ought to be well weighed before was to determine on the propriety of every the House consented to appoint a com article of expenditure. The question then mittee. To induce the House to comply came to be, did his majesty exercise these with the proposition, his learned friend powers subject to control, or were they a (Mr. Erskine) had supposed that the difpart of his prerogative, free from every ficulties of enforcing his royal highness's inquiry? It might be argued by those claims were so formidable that they could who deny that the king exercised these be ascertained in no other mode. powers exclusively by his prerogative, would not say that there were no difficulthat an account of the distribution of the ties in obtaining legal redress, but at prerevenues might be obtained. But how sent he declined giving any opinion. this was to be accomplished, he was at a Whether such a remedy did, or did not loss to conceive. It was obvious, that it exist, was as much a legal question, as a was not here, as in other cases of the in- decision on the validity of the claims. If vestigation of accounts, where the distri- it could be shown that no legal remedy bution of the particular sums in question existed, this might be a fair ground for might be censured as unfit, as unneces- removing particular obstruction, but was sary, or extravagant. Here, he who took no reason for the House taking the decithe account, and he by whom the dis- sion in the first instance into its own hands. bursements were made, was one and the Such interference as this was what the same; and therefore any examination House was every day resorting to; and to which took place was idle and nugatory, raise particular statutes for the purpose of because wholly without effect. The ques- giving a remedy to an evil of very grievous tion, however, which the committee would pressure, was strictly consistent with their have to resolve would be, whether the legislative powers. If, on application to king was or was not accountable for the the courts of judicature, it should be found disbursement of the revenues? for that, that his royal highness had no legal remedy, he conceived, was the plain import of the then a question would naturally arise, how words in the motion which empowered far it was proper for the House to interthem to inquire under what authority the fere, for the purpose of removing obstacles different sums had been received or ex- in the way of legal redress. This position pended. It made no difference as to this might be illustrated by numerous analopoint whether his majesty, the public, or gies. It frequently happened, that certain the civil list, were supposed to have re- legal obstacles stood in the way of a cause ceived the benefit of the revenues; for, if being brought to trial, and by an applicahis majesty was not accountable, neither tian to a court of equity this obstacle was could any responsibility be attached to removed; but in such cases the court came

He

to no decision. It merely removed obstructions to the regular course of law, and never went beyond what actual necessity demanded. The House, he imagined, were now pretty well in possession of his objections to the appointment of a committee. He did not oppose it, either be cause he was convinced that the claims of his royal highness were right, or because he held a contrary opinion; he had already stated, that on this point, he at present gave no decision. What he specifically objected to in the appointment of the committee was, that if the House consented to entertain the proposition, they would be assuming judicial power, to the exercise of which, on such occasions, they were incompetent, either on the principles or the practice of the constitution.

debt owing from the public. If the committee, on their report, should state that the claims of his royal highness were just, the House would then be bound to discharge those claims; not by a judicial act, but by a legislative enactment. In this view, the statement of his learned friend (Mr. Erskine), with regard to the clearness of his royal highness's rights, was of the highest importance. He had heard every statement of the learned mover fully corroborated by his hon. friend, and the grand position which they had laid down of the right of the prince of Wales to the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall, from the moment of his birth, was not denied by those who had spoken on the other side. If this, then, was admitted, all that he contended for was at once given up. If it was allowed to be the fair interpretation of the various acts of parliament which had been quoted, that the prince, from the time of his birth, was entitled to enjoy these revenues as much as if he had arrived to the age of maturity, why was it that he was not to enjoy the same advantages during his minority, that wards were entitled to under common circumstances? In one part of the speech of the learned gentleman who spoke last, it was not denied that it was a subject which, at some time or other, ought to be discussed. It was allowed that the case was analogous, because guardians were, in common circumstances, liable to a strict inquiry into their conduct, while the revenues admitted to be the unquestionable property of the heir apparent, were appropriated without any similar species of control on the mode of its disbursement. If ever a case for legislative interference did exist, this was surely one. But he could not so easily admit that the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall were subject to no control; and, in support of a

Mr. Fox confessed, he understood the question in a light considerably different from that in which it seemed to be viewed by most of those who had delivered their opinions. If he rightly understood the words of the motion, the object of the committee was not only very different from what the last speaker had supposed, but from what seemed very generally to prevail in the House. The motion did not seem to him to contain a single word of law, or a point of opinion, but related solely to the investigation of facts. The facts which the committee were to be directed to inquire into were, what was the nature of the orders by which particular revenues were levied and expended? Were they warrants from the Treasury, or from what other office did they originate? Such was his understanding of the object of the committee; and in this he could discover nothing of legal difficulty. He could, therefore, safely vote against passing to the order of the day; for if doubts of a legal kind existed, it was proper that they should be removed. Viewing the question as referring merely to facts, he begged to consider what these facts presented which called for the consideration of the House? It might be said, of what use was it to inquire into facts if there was no intention of ground-propriate the revenues, and that passed ing on them some subsequent proceeding? To this the answer was obvious. The consideration of the subject had come before the House from his royal highness in the character of a public creditor. He had stated his claims; he had desired the House to ascertain the quantum of what was due to him; he had called upon them, after this investigation, to discharge a

contrary opinion, he referred to the statute passed in the first year of the prince of Wales's age, in the reign of Henry 6th, by which, for certain specified purposes, the king was empowered to ap

four years after, by which the former act was repealed. He was ready to admit that there existed many useless statutes; but of all the statutes he had ever heard of, this last was the most useless, if it did not mean that the king was to be accountable to the prince for whatever sums the revenues afforded.-He next alluded to the manner in which the claim of prince

Charles was decided; and contended, that the mode of decision in that case, was one which, even at the time it took place, was unjustifiable; but which, if it were to take place under the present circumstances of this country, and in the present more perfect state of the constitution, could not fail to be regarded as flagrant in the highest degree. When he heard gentlemen on the other side so strenuously contending against the proposed mode of deciding on his royal highness's claims, he was astonished that no learned gentleman should venture to hazard an opinion on what he conceived to be a legal question. In his own opinion, the strongest possible argument which could be used against the proposed mode, would be to point out another mode in which the prince's claims could be urged in a less exceptionable manner. On this point, however, they had chosen to say nothing, and had contented themselves with general objections. The learned gentleman who spoke last had said, that during the infancy of the prince, his majesty was necessarily the sole director of his affairs, and was subject to no sort of control. No man was a greater admirer of English laws than he was; every new opportunity which presented itself of studying their character served but to increase his admiration of the excellence of their spirit, for he did not mean when he said this to allude to particular statutes: but, in common with every other human production, they would be allowed to partake of defects, and one of the most striking of these defects was that to which he had alluded. The want of a provision on this subject was undoubtedly a subject of regret, and was productive of some degree of difficulty. Supposing the case of an infant heir to the crown, while no oath of allegiance was framed, perhaps it might be difficult to determine to whom allegiance was due; but, if called upon to give an opinion on such a case, gentlemen on the other side would probably admit, that it was due to the feeble infant whose hands were unable to wield the sceptre. In the same manner, when he was asked, how the infant prince, who, from the moment of his birth, was allowed to be the posses. sor of the revenues of Cornwall, was to enjoy what was admitted to be his property? He might be at a loss to give a satisfactory answer; he would not, however, feel himself entitled to say that these revenues were not to be appropriated for

the prince's use in riper years. In coming to the history of more modern times, it appeared that the sums which had been received in the first years of George 2nd. had been paid over to Frederic prince of Wales, for those years which had elapsed, from the time of the accession till he had reached his majority. With all these cases therefore in view, reflecting on the variety of evidence by which his royal highness's claims were supported, he had no sort of doubt on his mind on the subject. But if he had no doubt on the validity of his royal highness's claims, he had still less even a glimmering of hope that they would ever be enforced by any other mode of application. As a general proposition, he not merely admitted, but contended for, the necessity of keeping the judicial and legislative powers totally distinct and independent of each other; but he could not allow that, in no circumstances, this general rule could be suspended. In every country, under every form of legislation in the practice of senates or of parliaments, circumstances have sometimes occurred where the ends of substantial justice required that forms should give way, and the legislative body should assume the powers of judicial discussion. Was this, then, one of the cases which would justify such an interference, such an extraordinary exercise of authority? The rights of the first subject in this country were left in a situation which deprived him of the advantages they were calculated to afford, and no adequate remedy was provided by the constitution. Under similar circumstances there could be no doubt that every means would be used to give relief to a private individual, and was the heir apparent to be denied that redress which the legislature was so ready to afford to the community at large? The mode of stating the claim of his royal highness to be on the public and not on his majesty, he granted was highly decorous, but it by no means altered the substance of the question. His majesty had appropriated the revenues which were the property of his royal highness, not indeed to the support of his privy purse, but in aid of the civil list. To this amount, consequently, the public had reaped the advantages of this appropriation. If his royal highness came forward to make any claim, he had two parties against him; his majesty, who had diverted the revenues to other purposes, and the public, who had reaped the be

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »