$2 
there would he any thing coming to 
him out of those reyenues. 
Mr. H, Lascelles. opposed the 
sotion. He thought the Cornwall 
claims were only held.over the house 
in terrorem ; while indirect applica- 
tions were making, 
_ Mr. Burdon thought, that if such 
a cominittee were appointed, it 
‘would: be an the awkwardest situa- 
tion that ever a committee of that 
hous¢ was placed: it could not pre- 
tend ito inquire into debts of honor, 
which certainly an act of parliament 
could not mean to consider. 
Mr. Tierney voted for the com- 
mittee, but would not pledge him- 
self to vote the payment of all sums 
that might be found undischarged ; 
but, as a member of parliament, lie 
wished to know what the circum- 
stances were, which prevented the 
prince from resuming his splendor. 
He contended that his royal high- 
ness was the least expensive prince 
of Wales who had ever existed; 
and that £30,000 was all that the 
public had fay anced to him by ex- 
traordinary grants; if the revenues 
of Cornwall were deducted, as they 
ought tobe. 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 giy- 
ing his hearty assent to the motion. 
The chancellor of the exchequer 
-said, that ;knowing as he did the 
sentiments of his royal highness up- 
on this subject, the present motion 
was to him» rather: matter of sur- 
-, prize than of any» other sensation. 
In point of regularity, no proceed- 
sings could be taken.on-the present 
: + 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 
1803. 
motion, without a previous recome 
mendation from the crown. The 
message that had been sent down, — 
had nothing to do with the pay- 
ment of the prince’s debts, which 
had been provided for by a previ- 
ous arrangement ; after that ar- 
rangement of 1795 it was impossi- 
ble for his majesty to conceive, that 
any fresh debts could have been in- 
curred; 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 au- 
thorities were of a contrary opinion; 
aid 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 hewught to be 
paid for it.” The debts of the civil 
list, had been several times paid 
during the present reign 5 particu- 
larly in 1769, 1777, and 1782, and 
ng 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 whatevet. ; 
Mts 
