GENERAL HISTORY. 



[23 



might now be fairly stated at eight 

 millions. Thus the crown was 

 receiving an annual revenue of 

 more than 180,000/. from a capital 

 said to be vested in it of eight 

 millions. The questions for the 

 House to decide were, therefore, 

 whether by law the crown was 

 separately' possessed of these funds ; 

 and if this were the case, whether 

 it were safe for the constitution 

 that such a law should remain in 

 force any longer ? 



With respect to the first of these 

 positions, though he did not mean 

 to dispute the general maxim that 

 "all prize vests in the crown," 

 yet he adduced various facts from 

 history and law, to shew that regal 

 droits and impositions were coii- 

 -sidered as destined to the service of 

 the country. He next adverted to 

 the proportion which existed be- 

 tween the parliamentary grants and 

 the revenue of the crown previ- 

 ouslv to the revolution. Before 

 that period, the expenses of war 

 were not regularly supplied by 

 parliament, but generally by the 

 crown, from those funds which it 

 was now contended were the pri- 

 vate property of the king. At 

 present, the country furnished all 

 the means of war, whence it seem- 

 ed just that it should receive all 

 the profits of war. His next argu- 

 ment was drawn from the fact, that 

 parliament had, at various periods 

 of our history, interfered with the 

 prerogative of the crown when it 

 turned into abuse, of which fact 

 he adduced several instances. He 

 tlien proceeded to remark on the 

 mode in which these droits were 

 received and applied. By whom- 

 soever they were received, they 

 never went into the exchequer, 

 nar were issued thence, but were 



paid from the Bank of England, on 

 the authority, not of the privy seal, 

 but of a warrant under the sign 

 manual only. That this manner of 

 issue was unconstitutional, he con- 

 ceived there would be little diffi- 

 culty in proving; and he referred 

 to lords Coke, Clarendon, and 

 Somersasauthorities to the purpose. 

 Conceiving that he had sufficiently 

 supported the positions above laid 

 down, he now called the attention 

 of the House to the practical obser- 

 vations arising out of the abuses to 

 which the fund alluded to furnished 

 occasion. In the first place, it 

 gave the crown an interest in going 

 to war, and commencing hostilities 

 in a way the least honourable to 

 the national character. To illus- 

 trate this fact, he alluded to the 

 Dutch war in the reign of Charles 

 2nd, begun for the sole purpose of 

 intercepting the Smyrna fleet ; and 

 he did not hesitate to attribute to 

 the same disgraceful origin, the 

 capture of the Spanish frigates at 

 the time when a negotiation was 

 carrying on by the ministers at both 

 courts. He then pointed out the 

 means it afforded of accomplishing 

 some vile job, or paying some 

 worthless minion whose claims the 

 minister would not dare to bring 

 before thecognizance of parliament. 

 It was enough for him to have 

 shown that this fund was liable to be 

 made subservient to corrupt pur- 

 poses, without being obliged to 

 prove that ft had been actually so 

 applied; yet, as he seemed to be 

 challenged to produce facts, he 

 was by no means unwilling to pro- 

 duce them. He then, from the 

 papers on the table, made various 

 observations on the many large 

 additions to the civil list in the 

 present reign by the sums voted to 



supply 



