GENERAL HISTORY. 



[2J 



eihle that it might be misapplied. 

 On these grounds h€ thought the 

 motion unnecessary, and should 

 oppose it. 



Mr. Davies Giddy agreed that 

 the right to these droits, from the 

 conquest to the present time, was 

 vested entirely in the king ; but 

 when any revenue was so vested, 

 there were vested with it co-relative 

 duties. These were no longer re- 

 quired from the crown, as the 

 revenue was now separated and 

 granted for particular purposes. 

 As to meeting the excess of the 

 civil list expenditure out of this 

 fund, he thought any other source 

 better than one so uncertain and 

 precarious- On the whole, he was 

 for carrying the amount of this 

 fund to the public stock, or, at any 

 rate, leaving it with parliament to 

 dispose of it. 



Mr. Stephen, though convinced 

 that tlie droits in question belonged 

 to the crown, would not go so fur 

 as to contend that the House had no 

 controul over them. He entered 

 into some calculations to show that 

 his honourable and learned friend 

 had over-stated the amount at eight 

 millions, and pointed ont several 

 considerable deductions ; and also 

 argued in favour of the application 

 of the fund that had been made in 

 several instances, which could not 

 vrithout much inconvenience have 

 been affected by a specific vote in 

 parliament. 



After some other remarks on 

 each side, the Chancellor of the 

 Exchequer rose, and spoke with 

 some severity of the " declama- 

 tory attack" made by the honour- 

 able and learned mover. He 

 thought it very extraordinary that 

 any lawyer should cnll in question 

 llie legality of these droits as exist- 



ing in the crown. He said that 

 the gentlemen who had adopted 

 the mover's side of the question, 

 had disclaimed any intention of 

 stating instances of abuse, and 

 merely contended that there was 

 liability to abuse : whereas a ma- 

 terial part of the speech of the 

 mover went to make the impres- 

 sion that the government had been 

 guilty of successive acts of abuse. 

 He made some particular observa- 

 tions on this head ; and concluded 

 with saying, that conceiving that 

 the proposed resolutions stated that 

 to be law whieh was not law, and 

 that to be expedient which was not 

 expedient, he should give them 

 his decided opposition. 



Sir F. Burdett spoke strongly in 

 favour of the motion, on the gene- 

 ral ground, that the crown could 

 not hold property on any other 

 tenure than for the benefit of the 

 public; and contended that it was 

 now become the duty of parliament 

 to controul the fund in question. 



Mr. Tierney, though differing 

 from his honourable and learned 

 friend in the mode of his motion, 

 yet agreed with it in substance; 

 and he proposed the following 

 amendment: «' That this House 

 having taken into its serious con- 

 sideration the unprecedented suras, 

 at different and uncertain periods, 

 within the last 20 years, received 

 and disposed of by the crown as 

 droits, is deeply impressed with the 

 necessity of inquiring into and 

 ascertaining theextent and applica- 

 tion of the same." If this motion 

 should be carried, he would follow 

 it upby movingforan address to the 

 Prince Regent, that there be laid 

 before the House an account of the 

 amount and payments from the 

 droits from Jan. 1810 to Jan. 1812 ; 



and 



