without his consent, during his minority, a part of the hereditary revenue of the prince of Wales, for the future maintenance of his brothers, sisters, and the more remote branches. The example of this generosity is not given by the father and the sovereign to his first subject, although it comes in the mode of a paternal precept. We leave them now in a state of the most absolute dependance on the crown, on the caprice of the sovereign, or perhaps the mercy of the minister. The Bill therefore, in my opinion, ought to be extended to a settlement of the same revenues to take place immediately, and to be secured by the fullest parliamentary grants irrevocably. The strong ties of blood in the first degree would in this case coincide entirely with the wishes of the people. I may surely, Sir, leave in all safety to the servants of the crown so acceptable a service to the best of princes and of parents. A circumstance, Sir, of the utmost imFo seems on this occasion to have een intirely neglected by ministers. It is remarkable that the children of his Majesty's next brother, the duke of Gloucester, are recognized and provided for by this Bill, before there has been a notification in any way to parliament, or to the public, of his Royal Highness's marriage. I have not, Sir, the least doubt of the legality of that marriage, but I know that stron doubts have formerly been j even by some of the present ministers. The noble lord is as ill informed on this subject as he has been all along respecting America, when he ventures to assert, that no man now has the least doubt remaining. In consequence of the general uncertainty in the minds of the nation a very few years ago, the privy council entered upon the enquiry of the legality of the duke of Gloucester's marriage. They received evidence, which, as it is reported, satisfied them; but as that evidence has never been communicated to the public, a degree of scepticism I know has continued. -I wish it removed. It will be undoubtedly, when parliament shall be treated by ministers with respect, when the great council of the nation shall be furnished with the proofs, which flashed conviction on the minds of the privy council. The representatives of the people, Sir, have surely a right to examine every thing respecting the succession to the imperial crown of these realms, because they, in conjunction with the other

two branches of the legislature, have by an express act of parliament the power to “make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to limit and bind the crown, and the descent, limitation, inheritance, and government thereof.” The maintaining the contrary doctrine by writing or printing is declared a species of high treason, and whatever slavish positions of hereditary, divine, indefeisable right may be adopted in despotic countries, and by mo: dern courtiers here, the people of England in general consider their crown as the free gift of the nation, settled on their own terms and conditions. We know that the British crown is not in the gift of the reigning prince. He is only tenant for life, while he observes the original compact. The people, Sir, in consequence, possess the right to be informed of whatever respects the succession. All we know as to the marriages of the King's brothers amounts to this, that they were private and clandestine, and that no proof of their legality has hitherto been given to the nation. The proofs of those marriages ought to be communicated to the two Houses of Parliament, while the parties are still alive, and the witnesses with us may be examined. The facts may now be ascertained with precision. . If any doubts have been suggested in this age, they may be removed by those living witnesses, to whom no recourse can be had in succeeding times. I regret that there are so many “historic doubts” in our history. Posterity has this just claim on the present generation, that our fields may not be again deluged with the blood of a brave people in a fatal civil contest. Should the smallest degree of scepticism now exist, the progress of it, if not timely checked, is known to be rapid, and it would acquire strength even from the general destroyer, Time. The fullest light ought now to be thrown on a transaction hitherto covered with clouds and darkneSS. This enquiry, Sir, I likewise consider as a point of national honour and justice to several foreign princes, who are allied by marriage to the crown of Great Britain. The House of Nassau, to whom we owe the restorer of our violated constitution, the king of Denmark, the princes of Brunswick and Hesse, and others of the Protestant line, are actually in the parliamentary entail of the crown. They will think that we are proceeding in a very irregular manner, when we make settlements on the children of the King's next brother, as

legal,heirs of the crown after the children | Majesty would be graciously pleased to of the King, before the marriage of his order the proofs of the marriages of their Royal Highness has been publicly recog Royal Highnesses the Dukes of Gloucesnized.

ter and Cumberland to be laid before this Sir, in this Bill I should have been happy House." if there had been a clause respecting her Lord Irnham seconded the motion. His royal highness the duchess of Gloucester, lordship said, though on some personal for whom no establishment is mentioned, considerations it must be disagreeable to although the Bill contains a provision for me to speak on this Bill, yet as it is not her two children. The honour of the na- of a private nature, but concerns the ho. tion, and the splendor of the British crown, | nour and justice of the nation at large, I call upon us to proceed to ascertain an ade- / return thanks to the hon. member for his quate provision during life for the wives of motion, and wish the marriages of their the royal brothers. It would have natu- royal highnesses the dukes of Gloucester rally taken place in a Bill of this nature, and Cumberland to be fully investigated, consecrated to the Brunswick line, the established, and circumstantially proved to elected of Heaven and the people, as the the parliament and the nation. The right protectors of our liberties, if ministers had | hon. member (Mr. Rigby) says, “ Who adopted the same liberality of sentiment, doubts the legality of the duke of Glou. which pervades the nation. Is this par- cester's marriage?” Sir, I should have been liament, Sir, doomed to counteract the less surprised at hearing that spoken by wishes of a whole kingdom ? or is it meant any other member than one of the privy to attempt the subjecting every branch of council, who must either fail in his methe royal family to the same servility, mory, or agree with me, that reports prewhich has characterised the present ma vailed that there were doubts of sufficient jority in this House?

proof being established, before the Lord There is not, Sir, a private gentleman Chancellor, the archbishop of Canterbury, among us, who has not painful ideas from and the bishop of London, sent to Glouthe precarious situation of the two royal cester house to examine into the marriage duchesses, almost unparalleled in any of his royal highness the duke of Glouces. family of distinction. They have still to ter, by order of the privy council. expect, from the merited esteem of the It was said, and it is now avowed in par. nation, an establishment adequate to their liament, that they neither found certificate high rank, and the additional lustre it has nor any living evidence to prove the marreceived from their unexceptionable, I riage. That upon the report to the privy might say exemplary, conduct. I hope council, the entry was made in the book such a provision will be made, and I am | “ legally married ;" but the privy council very happy that the worthy baronet (sir determined to leave the word “ legally" James Lowther) near me bas given the out. Several occurrences followed, which House assurances of his moving it in par-tended to create doubts in men's minds, liament, if it continues to be neglected by such as sending a message to Gloucester. administration. The motion will come | house, upon the duchess proving with child, from him with weight and dignity, nor can to propose to them to be married again, there be a doubt of his generous endea- and afterwards refusing to bury a child of vours being crowned with success.

the duke of Gloucester's in WestminsterTo facilitate, Sir, so important a busi- / abbey. These reports were propagated ness, the previous step I have mentioned by the ministers. Is it, therefore, decent seems necessary. Every communication or parliamentary, that the same ministers, ought to be made to parliament, which without first quieting the minds of his can elucidate a matter at present obscure, Majesty's subjects, and laying the evil that we may know the sure grounds on spirit which themselves had raised, should which we proceed. We shall then be in in a moment make parliament decisively possession of those clear proofs alluded to, cut off the legal succession of the House without which I do not think we can with of Hanover. I was not the person to propriety enter upon that clause of the doubt the marriage, and therefore I call Bill in your hand, Sir, which respects the for proofs to be laid before parliament. I descendants of the duke of Gloucester. I believe ministers acted in this insolent therefore hope, Sir, for the concurrence manner, in order to have a better pretence. of the House in a motion for " an humble for insulting the duchess of Gloucester, and dutiful Address to the King, that his and to refuse her a maintenance. It like.

wise answered their purposes abroad, where the same ministers that now declare there never was a doubt of the dukes’ marriages, dared to represent to their embassadors and envoys, that no such marriages were established in England. My wishes are that our benevolence towards the royal family may be open, generous, and in a public spirited line, becoming the nation and the parliament. But by concealment of facts, we may raise suspicions in the minds of those foreign princes included in the succession, whose alliance we now stand in need of, particularly the prince of Brunswick, who led our arms to victory last war, and ought always to be honoured and respected by Great Britain. The opinions of the privy coun

cil are liable to change frequently and

wantonly—they have given us many recent proofs. I have no commands nor instructions from the duke of Cumberland to assert it, but am sure he neither can nor ought to have an objection to laying the roofs of his marriage before parliament. R. ministers may create new doubts. Let the junto who raised such dangerous reports quiet men's minds, not simply by their proceedings in parliament this day, but by some public act to recognize both marriages if duly verified: and out of respect to the nation, if they have none for the princes of the blood, it must then be their duty to make a provision for the dukes to enable them to support their wives, as well as to maintain their children. He insisted, that in full confidence of the sufficiency of the testimony upon these marriages, it would be to the honour and advantage of both duchesses, that the facts in proof should be established by the proper national enquiry, which were the Houses of Parliament. Mr. T. Townshend wished the motion to be withdrawn, for fear it should widen the breach, instead of healing it. He wished to see all the branches of the roval family in affluence, suitable to their high station; and that unanimity and brotherly affection might make them examples worthy of imitation. He was sure the noble

virtues and spirit which might, through a reconciliation with the crown, be employed for the benefit of Great Britain; at the same time he professed himself a sanguine and able friend to Gloucester-house.

Mr. Walpole said, the name he bore, made him rise to express his astonishment that the legitimacy of the duke of Gloacester's children should be doubted by any man. He did not accuse the noble lord who seconded the motion: he thought on the contrary that his lordship being fully satisfied, that proofs could be brought of the marriage of the duke of Gloucester, ought from his connection to carry great weight, and hoped he would advise the hon. gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Sir James Lowther said, he was the person who moved an increase of income to the two royal dukes last year, on ac. count of their marriages; which marriages he was happy to hear so fully acknowledged by the ministers. That he recommended the most proper public act for acknowledging those marriages, by an immediate suitable provision for the duchesses of Gloucester and Cumberland; and if ministers did not move it, he would. He observed, that something ought to have been done for the duke of Cumberland, as well as for his brother; but recommended to withdraw the motion for the present.

Mr. Wilkes then withdrew his motion: and the Bill passed both Houses without opposition.

Debate on Mr. Hartley’s Motion for putting an end to the American War.] April 9. The House being in a Committee on the State of the Nation,

Mr. David Hartley rose and said:

Sir ; the motions which I shall lay before the committee on the state of the nation to day, are nearly to the same ef. fect as those which I o to the consideration of the House before Christmas. I was then told by the noble lord (North), that they were more proper for the consideration of this committee, than to be brought, in the first instance, before the

lord so nearly allied to Cumberland-house House, which in the formal way of ceremeant well; but feared that his seconding monious business might, perhaps, be true; the motion would prove of bad consequence but as my wish was, that the House and to the interest of the princes. He ap- the public should be informed in the plauded highly the conduct of the duke of earliest period of the session, of the unCumberland, in his attention and feeling measurable expence of the American war, behaviour towards lord Chatham, on his I took that opportunity of giving a com

lordship's late sudden illness in the House of Lords. He thought both princes had

putation of the total expence, from beginning of the war to the end of the

campaign of the year 1778. There was no objection or refutation then attempted to any of the articles, which are, indeed, incontestable; since that time, this subject has been again canvassed in another House, upon the same documents which Ilaid before you before Christmas: I have, therefore, very little more to do now, than to walk over the ground again, and just to recite the documents upon which the motions which I shall offer to the committee are founded. In computing the expence of this American war, I shall state the expence of the Navy, Army, and Ordnance in each year since the commencement of the war, and subtract from the expence of each year respectively, the average expence of the navy, army, and ordnance, in the time of profound peace. The difference will shew the expences occasioned by the war. The first article which it is necessary to state, is the ordinary expence of the Navy, Army and Ordnance upon the |. esta

blishment, under the following heads: NAvy. .6. 16,000 seamen . . . . . . . 832,000

Ordinary of the navy, upon an ave

rage, from 1764, to 1772 . 410,000 Ship-building, upon an average, from 1766, to 1770 . . . . 284,000 Annual increase of the navy debt upon 16,000 seamen, on the average of 1765, 66, 67,68, 69 . . 111,000 Average Peace Establishment for the Navy . . . . . . . 1,637,000 ARMY. Guards, garrisons and plantations, about . . . . . . . . . 1,000,000 Chelsea and half pay . . . 230,000 Staff, widows, &c. . . . . . 15,000 Extraordinaries of the army, upon an average from 1768 to 1775 269,000 -Average Peace Establishment for the Army . . . . . . . 1,514,000 - ORDNANce. Ordinary . . . . . . . . 170,000 Extraordinary . . . . . . . 50,000 Average Peace Establishment for the Ordnance . . . . . . . 220,000 RecAPirulation. Average expence in time of peace for the Navy . . . . . 1,637,000 Ditto for the Army 1,514,000 Ditto for the Ordnance .


Total Peace Establishment for

Navy, Army and Ordnance . . 3,371,000

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

This sum, enormous as it is, will, I fear, be very short of the reality. At what rate shall I set the loss and destruction of the trade of this country, with all its rich resources and produce? At what rate shall I set the loss of 13 provinces, once the pride and strength of the parent state 2 At what rate shall I set the ruin of the British navy, which has hitherto been the bulwark of this country? At what rate shall I set the lives of many thousands of British subjects, whose valour might have been reserved for the defence of their country, instead of being thrown away in the attempt to entail slavery upon the new world 2 These are losses not to be estimated in the vile trash of pounds, shillings, and pence. When will these follies come to an end ? The trade, the revenues, and all the strength and resources of this country, are sacrificed to the pursuit of this mad and ruinous war. We have already wasted as much money as the principal of a 3s. land mortgaged for ever would amount to. The interest of 33 millions, at only 4 per cent. is 1,320,000l., per annum, which is more than the net produce of 8s. in the pound upon land.

It is endless to recapitulate all the griev

ances and follies of this war. It is more than simply self-destruction ; it is ruin

twice told; for it is not only cutting off our marine and commerce, but it is throwing both from out our own hands into the lap of our enemies. America is the source of the British marine; three ships out of four upon which the British commerce is navigated, are of American building. That marine, and that commerce, which once were ours, are driven from our ports into those of France. Public credit must, in the end, sink under such conduct. When the commerce and the marine of this country are destroyed, all the means of supporting public credit are gone. Our merchants are crushed, and not supported by the government they live under; what can we expect but perpetual bankruptcies, with which every Gazette is now filled? Even since the commencement of the present session, the public funds are fallen 25 per cent. the 3 per cents from 80 and upwards, down to 60: that fall is the destruction of 20 millions of property: 33 millions may be set as the ostensible expence of the war: but it is only a small part of the total of the destruction of property occasioned by the war; 20 millions more of the property of the stockholders have been annihilated in a few months. The price of land is fallen in the same proportion. What is the landed gentleman to do, who is called upon to discharge a mortgage which may be upon his estate? He must sell his land, perhaps, at 20 or 25 }. purchase, instead of 30 or 35, and

is pittance which remains must stand the brunt of taxation accumulated in every shape. The havoc and ruin of this accursed American war overtakes us at every turn. Neither the landed man, nor the merchant, nor the manufacturer, nor the widow, nor the orphan, can escape its fury. All these curses are entailed upon us by the continuance of the American war. The advisers and conductors of this war have a heavy account to answer for to their country. There are 30 or 40,000 seamen lost to this country; 30 or 40,000 land forces destroyed; between 30 and 40 millions of money wasted and consumed; 100 ships of capital force cut off from our natural strength ; whole armies swallowed up, and all this to purchase the loss of 13 colonies; and, perhaps, when we have stripped ourselves of our natural powers of . we may invite an invasion at home, and bring the seat of war to our own coasts. Surely,

[ocr errors][merged small]
« ElőzőTovább »