MOTION IN BOTH HOUSES FOR A SETTLEMENT ON THE PRINCE OF WALES.
The chief subject of contention that presented itself in the course of this session, was a motion which Mr. Pulteney made for an address to his majesty, that he would be pleased to settle one hundred thousand pounds a year upon the prince of Wales. He represented that such provision was conformable to the practice of ancient times; that what he proposed had been enjoyed by his present majesty in the life-time of his father; and that a settlement of this nature was reasonable and necessary to ascertain the independency of the apparent heir to the crown. The motion was vigorously opposed by sir Robert Walpole, as an encroachment on the prerogative; as an officious intermeddling in the king’s family affairs; and as an effort to set his majesty and the prince at variance. But a misunderstanding, it seems, had already happened in the royal family. The minister, in the midst of his harangue, told the house by his majesty’s command, that on the preceding day the king had sent a message to the prince by several noblemen of the first quality, importing, that his majesty had given orders for settling a jointure upon the princess of Wales, suitable to her high rank and dignity, which he would in a proper time lay before parliament, in order to be rendered more certain and effectual; that, although his royal highness had not thought fit, by any application to his majesty, to desire that his allowance of fifty thousand pounds might be rendered less precarious, the king, to prevent the bad consequences which he apprehended might follow from the undutiful measures which his majesty was informed the prince had been advised to pursue, would grant to his royal highness, for his majesty’s life, the said fifty thousand pounds per annum, to be issued out of the civil list revenues, over and above the prince’s revenues arising from the duchy of Cornwall, which his majesty thought a very competent allowance, considering his own numerous issue, and the great expense which did and must necessarily attend an honourable provision for the whole royal family; that the prince, by a verbal answer, desired their lordships to lay him with all humility at his majesty’s feet; to assure him that he did, and ever should, retain the utmost duty for his royal person; that he was very thankful for any instance of his majesty’s goodness to him or to the princess, and particularly for his majesty’s gracious intention of settling a jointure upon her royal highness; but that, as to the message, the affair was now out of his hands, and therefore he could give no answer to it; that his royal highness afterwards used many dutiful expressions towards his majesty; adding, “Indeed, my lords, it is in other hands, and I am sorry for it;” or words to that effect. Sir Robert Walpole then endeavoured to demonstrate, that the annual sum of fifty thousand pounds was as much as the king could afford to allow for the prince’s maintenance; and he expatiated upon the bad consequences that might ensue, if the son should be rendered altogether independent of the father.
These suggestions did not pass unanswered. Sir Robert Walpole had asserted, that the parliament had no right to interfere in the creation or maintenance of a prince of Wales; and that in the case of Richard II., who, upon the death of his father, the Black Prince, was created prince of Wales, in consequence of an address or petition from parliament, that measure was in all probability directed by the king himself. In answer to this assertion, it was observed, that probably the king would not have been so forward in creating his grandson prince of Wales, if he had not been forced into this step by his parliament; for Edward in his old age fell into a sort of love dotage, and gave himself entirely up to the management of his mistress, Alice Pierce, and his second son, the duke of Lancaster; a circumstance that raised a most reasonable jealousy in the Black Prince, at that time on his death-bed, who could not but be anxious about the safety and right of his only son, whom he found he was soon to leave a child in the hands of a doating grandfather and an ambitious aspiring uncle. The supporters of the motion observed, that the allowance of fifty thousand pounds was not sufficient to defray the prince’s yearly expense, without alloting one shilling for acts of charity and munificence; and that the several deductions for land taxes and fees reduced it to forty-three thousand pounds. They affirmed, that his whole income, including the revenues of the duchy of Cornwall, did not exceed fifty-two thousand pounds a-year, though, by his majesty’s own regulation, the expense of the prince’s household amounted to sixty-three thousand. They proved that the produce of the civil list exceeded nine hundred thousand pounds, a sum above one hundred thousand pounds a-year more than was enjoyed by his late majesty; and that, in the first year of the late king, the whole expense of his household and civil government did not much exceed four hundred and fifty thousand pounds a-year. They observed, that the parliament added one hundred and forty thousand pounds annually for acts of charity and bounty, together with the article of secret-service money; and allowed one hundred thousand pounds for the maintenance of the prince of Wales; that the article of secret-service money had prodigiously increased in the late reign; by an account which happened to be laid before the parliament, it appeared that vast sums of money had been given for purposes which nobody understood, and to persons whom nobody knew. In the beginning of the following session several members proposed that this extraordinary account should be taken into consideration; but the inquiry was warded off by the other party, who declared that the parliament could not examine any account which had been presented to a former session. The debate was fierce and long; and ended in a division, by which the motion was rejected. A motion of the same nature was made by lord Carteret in the house of peers, and gave rise to a very keen dispute, maintained by the same arguments, and issuing in the same termination.
SCHEME FOR REDUCING THE INTEREST OF THE NATIONAL DEBT.
The next remarkable contest was occasioned by a motion of sir Robert Walpole, who proposed the sum of one million should be granted to his majesty, towards redeeming the like sum of the increased capital of the South-Sea company, commonly called the South-Sea annuities. Several members argued for the expediency of applying this sum to the payment of the debt due to the Bank, as part of that incumbrance was saddled with an interest of six per cent., whereas the interest paid for the other sums that constituted the public debt did not exceed four per cent. Many plausible arguments were offered on both sides of the question; and at length the motion was carried in the affirmative. The house having resolved itself into a committee to consider of the national debt, sir John Barnard made a motion, for enabling his majesty to raise money either by the sale of annuities, or by borrowing at an interest not exceeding three per cent., to be applied towards redeeming the South-Sea annuities; and that such of the said annuitants as should be inclined to subscribe their respective annuities, should be preferred to all others. He said, that even those public securities which bore an interest of three per cent, only, were sold at a premium in ‘Change-alley: he was therefore persuaded, that all those who were willing to give a premium for a three per cent, security, would gladly lend their money to the government at the same interest, should books of subscription be opened for that purpose, with an assurance that no part of the principal should be paid off for fourteen years. He expatiated on the national advantages that would accrue from a reduction of interest. From easy and obvious calculations he inferred, that in a very little time the interest upon all the South-Sea annuities would be reduced from four to three per cent., without any danger to public credit, or breach of public faith; that then the produce of the sinking fund would amount to fourteen hundred thousand pounds per annum, to be applied only towards redeeming the capital of the several trading companies; he proved that this measure would bring every one of them so much within the power of parliament, that they would be glad to accept of three per cent, interest on any reasonable terms; in which case the sinking-fund would rise to one million six hundred thousand pounds per annum. Then the parliament might venture to annihilate one half of it, by freeing the people from the taxes upon coals, candles, soap, leather, and other such impositions as lay heavy upon the poor labourers and manufacturers; the remaining part of the sinking-fund might be applied towards the discharge of those annuities and public debts which bore an interest of three per cent, only, and afterwards towards diminishing the capitals of the several trading companies till the term of fourteen years should be expired; then the sinking-fund would again amount to above a million yearly, which would be sufficient for paying them off, and freeing the nation entirely from all its incumbrances. This salutary scheme was violently opposed by alderman Heathcote, and other partisans of the ministry; yet all their objections were refuted; and, in order to defeat the project, they were obliged to have recourse to artifice. Mr. Winnington moved, that all the public creditors, as well as the South-Sea annuitants, should be comprehended. Sir John Barnard demonstrated that it might be easy for the government to borrow money at three per cent, sufficient for paying off such of the proprietors of four-and-twenty millions as were not willing to accept of that interest; but it would be extremely difficult to borrow enough to satisfy the proprietors of four-and-forty millions, who might choose to have their principal rather than such an interest. Nevertheless, resolutions were founded on this and other alterations of the original scheme; and a bill was immediately prepared. It produced many other debates, and was at last postponed by dint of ministerial influence. The same venerable patriot, who projected this scheme, moved that, as soon as the interest of all the national redeemable debt should be reduced to three per cent., the house would take off some of the heavy taxes which oppressed the poor and the manufacturers: but this motion was rejected by the majority.
1737
BILL AGAINST THE CITY OF EDINBURGH.
The last disputes of this session were excited by a bill sent down from the lords for punishing the magistrates and city of Edinburgh, on account of the murder of John Porteous. In the beginning of the session, lord Carteret recapitulated the several tumults and riots which had lately happened in different parts of the kingdom. He particularly insisted upon the atrocious murder of captain Porteous, as a flagrant insult upon the government, and a violation of the public peace, so much the more dangerous, as it seemed to have been concerted and executed with deliberation and decency. He suspected that some citizens of Edinburgh had been concerned in the murder; not only from this circumstance, but likewise because, notwithstanding the reward of two hundred pounds which had been offered by proclamation for the discovery of any person who acted in that tragedy, not one individual had as yet been detected. He seemed to think that the magistrates had encouraged the riot, and that the city had forfeited its charter; and he proposed a minute inquiry into the particulars of the affair. He was seconded by the duke of Newcastle and the earl of Hay; though the last nobleman differed in opinion with him in respect to the charter of the city, which, he said, could not be justly forfeited by the fault of the magistracy. The lords resolved, That the magistrates and other persons from whom they might obtain the necessary information concerning this riot, should be ordered to attend; and that an address should be presented to his majesty, desiring that the different accounts and papers relating to the murder of captain Porteous, might be submitted to the perusal of the house. These documents being accordingly examined, and all the witnesses arrived, including three Scottish judges, a debate arose about the manner in which these last should be interrogated, whether at the bar, at the table, or on the woolsacks. Some Scottish lords asserted, that they had a right to be seated next to the judges of England; but after a long debate this claim was rejected, and the judges of Scotland appeared at the bar in their robes. A bill was brought in to disable Alexander Wilson, esquire, lord-provost of Edinburgh, from enjoying any office or place of magistracy in the city of Edinburgh, or elsewhere in Great Britain; for imprisoning the said Alexander Wilson; for abolishing the guard of that city; and for taking away the gates of the Netherbow-port, so as to open a communication between the city and the suburbs, in which the king’s troops are quartered. The duke of Argyle, in arguing against this bill, said he could not think of a proceeding more harsh or unprecedented than the present, as he believed there was no instance of the whole weight of parliamentary indignation, for such he called a proceeding by a bill ex post facto, falling upon any single person, far less upon any community, for crimes that were within the reach of the inferior courts of justice; for this reason he observed, that if the lord-provost and citizens of Edinburgh should suffer in the terms of the present bill, they would suffer by a cruel, unjust, and fantastical proceeding; a proceeding of which the worst use might be made, if ever the nation should have the misfortune to fall under a partial self-interested administration. He told them he sat in the parliament of Scotland when that part of the treaty of Union relating to the privileges of the royal burghs, was settled on the same footing as religion; that is, they were made unalterable by any subsequent parliament of Great Britain. Notwithstanding the eloquence and warmth of his remonstrance, the bill was sent down to the house of commons, where it produced a violent contest. The commons set on foot a severe scrutiny into the particular circumstances that preceded and attended the murder of Porteous; from the examination of the witnesses, it appeared that no freeman or citizen of Edinburgh was concerned in the riot, which was chiefly composed of country people, excited by the relations of some unhappy persons whom Porteous and his men had slain at the execution of the smuggler; and these were assisted by ‘prentice-boys and the lowest class of vagabonds that happened to be at Edinburgh; that the lord-provost had taken all the precautions to prevent mischief that his reflection suggested; that he even exposed his person to the rage of the multitude, in his endeavour to disperse them; and that, if he had done amiss, he erred from want of judgment rather than from want of inclination to protect the unhappy Porteous. It likewise appeared that Mr. Lindsay, member for the city of Edinburgh, had gone in person to general Moyle, commander of the forces in North Britain, informed him of the riot, implored his immediate assistance, and promised to conduct his troops into the city; and that his suit was rejected, because he could not produce a written order from the magistracy, which he neither could have obtained in such confusion, nor ventured to carry about his person through the midst of an enraged populace. The Scottish members exerted themselves with uncommon vivacity in defence of their capital. They were joined by sir John Barnard, lord Cornbury, Mr. Shippen, and Mr. Oglethorpe. Lord Polworth declared, that if any gentleman would show where one argument in the charge against the lord-provost and the city of Edinburgh had been proved, he would that instant give his vote for the commitment of the bill. He said, if gentlemen would lay their hands upon their hearts, and ask themselves, whether they would have voted in this manner had the case of Edinburgh been that of the cities of Bristol, York, or Norwich, he was persuaded they would have required that every tittle of the charge against them should have been fully and undeniably proved. Some amendments and mitigations being inserted in the bill, it passed the house, was sent back to the lords, who agreed to the alterations, and then received the royal assent.