Star. — London, England, 1811-01-05 00:00:00

pare the power of die Regent; with that iiltich he was were now ho more. There were no doubt ifeak to receive in 17 8 9. Let them c o mp are the Patrona g e names en both sides a the question. What his' of that time with this. The army were then 50,000, opinion was, he should rot hesitate to declare. It they were now 00,000;3 the Navy were then 50,000, was his settled judgment that, on general principles, t hey were now 150,000 ; the Revenue was then 14 there should be no Regency without limitations, re millions, it was now upwards of 70 . Those who had s t ri ctions a nd conditions. The Constitution saw them talked of ' the necessity of heaping all kinds of nitro- in ho other light, and it therefore always imposed on nage upon the Regent as absolutely necessary for his them restrictions, limitations, and conditions , This authority, were the very same men who were pope- it was not difficult to prove. If we looked to the tually declaiming against its enormous and cumbrous 21th of George 11. we should see that it provided accumulation in the hands of the King's Govern. certain restrictions for no less a period thansix years, silent. Was it hot to be provided that it the Regent Again, if we look to the 4th of George 111. we shall might find advisers who would induce him to abuse there find that it provided restrictions for twelve his authotity it should not be in their power to make years. These were guides which' were nut lost the abuse fatal? It was said the King, on his recovery, sight of in 1788. The title of Regent was un vsould not be anxious, in the first instance, wheziler i known to the Common Law, and he had the au his Household Officers were or were not changed: i thority of LordThurlow to say, that a'. Regent was a but there was an incipient state, an incipient reco- mere creature of statute, and his powers are given Very, in which be might look round him, and be dis- to 'him by statute ; but all the prerogatives remained tu r bed by the change. There were great authorities 1 with the King. He would now examine what hid for the present proceeding of the Ministers, Lords I been enacted by the statute to which he had referred. iCareden and Thurlow e Me. Pitt. Lord Grenville, had It first named ten Counsellors, not of advice, but of ' fall adopted the course which Ministers had now taken controul—and it was material to see how they were up. He (Lord Sidmout was not coming forward appointed—the King was entitled to name four, nor to be the defender of the Ministry; but he could not were they then merely restrained from creating Peers, Vote for the Amendment till he saw the necessity of but even certain officers were names whom they the unlimited powers fully established. could not change, the Lord Chancellor, the ,Commis- Lord ERSKINE agreed that Parliament should sinners of the Navy, the M ister of the Rolls, Etc. tee. not presume to touch the Royal Authority until it and four or five of them were suffici..snt to put their bad been solemnly and satisfactorily shown; that the ! negative on the creating of Peers. Nor was there any exercise of the Royal Functions was interrupted, to the tremedy against their interference, except an appeal detriment of the public service. But when t h e f act of to the two Huuses of Parliament. If all these prece his Majest ',incapacity bad once been established, I dents were consulted, it would be seen that by none no delay have been allowed to intervene, and iof them was such powers granted as are now nro an immediate remedy obgbt to have been applied j posed. No t. not the fortieth part of them. For withodi hesitation, or refusal to proc eed to those acts I giving his opinion on this matter, he should offer no which it was the duty of the two Houses to perform. apology. He was the subject of a King who himself It had been insinuated that it might be di ffi cult for the was limited , and would say that Parliament must King to resume his authority upon his recovery, un- keep the bond of their allegiance to their Sovereign, less these restrictions were imposed. He could see no and see that the power entrusted in his name should room for such an insiouation. The King would have be placed under proper limitations, restrictions, and only waives' to Parliament, and in the honour and 'conditions. Thus it would he provided, that his Ma integrity of the two Houses, .he would have full secu- jesty, when happily restored to health, might resume rity for the resurnption of his power upon his perfect his authority unimpaired--otherwise, indeed, the recovery. As to the restrictions respecting the grant- King would not enjoy. what is allowed to tee Meanest ing of Peerages, he saw no just foundation for them. of his subjects. Where were those who were so loud It was a restriction which never had been imposed in their assertions that die influence and power of the up , n any Regency. Where was the example of any Crown should be diminished ? Are they prepared to such restrictions and limitations having been laid on say, that in the King it should be limited, that in the any Regency ? Have not all the prerogatives of King it should be without controul, and that even at Royalty been given to Regencies where there were that time when we liioked for the King's recovery, Councils attached to them, even in the case of minors; and therefore to his resumption ofhis Regal functions? and shall tl- ese prerogatives be refused to the Prince If the proposed restrictions were wise ta 1788, as he of Wales, in the full maturity of .age and vigour of contended they were, why should trot they also be understanding ? lie should like to, hear of any one thought wise and salutary its NM ? His Lordship instance in which such restrictions had been proposed. concluded A most learned and arenmentative speech, and admitted. Fears have been started of difficulties by some eloquent aed pathetic allusions to the unfor arising to the return of his - Majesty tothe full exercise tunate situation of onr beloved Sovereign. of his Royal authority. In what tpartercould such Lord SPENCF.:R protested against the unnecessaryl a difficulty arise ? Oould it for a moment be supp osed and im p ro p er p rotr a ction that had taken place. The `1 that such a difficulty could arise from any undue in- Noble and Learned Lord had proceeded on a corn- !hence created in their Lordships' House ? In was - piece fallacy from the beginning to the end of his impossible that any suth number of Peers could be ,speech. The power •of creating Peers had always made as to overpower in 'that House the attach- existed somewhere or other. It was inseparable from meet of their Lordships to the person of the Sove- the Royal Authority; and the Royal Authority was I I reign on the Throne. He might' safely say that no that which the two. Houses of Parliament had de- ;1 man would resent and resist such a measure more re- dared it was their right and duty to supply. So it: i solutely than he would himself, or no man could was also with the power of granting places and pen. 1 snore sincerely rejoice to see his Majesty fully restored sions ; and although he was one of those who voted 1 to the complete enjoyment of all his prerogatives. Any ( for the abolition of the power of granting offices in other supposition would be disgraceful to the House. ' reversion, yet he would not take the opportunity, I I He contended, that the King's incapacity being esta- when the Monarch was suffering under the visitation 1 blished, it became the duty of the States of the realm to of PROVIDLbiCE, to stripahe Crown of its brightest I supply the place of the royal authority, and to give ef- ornament. ' i feet to it in all its functions ;to put the country.in the Several Peers rising together, a desultory cc - sneer- ! 4 same state it was before such a calamity took place. sation took place with respect to the right of priority; I —Upon what foundation would they alter in any r —which was at length determined by the Chairman i manner the functions of the Regal Authority ? iof the Committee (Lord Vialsinghani) in favour of, And it was contested, that, because they limited Lord SELKIRKoiho argued against the restrictions. the Royal authority in the hands of former Regents, Earl CLANCARTY expressed his approbation of they were to adhere to that principle upon the present; the Resolutions, and contended that all preceding but lie asked, was there any Lase in which the Heir Regencies had been appointed with restrictions. That Apparent, being of full age, was - thought incapable of was the tenor of precedent. - exercising the Royal functions in all its branches?— The Duke of NORFOLK supported the Resole. Let them sliew him any one instance in which all the tion,respecting the Household, as it came from the functions had 'not been given, and all the prerogatives House of Commons. had been restricted. But his Noble Friend contended ,Lord•HOLLAND opposed the restrictions on the that they should not grant that particular prerogative broad principle that the Monarchy of England ought of creating Peers, because his powers of influence are not to be deprived of its prerogatives without the a, much greater now than in former tunes; that the este- consent of the person in whom that Monarchy was blislament of the army is increased; thatthe number of vested. The reason which induced the Noble and ships is greater than ever, and the revenue of the cnun- Learned Lord opposite to support the restrictions, try greatly enlarged, the Regent is to supply the Royal was therefore the reason which induced him to op, office in all its functions, without the power for that pose them, namely, the temporary suspension of the purpose ; that he is to carry on the Government of , powers of the Crown. Such a principle, as that as the country, while the means for effecting it were sus- serted by the Noble and Learned Lord, would be the pended. Putting every thing aside with regard to most fatal, not only to the Monarch of Great Britain, the character of his Royal Highnesi the Prince of but to any limited Monarchy whatever. The' two, Wales, could the addition J f any number of Peers Houses first declared that it was their right and duty Overpower the affections of that House towards the to supply the deficiency in the executive authority, person of the Sovereign?—they (the Lords) were the and it was then proposed to them to supply it no: fully members of a large tamely. lamenting over the mis- hut by scraps, shreds, and patches. The Noble and fortunes of their revered parent—no man could con- Learned Lord appealed to the feelings of the House. template the immediate occasion of the King's illness He-trusted that he had as much just feeling as any I but with sentiments of the most poignant grief and re - m an. He knew also that those feelings which he gret. Was it not then of the greatest importahce that cherished the most strongly, he was the most repug they should act strongly and like men ? Nor should he nant to expose. He would not therefore allow any have advanced these arguments if he could think for one to tell him that he did not feel because he was a moment his Majesty could be injured by it—if his not loud in his expression of feeling. This parade of i Majesty could be removed one atom from an amend- feeling 'however did not proceed with a good grace Merit of his health, or that his recovery could be 'from those who had not allowed even the dearest ties+ I thrown back one instant. No man would more firmly of his Majesty to approach his person. Much 'stress resist any attempt of the kind than himself ; but had been laid on the speech from the Throne in 1759, vhat consolation must it be to the Royal mihd, on. I and it had been said that it impiied the Royal appeo his recovery, to find that the Heir Apparent of the I bation of the preceding measures. • In fact, however , Crown had been vested with the Royal Authority, ;it was the speech of Ministers, and what authority and given full effect to the Governmenoof his king- I was that ? He put it to their Lordships whether dom ! Had Mr. Pitt lived in those times, he was i there was not a great difference between the public convinced his vast and comprehensive mind would I sentiment on the measures adopted in 1788, and the have approved of such a measure—he would have public sentiment on the measure now proposed'?— been one of the first to carry it into execution. For Even since he had entered the House, he had received these reasons, and upon the general principle and con- several petitions, which he was desired to present, stitutional grounds, he could not agree to these Re- against the pending proceedings. Ministers attemp solutions, but should give his decided support to the i ted to justify their conduct by a reference to t he p re. Amendment. icedents of 1788, in a way which remin d e d him of an The LORD CHANCELLOR rose to follow I anecdote he had somewhere met with. A school-boy' the example of a Noble Viscount (Sidmouth), and went up with a Greek exercise to Dr. Bentley . . The to express the opinion he enterta ined on the pre-I Doctor having remarked in it a solecism , pointed it sent occasion, and to discharge the duty which it out to the lad, who justified himself by appealing to imposed upon him. Much had been said respect , ' the authority of Pin d ar. 4. Aye (said. the Learned ing the precedent of 1788. Let what might be Doctor), Pindar was a bold fellow, and you are an *thought of it, he, for one, would ever consider it impudent fellow." as a complete precedent, as to the manner in which \ Lord HA RROWBI r conceived that those who it regulated the powers 'of the Regent. It was a I voted from principle againststhe restrictions propo precedent countenanced by the Rest allthorities .of ; must vote against all restrictions whateeer. that d ay , by men Al f she liilOst t,h2tKter, who r iaitt.cd that to silo Haws had " 64 ... . - -- - ' at i$ Was • -1 /lama- , • t induce to *o4—he meant the Reialutio* relative td the creation of Peers. He allowed the de. legated power ought to be Marked as delegated. He was far from considering that Royal authority was the property of the person by whom it was he11._... It eras the property of the Peopl from whom it originally emanated, and for Whose benefit it was ves ted. It would scarcely be necessary for him to s l y, that if personal confidence were the ground (as which the present question was to be argued, no degree of confidence could in his ceinion be too great to place in the illustrious Individual to whom this high and exalted trust was to be confided. But he repeated, that there ought to be a marked difference between original and delegated authority. A great mis'ake had arisen with respect to the limitation in 1788, no the restriction upon the creating of Peers ; and the ( Noble Lords who rested so much on that precedent, ( now brought forward the Resolution altered in that very point on which the divisions took place in that House, namely, whether there should be a limitation to the restrictions or not ? By their own confession, therefore, they admitted that the circumstances of the two periods were materially different. His vote would much depend on the time for which the restriction was to be imposed. But there was another more ion. portant deviation in the Resolution, respecting the Peerage, from the precedent of 1788, a deviation of the most destruCtive and fatal nature. This was the exeinption in favour of naval and military men. Now 'he held it as a first principle of the Constitution that the honours of the State were open to all ; and that there was no peasant, however mean, who m; g l i e I mo a spire to rank one day higher than the highest lof their Lordships. By this resolution, however, 'the path to honour was circumscribed. But pride, which every Englishman felt in the knowledge of 'the doctrines which he had Jost asserted, was sup. pressed, and the most fatal principles were intro. duced. Were their Lordships prepared thus to cif+ cumscribe the path to honour ? Were they prepared , thus to stigmatite themselves to establish an insi. dious distinction ? Were they prepared to declare that those who held Peerages for civil services, either as legal men or as Statesmen, held them by a title less worthy than that of the great end emiisens persons who had been justly distinguished (or their naval and military atchievements He was sure that he would not be understood as depreciating the merits of the heroes of the country. With the utmost respect for them, he was ready to•say that their professions Were the most honourable and the most advantageous. He held in high estima tion the services by which the Duke of Mai lborough and Earl Nelson took their seats in that House. But yet he was not prepared to say that the descendant of the Earl of Chatham sat there under a less honour. able title. The principle proposed to be introduced was a dangerous novelty to which he would never consent. He admitted, however, that the power of creating Peers and the power of granting places and pensions were well chosen parts of the Royal Autho. rity on which to impose restriction, if any restriction were necessary, because the nature of the intended Government was temporal, and the powers to be re stricted were permanent. Upon the whole, his oil jection to the words of the Resolution was, teat they pledged him to some restriction. whereas. itnlaaa that restriction was properly qualified .—unless the author of the Resolution followed it up on a just principle, and unless they withdrew from it the odious claim to which he had just alluded, he could not vote for , it. As to the regulation respecting the King's personal property, it met with his hearty concurrence. Wish respect to the Resolution relative to the household, he hesitated not so say, that lie would give a decided. preference to the proposition which came from tie House of Commons, over that which was to be brought forward by the Noble Secretary of State. Goo forbid that he should object to any expression of feel. ing which fell from the Noble Lords opposite on this subject. I4e was bound to think those feelings were ,the genuine effusion of their hearts. He agreed with them completely in principle. Indeed he went one step further, for he thought that the two Houses ought not only to provide every comfort and con. venience for his Majesty, but also that they ought to provide for the maintenance of his Royal dignity. They ought to remernZer that he was a sick King. That he ought not to be left as a common int& vidoal in such circumstances, but that as a Soir4. reign ; although on a bed of sickness, they should throw around him the ensigns of Royal dignity. If ,the Resolution from the House of Commons did not contain a distinct reference to such a principles he would move to supply it. But having considered and re-considered that resolutions and having heard it criticised by the Noble Lords opposite, he was still at a loss to conceive how it was deficient in the asser tion of the-principle, the detail of vdtich mast be a matter of subsequent regulation—a regulation that he was aware would be accompanied with some dill. culty. It.appeared to him, that although the situa. tion df the King might requite fewer attendants, yet it was necessary he should be attended by' persons of the same rank and degree as the present, in order to preserve a marked difference between the Sovereign and any of his subjects. He should vote for the Rea solution of the Commons, because it ccattaihed a re-, cital of provisions for the comfort, and still /mire foe the dignity, of his Majesty ; but if the Bill to be foun. ded on that Resolution did not follow op the principle s , it should meet with his decided opposition. The Earl of LIVERPOOL, in reply, depicted the evils which must flow from the adoption of the Noble! Marquis's amendment. If the words limitations and restrictions were to be done away, it would carry along with them the custody of the King's person, the corn. plete power over his private property, and -all the powers of the King of the Realm would appertain to the Regent. If the qualification was let stand, a new modelling of the Resolutions would still be left open. The Resolution was copied verbatim from that agreed to 1788. Strong objections had been made by more than one Noble Lord to the esceptir j of naval and military officers He would, theretbre s agree to tion agreeably to the wishes .._ After that he thought no objection 4th Resolution, he understood and with respect to the - sth, that Household, the Noble Earl . . , their right and duty ka supp l y tle deficiency in the y ' Executive Government, but that was qualified with the accompaning declaratidn that it waetheir duty to supply it in such a manner as the exigency or the case might require. It appeared to him to be distinctly established by a reference to precedents that a Regent . had never been invested with power equal to that of the Crown. AR the authority that the two Houses possessed, originated in the necessity of the case. Their acts must be lietited by that necessity, Red what necessity was there for allowing the Regent to I create Peers ? Would any one assert that such a power could be necessary to the Regent to enable him to carry on a legitimate Government for a twelve month ? Adverting to the Resolution respecting the Household, hs deprecated the division therein pre scribed, and contended that it would be scarcely pos. sihie satisfactorily to separate the part which was to belong to the Regent from the part which was to re main with the King. Lord GRENVILLE remonstrated on the manner in which the opinions that he had formerly advanced in another place had been exaggerated with an inten tion by no means obscdie. It would have been more manly if those who had intended to embarrais him by this manoeuvre had not covered their designs with the language of praise. Embarrassed, however, he was not. He had ever been of opinion (although this opi nion had no application in the present instance,) that to purchase consistency at the expellee of inegrity, could be gratifying to those alone who preferred the opiniim of others to the approbationof their own hearts. Far be from him such a wish. The only question which, in his public life, be ever proposed to himself way, 4 , What is the interest of my country, and con sequently what is my duty?" Never would he be deterred by any fear of being charged with incon sistency, from delivering his free and unbiassed opinion. If he saw reason to abandon former sen timents, he would not scruple to avow, that more mature deliberation, and it might he more exten sive knowledge; haci taught him that they were er roneous. To say that any one must be bound by his first judgment, was to say that the life of that man must be spent in vain, and that from the opinion which he expressed on the day of his entrance on a public career he must never subsequently deviate. Soch had not been the principles of the best Legislators of this and other countties. No individual whose memory was more dear to the world, of whom it might not be shown that he had the manliness at some period or other of his life to avow former emir. The history of the last fifty years would afford sufficient examples of this fact. He trusted, however, that no one would suppose he said all this as applicable to the circumstances in which he found himself placed ; for he declared that he adhered strictly to all the principles which he had asserted on the same sub ject in 1788. On one part of the subject, and that the most important, he had already declared hieopi nice both in that H..use and in another manner, which had become public. He had declared, with. all due deference to the respectable authorities by which he had been opposed, that he had not the least doubt that on the two Houses of Parliament devolved the necessity of providing for all the deficiencies which might occur in the legislative and executive aittho ritr. In what manner the latter was supplied was a grave consideration, but he was convinced that the power in the two Houses of supplying it could be limited only by the necessity. On the principle 'of necessity constituting and limiting this power in the two Houses, he maintained that the power of restrict ing the Regent resided in them. Had a law existed on the subject, no such power would have devolved ; but, es no such law existed, the power reverted to the people of the land, represented by the legal Representatives of those Estates into which the people were divided. He could imagine many oc casions on which it must be generally admitted that a provision ought to be made to meet an exigency by no means co-extensive with the Royal authority. He thought proper to state it as a matter of principle, that he had no doubt of the power of limiting the autho rity of the Regent residing in the two Houses. A contrary principle would be an absolute solecism. A great deal too much had, in his opinion, been said in another place, in the course of the debates on this sub ject, about personal character. He thought it a me larcholy proof et the situation of this country. He should have hoped that it would have been possible to refer to the opinions of all the great men who dif (era from one another in 1788, without imputing to anyone improper motives. He was happy to think that no intemperance of this sort bad taken place among their Lordships. Of each of the great men who were in direct opposition to each other at the period which he had mentioned, might be said, as Bolingbroke said of the Duke of Marlborough, when some one was accusing his Grace, " be had his. failings, but he was so great a man that I forgot what they were." He would, therefore, proceed to state his sentiments on the subject without asking whether they accorded with those of this great man, or that great man, in times of the greatest party-heat that he had ever witnessed; or, he trusted, that on any occasion he ever should witness. He would presently shew that the very persons who brought tor.vard the present Resolutions as founded on the precedents of 1788, felt that that precedent was so inapplicable to the present time, that, in framing the Resolutions, they departed from the essential princi. pie of that precedent ; and for that very reason he should oppose one of the Resolutions. But he should not rest on this authority ; he would appeal to the commonsense of their Lordships ; whether the cits cumstances of the present times were not essentially different from those of 1788 ? A Noble Viscount had taken a narrow view of that difference when he spoke only of the change in the amount of our establish ments and of our revenue. He would push that consideration further, and ask what rendered that increased establishment necessary ? He would ask, if there was an individual, in, the country who by possibility, could be called to the Councils of the Regent, who would not be happy to change the presets); establishment for the establishment in 1788, if ht Vould also get rid of the other circumstances in which the present period differed from that period ! How then could he be justly accused of inconsistency, if, under different circumstances, he entertained dif ferent opinions?—His -opinion, with respect to the re strictions, must depend on their nature and expediency. There was a proposed restriction, for which, in one shape, be would vote i but for which, In the shape in Willa it lay on the tags; air earthly consideration ,der arguments in favour proposed; After • few remarkso in lioLLaso, the questio* being escepticui made in favour s in the peerage cause.. o amending that Resolve el of the Noble Lorfili . ,;- )bjection 'could lie to . oci there was no ob* ' t mil t that respecting the 4614 enforced some of f& (pr- of shaping it as tottgaalif t es froth froth Lori , ins y Aped iur, tli@