Star. — London, England, 1811-01-19 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS. JIOUS OF CONINIONg, JAN. IS. On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, the Order of the Day for calling v ver the House, was dise;iarged, and fixed fot Mon day neat. THE REGENCY RILL The Order of the Day for further considering the Rc7ency Bill, was read. HoLIS: resolved itself into. a Committee on the above Bill. Mr. Lushington in the Chair. The C:airman having read the clause for appointing the council of Cie Queen, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and sated, that before be proceeded to name the persons as fit and proper to be appointed on the Council of her Majesty, it would be necessary that he should say a few words in explanation of the for mer proceedings in this particular respect. On the occasion of the Regency in 1788, it had been judged expedient to name the Councillors. Not designating simply their official capacity, but with the prediction of their names. In this manner were named the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York, Lord Thur. low, then Chancellor,. Lord Kenyon, then Chief Jus tice of the King's Bench ; together with the Lord Chamberlain of the Household for the time being, and also the Master of the Horse, and the Groom of the Stole. With reference therefore to that prece dent, he should propose, that the two Archbishops of Canterbury and York, by name John, Lord Eldon, Lord iii i h Chancelblr ; Edward, Lord Ellenborotigh, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, should be of her Majesty's Ceuncil. 'With respect to the Lord Cham berlain for the time being, the Committee must be! aware that the office is at present vacant, and that it had been settled yesterday it should remain so ; there tore it became necessary (on the supposition that the former plan would meet with the concurrence of the Committee) that the deficiency occasioned by the ab sence of this person should be supplied. The Right Lon. Gentleman conceived that the Bill of 1758 was defective in this particular : that in the appointmer of the Council, the Committee of that day had not nominated any one of that Council who had a seat in this Hense. To remedy the defect in the present instance, he thought would be wise, by introducing a Member of Parliameet. Without meaning to throw any irnoutaticn or blame upon the future Councillors of her Majesty, it would be obvious to the Committee, that the haei::g sortie person who could from time to time state to the 'louse, if necessary, an account of , the proceedings cf the Council would be a desirable object. With this view he should propose the Master of the Rolis, an ir.dividual whom the Committee, he was satisfied, could not object to, either on accottnt of his station, or the respeetability of character.— ( Hole, Lee.)—in making these appointments, it must be observed, that the Council would be constituted from the names of the persons composing the same, and not from their official situations, because'it was very possible that the duties of the Queen, in regard to the care of his Majesty, might continue for a longer period than the Household, and it was necessary that, , the arrangement made in the first instance with re spect to the Council should not be disannulled. The names of the other Councillors would be the. Earl of Wiacheisea ( ), the Duke of Montrose (Master of the Horse), and the Earl Aylesford ( ). Mr. WHITBREAD wished the Right Hon. Gentleman to inform the Committee, why he propo sed that the council should be constituted rather by names than by official signatures ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that with reference to the arrangement in the Household under her Majesty, that was only to con tinue for twelve monthi ; therefore, if any alteration should take place at the end of that time, and the officers should not be continued, of course the Coun cil of her Majesty would be deranged and incom plete'. It was better, therefore, that it should be as proposed by him, until it was seen whether Parlia ment would fix the limitations permanently. Mr. ADAM observed, it appeared to him extraor. dinary that the Right Honourable Gentleman had :lot nominated any one of the Royal Family on that Co..ocil. Did he mean to name any one ? If not, he' wished to name one. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER had fill wed the precedent of 1788, in which he did Lot fio.cl any cf the Royal Family. Nor did it occur to him for that reason to ask any of the Royal Per- . hi: wishes on the subject. Lord JOHN THYNNE conceived that many per t:-.ougnt it right that some one of the Royal Fa. should be of the Council, and as his Royal High na-s:. the Duke of York was the next in , succession to ti r acpe3:, he should propose that Royal Person to (,7 , .t of her Majesty's Councillors. He knew of no Royal Highness should be excluded. 'I!:e CHA!‘:CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER f. , cr , •er.l-'.7.4t it it was proper to introduce that Royal Firsf , n, hi.: name shouldj precede those he bad pro posed. The Chairman then put the vestion, 46 That thi2 blank he rifled up with the name of his Royal Highness the Duke of York." Secretary RYDER perfectly agreed that, Kit was proper to have the Duke of York on her Majes ty's Council, :he name of his Royal Highness should precede all the others ; but feeling, as he did, Oath urea. ex :r emely objectionable to have any of the Royal Family on that Council, he should vote against the. Tinting. It was almost needless, the Right Hon. Se cretary observed, for him to state the grounds of his mlijection. It w:ts certainly very natural that her Majesty should wish to have the advice of those next • 'oh,od to her ; but it was unnecessary that they ,:hooh.l be on the Council, for her Majesty was in the r:aNy habit of seeing them, and might consequently reire any advice out of the Council which they w: re inclined to give. In the first place, it was ins r-'.per that the Duke of York should be on the because he had a strong Constitutional ob. ••rti , n that any of the Royal Family should hold an 4 • 4 7::: of trust or responsibility unless strong and reasons were adduced to the House for it. (Hear, A:er.) I,Vould any mars deny that circumstances might occur in which a Member of the Council of the, Royal Family might be called upon for advice in 'vhick) his own interest was concerned. - That was a sticng reason for the objection. It was desirable that the Council should be composed of .: persons ' ready to give the most impartial, and unbiassed advice.— And was nut the ;Jake of York Ada:l4lc.: to have a most affectionate and dutiful regard for his Royal Father ? Had it not been already decided that the Regent was the most improper person to have the care of the King's person ? That objection was upon Parliamentary grounds—the objection equally ap plied to the Duke of York or any of the branches of the Royal Family entitled to the succession to the Throne. The Right Honourable Secretary stated, that a similar motion had been made in 1785, and rejected. Mr. PONSONBY did not think that the Right Honourable Gentleman was correct in the last state ment he had made. He did not think that any Com mittee would have rejected a proposition similar to the one made by the Noble Lord. The Right Hon. Gentleman had stated, that it was objectionable to appoint any of the Royal Family to offices of trust or responsibility; he (Mr. Ponsonby), however, could not forget that this same Royal person held an office of great trust and responsibility, and yet the Right Hon. Gentleman at that time raised no sort of objec tion, on constitutional or other grounds. With re spect to the objection on account of the affectionate regard and duty of the Royal Duke to his Majesty, why his Majesty must indeed be in a vet'y unfortunate situation, and different from all other fathers, if the affectionate attention and regards of his children were to operate as bars to seclude them from the care of his Royal Person. If the advice of any of the Royal Family might be obtained by her Majesty, without their being appointed on the Council, she would have it where it could be of no effect or consequence. We flattered himself the Committee would not see any just grounds for excluding the Royal Duke ; on the contrary, he thought it would be most proper and po lite to have all his Majesty's sons (with the excep tion of the Regent) on the Council, as affording to the eyes of Europe a proof of the unanimity between them and the nation. To reject the motion would be doing little less than holding them out as deft dent in those virtues 'which the nation knew they possessed. Mr. Secretary RYDER denied that he had said that it was not desirable to have any of the Royal Family in places of trust or responsibility gratuitously. When the Royal Person, the object of the motion, was in power, he had not forborne to bear his humble testimony to the admirable qualities and extreme in dustry of the Commander in Chief. He had from various mijitary quarters gained the knowledge of the very handsome conduct of his Royal Highness, and of the respect which the army entertained tor him. —He hardly expected such an attack from the Right Hon. Gentleman. Mr. C. WYNNE conceived the objection now urged, could not apply to the Duke of York. The motion was then put and negatived. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then proposed to fill up the first blank with the name of " Charles Manners, Archbishop of Canterbury." Mr. SHERIDAN objected to the introduction of the first name. Notwithstanding all that the Right Hon. Gentleman had before described of the structure of the precedent of 1788 (of which he was so fond) being all that human wisdom could devise, he did not,imagine that the Right Hon. Gentleman could have ventured to carry his attachment so far, as to propose the insertion of names rather than by official situations. The Right Hon. Gentleman had now, it seems, discovered that in addition to the clerical I errors in this famous Bill, it was not that grand struc ture which his imagination had fondly pictured—, there was some mere nonsense in it. Among other defects, it was discovered that there was no Member of Parliament in the Council, and in order to remedy that defect, the Right Hon. Gentleman proposed his Honour the Master of the Rolls, wishing, no doubt, to have a superabundance of Law in the Councils of her Majesty. Without meaning to speak in terms of disrespect of the Master of the Rolls, whom all must allow was a person of the most exalted cha racter, he must be allowed to say, that in his opinion there was too much of law already in the Councils of her Majesty, and it could not be denied that law was an ingredient the least necessary there. It would have been more respectful to the House of Commons, if the Right Hon. Gentleman had named the Speaker of t h e House to fill the claim. Looking to the pre cedent of 1788, lie must say that the whole of that proceeding was applicable to persons and not princi ples, and consequently highly objectionable. He would not speak with disrespect of the memory of Mr. Pitt, but he must declare that persons were the objects of that Minister in appointing his Majesty's Councils, and not principles. There was this me n strous absurdity in the Bill of 1788, that the King's recovery might be announced or not. He could not avoid noticing the rapturous applause with which the Gentlemen behind the Right Hon. Gentleman cheered the recommendation which that Right Honourable Gentleman gave himself, in order to fill the Prince Regent, with the idea that he was the best Minister he could have. He could not help admiring the vet y handsome character for honesty, ability, and fidelity, which he was entitled to from serving his Royal Fa ther, and he could not avoid in consequence, observ ing that the ambition of the Right Hon. Gentleman was to remain in the service of his Royal Highness. " Take me," said that Right Hon. Gentleman, 66 I am the fittest person to manage your affairs— select me as your Minister."—(Hear, hear.)—The cheering, therefore, was not extraordinary, consider ing that the Right Hon. Gentleman had made so brisk and eloquent a canvass.—(Hear, hear.) —He would bring the Right Honourable Gentleman to the test of his sincerity of attachment to the Prince. Would the Right Hon. Gentleman agree to the mo tion he should conclude with, and instead of names, insert the titles of offices ? If he could not consent, then he must declare that the Right Hon. Gentleman was casting the most foul and unmerited reproach and suspicion on the Prince. Was the Prince so pro fligate as not to be trusted? Did the Right Honour able Gentleman suppose, that in case any of these great Persoes, viz. the Archbishops, or the Chan cellor, or Chief Judge of the Bench, should die, that his Royal Highness would appoint successors not of the most distinguished character in point of talents and virtues ? The Right Itni. Gentleman concluded with moving, to leave out the name of 44 Charles Manners." It then was to stand, 66 - the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being." Tice CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER trusted he should be successful in repelling the accu sation of treiiing his Royal Highness with disrespect,. and of makias use of the precedcut of 1784 for convenient purposes. He had always expressed a general and strong opinion in favour of that prece dent, but never to follow it np with servile and de grading views. The Right Hon. Gentleman on for mer occasions, had given too high a cc:lnuring to the conduct which he (Mr. Perceval) had pursued. The principle upon which Parliament had proceeded, was first, that the Prince Regent was not the proper per son to be entrusted with the guardianship of the King, nor that in the second, was he the person who ought to be on the Council of her Majesty. That was the first step on the principle ; therefore he should feel him self justified, on Parliamentary groimds, in proceed ing with the next step, which was to negative the proposition, which, in so doing, implying any sort of disrespect or distrust of his Royal Highness, whose conduct throughout the early stages .of the business was such as to call forth unfeigned 'respect and ad miration. His Royal Highness had acted with a re serve which appeared extremely creditable and highly commendable—that was justly his due. When the Right Honourable Gentleman talked of mistrust and disrespect, he did not do him (Mr. P.) justice. Mr. SHERIDAN maintained, that the effect would be, as he had before stated, - throwing a foul stigma on thefiegent. Mr. WHITBREAD contended, that the Statute Book would record that stigma. That suspicions, it waq clear, do exist, and must remain, unless the Right Hon. Gentleman consented to adopt the motion of his Right Hon. Friend. Mr. ADAM declared, that in his opinion the idea would be conveyed to the world that his Royal High ness would use improper means, and therefore was not to be trusted. The question was, Whether the country should have the security of a good and excel lent Council, or have the certainty of a job ? For the appointment of official names would give that secu-, rity against the present proposition. Mr. HERBERT ani, Mr. JOHNSTONE sup ported the original motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer._ _ _ Mr. ADAM re-urged his former arguments, and contended, that it was indecorous to suppose the Re gent would appoint persons to fill thus= high situa tions unworthar. Mr. MARRYATT supported the original motion on the grounds stated by rte Mover, that it had been deemed inexpedient to place the guardianship of the Sovereign in the Regent ; that this was a contingency on that anointment, and consequently must be sup ported in the same way. Sir S. ROMILLY observed, that the Gentlemen opposite seemed to suppose that the Regent, in the event of any of the four great offices mentioned in the clause becoming vacant, would, in filling then up, overlook all the great qualities which were neces sary in the individuals to be appointed to them, and would consider only whether those individuals would be subservient to his wishes in her Majesty's Council. If his Right Hon Friend persisted in following pre cedents, let him follow the precedents of the 24th of George 11. and the sth of George 111. and not the inchoate precedent of 1789. In the two former cases the Members of the Council of Regency were ap pointed not by name but by office. He was sure that it was not the intention of his Right Hon. Friend to in. suit the Prince of Wales ; but it was the interest of all to take care that his Royal Highness's character should be supported. If the clause should pass as it originally stood, the public would suppose that the Legislature suspected his Royal Highness of being capable of raising an individual to the rank of an Archbishop or a Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, not because he was eminent for his piety or his learning, but because he was capable of prostitu ting himself to the most scandalous purposes. He repeated his recommendation to his Right Honour. able Friend to be guided by the spirit of the prece dent which he had described. The ATTQRNEY-GENERAL could not re frain, without disclaiming on his own part the calum ny, that it was intended to do any thing disrespectful by his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It was impossible that any nnin who deliberately considered the provisions of the Bill could be of that opinion.— The principle on which the present clause proceeded was founded on the original principle, and admitted by all, that the Regent ought not to be the guardian of the King's person. It necessarily follow.A, as an extension of that principle, that the Regent ought not to appoint those who were to be the guardians of the King's person. This proposition did not arise from the slightest distrust of his Royal Highness per son-ally, but from the principle that no Regent should possess such a power. As to the precedents adduced by his Hon. and Learned Friend, they were not at all applicable in the present instance, for those prece dents referred to Councils of Regency who were in vested with political powers, and who had nothing whatever to do with the care of the Royal person. After a short explanation by Sir S. Romilly, the Amendment was negatived without a &vision, as were also similar Amendments proposed by Mr. She ridan, respecting the other Members of her Majesty's Council, and the names, as they originally sti,od in the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Isere inserted in the several blanks of the clause. Mr. SHERIDAN observed, that the clause direc ted that the Council should meet in the first week of April, and then only once in• three months, except at the discretion of her Majesty. In another chaise, however, the power was vested in them of examining the Physicians as to the state of his Majesty's health. It appeared to him to be a great oversight that the Council should not have the power vested in them selves to meet when necessary. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER. had conceived that the context of the other clauses gave to the Council that power. However, if it were not so, the error ought to be corrected. An Amendment was accordingly introduced in the clause giving the Council the power of assembling themselves. A long conversation, which followed on the mode in which the Queen should affix her Sign Manual, and the mode by which the Prince should affix his Sign Manual, was re-discussed. We were unable ac curately to correct the result. Mr. 'SHERIDAN remarked, that although her Majesty had the power of filling up certain offices that might become vacant, the Dill did not reader it compulsory on her to fill it up. He thought that this should be obviated ; but as the clause had been passed in which tbis,provisien had been made, he would pro pose an Amendment on the Report, On the Chairman real:l4ole f l it pf tl.e lain! provide feu the resumption ofthe opt! autt rity by his Majesty, Lord MILTON fat it his duty to state his'ohje tions to the proposed mode. ungracto such an assertion might be considered, he declare that, in his opinion, a more . solemn mode of determi ing his Majesty's restoration to health, and one too public, and more satisfactory to the country, ought be adopted. If it were necessary that his Majcsty illness should be substantiated in the tn(4t solen manner before the measure now b progress was ins tuted, he thought it equally necessary that his IA jesty's recovery should be substantiated in as sclemn manner as furore the operation of the measure thou determine. By the Bill, it appeared that his Majes was put completely into the hands of her Majesty at the Council, and however unbounded the confiden which he might entertain is those person., he thought that the tranquillity of the public mind required that they should not be vested with such extensive powers. By the three clauses of the bill, it was impossible that his Majesty could resume the Royal authority until the restoration of his health was certified by the Queen and Council to the Privy Council. His•Majosty was then authorised under his Royal Sign Manual, to call together a portion (chosen by himself) of the Privy Coune4, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the recovery was complete.' He objected, first, to the power given to the Queen and Council ; and then to the provision that his Majesty should sum mon only a part of the Privy Council. To the whole of this complicated machinery he had a great dislike, and he thought that the ultimate investigation by which the complete recovery of his Majesty was to be ascertained, Had better take place in Parliament. Mr. FULLER did not know what the Noble Lord meant by machinery. What would the Noble Lotd have done ? What did he wish ? Did not the Bill g..) on in all its stages, according to the rule by which it had been so accurately and nicely debated on st for.' mer occasion ? If the Bill was founded on the ptt cedent established by one of the wisest men that ever lived, why not keep it regulated by his understand ing, and by his comprehensive mind ? He should, perhaps, have thought with the Noble Lord that an examination of the Physicians by Parliament would be better than an examination of them by the Privy Council, were it not that in the latter case they would be examined on oath, which in the former they would not. It might be said that by this obserration he imputed to those Gentlemen a disposition to say that to which they would not swear. Far from it ; but in this case the House ought z.o be governed by philosophical principles. (A loud laugh) Gentlemen , might laugh at that, but those were the principles on which the measure proceeded. It was a philosophi cal principle which restrained the House horn ap. pointing the Heir Apparent to the Crown as the guardian of the King's person, and which inch:red them to prefer the appointment of persons who could not be unduly influenced. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to the Noble Lord opposite, oh';erved that the Noble Lard seemed to think that because the pre• sent measure originated in a Parliamentary Inquiry, the Regency ought not to be suspended but on a Par liamentary Inquiry. But there was a considerable difference in the two cases. That which was easy. in the one would be difficult in the other. The Corn mittee must recollect this important distinction, namely, that the measure propbsed 'to the two Houses of Parliament, was to divest his Ma'rsty, fora time, of the whole of the Raiyal Authority.— It was impossible that they could consent to this, without ascertaining in the most ecmplete manner, that the case was one which authorised their interfe rence. But with regard to the resumption, his Ma jesty was entitled to resume the Royal Authority the i moment that his health was re-established. It was his intention, however, to propose an amendment to the clause, which, in his opinion, Was defective, in asmuch as it did not contain any prrivision Authori sing his Majesty to interpose himself on the snlsject, and to institute an inquiry into the state of his health. By the clause, the Queen had the power of assem bling the Council—by the amendment introduced at the suggestion of the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite, the Council had the power of assembling themselves—to these provisions he thought ought to , be added one by which the Council should he directed to assemble on the requisition of his Majesty. He stated this on principle, and tint froin the slightest doubt of the readiness of her Majestyto assemble the Council, or of the readiness of the Council to assem. ble themselves, should happily an occasion demand such a proceeding. Nor was it by aqy means his in, tention by this amendment, to give his Majesty the means of getting rid of the Regency in any other may, than hey an investigation by the Privy Council ; but only. to enable his Majesty himself to put in mot tion that investigation. With respect to the resump tion being founded on a Parliamentary Inquiry, such a provision would be attended with great inconve. niences. If Parliament were not assembled, they must be called together. A considerable time mast intervene before they could meet. He allowed, that in point of form, Parliament, if prorogued, might he summoned in 14 daye on a pressing emergency ; but would 14 days suf fi ce for assembling such a Parlia ment as would satisfy the object of the Noble Lord The 13111 provided, that the circumstances of the re. sumption of the royal authority should be submitted to Parliament, immediately after the resumption had taken place. It looked so anxiously to that subject, as to provide that, in the event of a dissolution hav ing taken place before the resumption, the Ministers of the dissolved Parliament should immediately meet for the purpose of taking into consideration the•cir cumstanceis of that resumption. He meant to fill np the blank respecting the number of the Queen's Conn. by whose opinion, in coincidence with their own, her Majesty should be autberised to notify to the Privy Council, that his Majesty was restored to such a state of health as to be ca,lahle of resuming the personal exercise of the royal authority, with the word-- " Four." And he proposed to introduce as an amend: meat, words to the following effect—a That , her Ma jesty's Council should assemble in the presence of bee Majesty, on his Majesty's royal will and pleasure being signified for that purpose." Mr. FULLER repeoted his objections to the word " machinery," used by the Noble Lord, and declar ed that he would rot lend his hand to 'n tetaehir.- ' whatever. 'His idea was, th at &In Hoes* Wes , l metat e Regent, and that a Ratan wa•