Star. — London, England, 1810-12-21 00:00:00

. Gentlemen, that when the two Houses vent direct the individual possessing the , A 1 to put the Great Seal to an instrument, 't of legislation! It' is true that the one case an d distinctly intelligible, and that the other • overed over and obscure,.but the things are the same notwithstandmg. The authority egent to order the Great Seal to be affixed to instrument would be transferred through the ises of Parliament. It would not he the of the Regent, but the authority of the two tf Parliament. One way or the other it must of the Legislature. Igo on, Sh-, to con manner in which the two different measures would be accomplished. In a case of this in is it nothing to preclude any proposition l a carried into effect by a single vote ? On in which is no less than to put the royal an ito other hands, ought we not to guard our igs with as much deliberation as possible ? Gentlemen opposite propose, is to transfer Lc regal authority by a single vote. Am I -stand that the proposers of the address are transfer the whole power of theCrowNwith qualification,or reserve; or that in this mode ding by address, it is intended to specify it or qualification in the body of the Ad- It appeared to me, Sir, that I received the assent of the Committee whenll said, that it lecessary to provide . means by which his Majesty res ume the Raga: Authority on his recovery. to make a Regent without such a provision ? to leave him to advisers who may mislead r Regents may be misled as well as Kings ? then to leave all these points solely to the and consideration of the Regent's advisers ? this be a fair execution of our double trust ? iarticularly, would it be a fair execution of that lur trust by which we are bound to secure tajesty, on his restoration to health, the resto ' his undiminished authority ? I am persuad that no one will suppose, either in the obser which I had made, or in ;he observations shall make, that I mean any thing incompa li the utmost possible respect for the charac is Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.— me remind those who are now willing to immediate power in the hands of his Royal is, in the strict confidence that that power tot be abused, what have been their sentiments far subjects. If it were a question which re his Royal Highness's character, I would say lose Gentlemen appreciate that character as as it deserves to be appreciated ; let them ap s it as highly as their imaginations will permit the higher they establish, the higher they raise yal Highness's character, the more cautious 'c to be not to establish a precedent of power ig into the hands of an officer, not from a -ation of the difficulties which would attend a itation of that power, but from the merits of ,idual on whom it is conferred. In propor those merits are distinguished, ought 'we to ious in onr proceedings, lest we legislate bene , perhaps, for the present age, but, for what ww, most injuriously for future ages. Let the ittee consider, Sir, how far it might be safe to ich a principle to be established as that asser the Gentlemen opposite. If in a future period lritish history, the Monarch should be afflicted calamity similar to that which his Majesty unhappily enduring, and if the apparent suc to the throne at the period I am imagining be of a character the reverse of that of his Highness the Prince of Wales, how invidious, tngerons would the duty of Parliament become. ~uch a precedent, they could not ideny that it been deemed wise in such a case, to invest with ad immediate power ; they must therefore be '3roadly to state, that that which was wise in ign of George 111. was not wise itt the period' ich they lived. I challenge any person, there shew that character will justify a departure to principles of wise legislation, whatever may opinion of other persons upon other parts of thject—Whether they consider the restraints as iany or too few—whether they consider the li tons as too much or too little determined, I call them to resist the adoption of a measure by the possibility of ategative would almost be led. An appeal has been made to the prece if the Revolution ; but the circumstances are different. At the period of the Revolution touse itPl recollect that other Monarch was .on the 'Throne. The rone was then vacant ; not so now. Now a new office is to be created ; suly an old one was to be filled up. The cases from being parallel, and the reasoning that is , ed from the one, is inapplicable to the other. An %table Gentleman the other evening adverted to ddress from the Parliament of Ireland to his Highness the Prince of Wales in 1788, and con that after the Union the precedents of one Par tl were as good as those of another. With respect different situations of Ireland and 'of Great in at that period, I will not enter into any dis in, hut I beg leave to make a remark on the ,arative validity of the precedent brought for by the Honourable Gentleman, and that ad by myself. I have shewn how the Parliament of Britain acted upon the result of an examination history and Constitution of the country, and the precedent which they then established has A confirmed by the proceedings of subsequent liaments. Did any such confirmation take place Irish Parliament ? The Lord Lieutenant of day was the Marquis of Buckingham. When tressed by the two Irish Houses of Parliament with view of transmitting their Address to his Royal ghness the Prince of Wales, his Lordship hesitated conveying the Address to his Royal Highness. After the recovery of his Majesty did the Irish arnent adopt any proceeding against the Noble ? Was even a Vote of Censure passed against. And can the Honourable Gentleman conceive i this weakly established precedent of the Irish - liament is to be put in competition with the piece ,of the British Parliament *ith all its various sanctions? I have endeavoured, Sir, to go through the leading points of the question before us, and to shew grounds of the preference which I feel for that side i!which I espouse. I trust I have redeemed the pledge 'filch I gave on a former night, that I would prove was nothing in the measure that I intended to Pt . opose, in the slightest degree derogatory to the Con- Nution, or 'in' the , slightest degree offensive to his .le . far F ern e, t Seal an act 0 tyar f T *little col 'set,' the Rego public IT , House! ,thority of t oas es of an act of , er the Ina po nd we .ption it ur being ees tion 3 I • h ° dry into dings t the ( ic w hole r , o dersta ing to tr , tlirnit , ( 1 1 limit c , . ss ? It s necessa ight restt n re to I r e we tO • Int for R •ia r e we the ; sc i o n; and ould this ore partil ► rt of our : • his Maje ;ion of hi Sir, tha 4tions wh • hich Ish ible with t of his t let mi trost imi ighness, ould not 3. n similar h ted to hi: • let thost ghly as i • eciate it em ; the is Royal ght we t evolving . h. Insideratt st limital le individ 'on as tho cantiou daily, e know, OMMittCI • 'lifer suet by the the Brit . Ith a ca • now unl sor to ould be in opal Hi .ow dang kit sue, d been s„ full and it to driven In( the reign ie . at which g fore, to st t. from the be the opi the sithe Le WO Than' le ' mitations re upon th( se which th a excluded 5 dent of tl e wholly di a the Hous placeu of ss it is si.‘t a then mil) are far fr derived f ci If, nema • the Addi Royal I - 1 t. tended tl to (lament to the d e, Britain CUSS:On, • compara t *aril by duced it Great lii of he 11' how the Iseen co Parliam in the I o that day o address the vies Is ; in cony But afte L. Parliam Lord ? Kim ? ./1 at th' Pathan dent of a sanctior leading r tite go' of it whi which l there w Popou ititutia • Royal Hightless . the Prittee of Wale* I declare, that if in my own opinion complete and unlimited power ought to be given to the Prince of Wales, I should still contend that it ought to be given by Bill, and not by Address. I cannot conceive the possibility of a supposition being entertained that a proceeding by Bill would contain a reflection on his Royal Highness j from which a proceeding by Address would be freed His Royal Highness claims no right ; it he did, both . I modes would necessarily be offensive to him. On all these considerations, I trust that the Committee will consider the course which I have taken the liberty to recommend to them as one which, combining in itself I advantages that are not presented by any other line of conduct, is intitled to their support and adoption. t ( Loud cries of Hear, hear, hear.) The first Resolution was then read and agreed to. The second Resolution was next read. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT rose, and said, that as his Majesty's Ministers were so anxious to recur to precedents, he wished that they had looked back to old precedents, and not confined themselves to prece dents of late years: He wished they had looked back to those precedents which furnish men'ss mind with the best pools of the virtues and purity of our ances tors, and not to those of late days, which were only precedents to skew how pertinacious men can hold and keep their places. .The preposition now submit ted is one which very naturally emanates from a mo dern Miniiter of State ; it tells the world what he wishes them to believe, that this House " is a full, fair, and free representation of the People." It is no such thing. He (Sir Francis) never thought so ;he never could do that violence to his undetstanding to allow himself to be duped into such a base belief or supposition—he would not allow his perception and knowledge to be so hoodwinked. It kas done so many acts that he never could allow himself to imagine that a free representatiOn of the people would have ever attempted. How often has it been asserted, i and even by petitions and addresses on the table of the House, that evidence could be brought to the bar, to prove that it was not a full, fair, or free represen tation of the people ? Is it sot on the records of the House, that a majority therein is obtained by the di rect influence of about 150 or 144 Peers ?—(At these words there was a mixture of laughing on the Oppo sition side, and of coughing on the Treasury side of the House.) He was not surprised tha; Gentlemen were unwilling to hear their own integrity called in ques. tion ; they had, however, been guilty of conduct which lost them the confidence of the country, and , with this firm conviction on his mind, which no cia- mour could remove, he felt it his duty to protest against the pr oceedings proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It had been said that the. present melancholy state of the country was analogous to that of the year 1788, and upon this proposition all the measures which were deemed proper at that period were again brought' forward. In his estimation the House had not to reason upon the analogy, but upon the emergency of the case. What were the facts at the time of the revolution ? The incapacity of the reigning' King was admitted, that incapacity did not however arise from illness but from a despotic exercise of these laws which were meant for the protection, and not for the destruction, of the people. Upon this ground, it was deemed expedient to supply his place, not by a Regent, trammelled by the chains of a designing Ministry, but possessed with full powers, to act ac cording to the best of his judgment for the welfare of the State. At the present crisis, the incapacity of the Sovereign was admitted, arising from an affliction which was universally and sincerely lamented. How ever painful the consideration of the melancholy cause which led to the incapacity of his Majesty might be, there was a duty to perform to the country which ought not to be neglected. The Right Honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that the Throne was not vacant. If this assertion was true, why did he not prove it by some act of the Executive Power ? In truth there was little or no difference between the state of the country, as it was at the present moment destitute of a King, and its state at the time of the revolution. It was equally necessary that the No t * office should be filled not l by a Regent circumscribed in his powers, but by one, in the full possession of all those means which the King himself, when competent to the discharge of {his duties, possessed. He would ask the Right Hon. Gentleman, by what means he could prove that an act of the House as they were then assembled could be considered as unconstitutional, when it was prov ed that the Executive Power, from which all the power of the House flowed, was not in existence, and without the concurrence of which they could not le gally carry into execution any one Act. He did not in fact see how the Right Hon. Gentleman could contend with anS , degree of credit, that by the adop. tion of the measures proposed, the House would not be totally subverting.the Constitution. In 1688, the opinion of the Citizens of London and of a large body of the country, was considered essential before the measures then adopted were carried into effect, whereas upon the present occasion there had not been , My appeal whatever, beyond the Members of the House. At their will alone, and by their power, was an a c ct to be performed, in which the vital interests of the nation were so deeply concerned. lie could not witness such conduct without feelings of the greatest indignation. When he took a retrospect of past events, he only was amazed at the presumption with which the House was about to act. Could he forget, or could the world forget, that it' was in evidence before the House, that Members had been turned out of their seats for not voting in favour of the views of the Right Honourable Gentleman Could he forget that a Noble Lord, and even dm Right lion. Gentleman himself bad -been publiclf accused of bartering the patronage of Government [ for seats in Parliament ? Could he forget that the I House of Commons allowed a public accournant, (Lord Melville) to 'refuse with the utmost effron., tery, to give an account of his disposition of thel public money ? And yet the catalogue of -their offences did not terminate there. The disgraceful !result of the inquiry 'into th e e fatal Expedition to, Valcheren, gave new grounds for public animad version, and excited new causes for regarding the Parliament with distrust. He had heard various terms of odium applied to different Parliaments.-r- There was the Long Parliament, the Rump Parlia ment, and so forth—and some years hence, he had no doubt, the present Parliament would he stigmativ with the name of the indnieren Pert- (I ter. )—However have been In their comae towards the loss of public' confidence, the rapid strides of corruption of late years were beyond comparisons With respect to the mode of constituting the Regent as proposed by the Right Hon. Gentleman, it could fairly, be said, that he was pursuing the same course with the faction of 1788, that was to say, with a due regard to the places and emoluments of himself and his colleagues. Were it proposed to appeal to the kingdom upon the expel diericy of the plan to be followed, it would be imme diately answered, that it was intended to introduce Jacobins and demagogues. He could only say that he knew no other Yacobinical opinioas upon the sub ject than Judges Blackstone and Coke. The latter, in his Lex et Constatudo Parliawnti clearly pointed out the right of the people to judge in all cases where their own interests were concerned. In the novel de- vices adopted by modern statesmen, however, it was not deemed fair to pay any attention to public consi deration. Judge Blackstone dwelt on the danger which would arise from the Peers having the power to tax the people ; and, in another part of his work, adverted to the great advantages derived by the people from their being protected by the choice of their own representatives. The learned Judge, in describing the Constitution, compared it to a machine wrought by three weights, the equilibrium of Which took the right direction towards the freedom of the subject. If this was the case, the Executive Power being ab sent, and the House of Commons assuming kgreater power than it really possessed; in how dangerous a situation was the Constitution placed ? Although the Prince of Wales could have no more right than any other individual in the country to become Regent, how much less right the House of Commons to appoint a person to that office. Nothing could be more reasonable than placing the power which was deficient in the State, in the hands of him to whom it would go by legal course, and to render that power effectual, it should be given without any of these re strictions, the imposition of which would only give rise to difficulties wnich would prevent its due exer cise. If the King had too much power, it should be reduced; but if no more power existed thanwas neces sary, itwould be as improper totake itfrom the Regent as from the King. With respect to the character of the latter-mentioned individual, no person could cast the slightest imputation against him. When nothing was heard from the Right Honourable Gentleman, how. ever, bin the highest panegyrics which were uor the panegyrics of his Majesty, but of his Ministers—( Hor t hear !)—a succession of' the worst Ministers, sad the most unfortunate the country ever saw ; it was , impossible to pass the subject without an expression of disgust.—(Near, hear. )—When the melancholy situa. ton of the country was considered, and when the causes of that situation were so evident, it was more than could be endured with common patience, to hear the very instruments of that country's destruction, trumpeting forth their own praises, in ,language as fulsome as undeserved. The Right Hon. Gentleman had passed but cursorily over the-Report of the Exa mination of the Physicians; with a remark, that the deduction to be drawn from it, the incapacity of the King, was so evident, that it required no comment. —There was one important fact, however, which had been passed over very slightly, and which did not seem to haveettracted the attention of the Learned Gentleman ; and that was, that from the whole re port, no fair conclusion could be drawn. That from the period of 1188, his Majesty had any real and substantial remission of his disorder, relapses had been heard of, and in fact, the public h ad been deceived. —The Right Honourable Gentleman had said, that the House was not called upon to make a King—He (Sir Francis Burdett) was not of opinion that they were ; but the Learned Gentleman wanted to make a King which he might carry about in his pocket, regardless of the consequences which must result to a nation already weighed down by afflictions drawn on its devoted head by the imbecility of that Right Honourable Gentleman and his compeers. He (Si. Francis Burdett) would ask, whether it was safe that the Government should be vascillating be tween the Crown and the Ministers ? If the Re gency was given to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, he knew no man more likely to gain the confidence of the people ; nor did he believe there was one snore competent to discharge the important duties which would devolve upon him: But if he was appointed, it was indispensable that he should be pos lessed of full powers to act as the interests of the coun try might require, without any of those inj uriousrestric tions whic% must only involve him in the greatest dif ficulties. In reverting again to the Report of the physi cians, he perceived that their opinions varied as to the time at which the King became unfit to perform the functions of his office ; and, in fact, after a close pe leusal of the whole detail, he conceived if a Regency took place at all, it ought to be permanent. This opinion he formed from the physicians having ascri bed many of his Majesty's relapses to political sub jects. At a period like the present, therefore, when every succeeding day afforded some new and extra ordinary, if not calamitous incidents, it did not appear likely that so firm and well establishment of his Majesty's faculties could take place, a would war rant him in taking upon himself as' difficult task of Government ;—and to suffer the Government to remain exposed longer to the weakness of the pre sent Ministers, would - be treason to the Country.— The only alternative, therefore, was the Regency, which he sincerely hoped would be adopted under such an aspect as would afford some prospectof rescuing the United Kingdom from the black clouds of adversity, which seemed on all sides to envelope it. He should most strenuously object to the House supplying the deficiency, convinced as he was, that they had, not that right, although they had acted as .if they had. He could not sit down without noticing the delay of five or six weeks, occasioned by the usual impolicy of the Right Hon. Gentleman. What was then to be done might have been done upon the first day of the meeting of Parliament. He thought the whole a mi. serable sham calculated to stab the vital interests of the country ; to patch up an oligarchy, and to varnish with form, that, which, if it appeared in its true co lours, wou ld be spurned with contempt. With these sentiments, he should protest against all the proceed ings of the Right Hon. Gentleman, and give his vote against all the Resolutions. The second question was then put and carried, and the third was read. Mr. PONSONBY . concurred with the Right Ho nonrable Gentleman Opposite, in thinking that there wag not a heart hit the House, or is the nati9p. that • did mg lenient the calamity which bid bef i al led hit Majesty. He entirely concurred with him in th .b king it must be the wish and the prayer of every mut that he might soon recover to exercise the royal pow, The Right Honourable Gentleman had kid tfeie proceedings had been marked with proper grasOly and decorum, and had expressed his satisfaction Arb the difference between their conduct and the of d.IIP representatives of the people in 1788. 14e felt no* gratitude to the Right Hon. Gentleman for the cm). • pliment in which he conceived himself to be included With his friends, and he knew not why he (the Clan cello!, of the Exchequer) should go out of Ills way to make such a comparison, and to throw obloquy on the. national assembly of that day, most of whom wet. now no more. He could see no reason for his acting thus to revive that spirit of acrimony, at the absence of which he professed to rejoice It was by no means necessary for him in 1810 to make sich comparison to the disadvantage of those who had dis cussed the same question in 1789. The Right Ho nourable Gentleman had said he understood, from what had been thrown out from the . Opposition side, that the third resolution would be opposed, as not being agreeable to the principles of the Constitution, while he called upon them in 1810, to fnllow the ex ample of the House of Commons in 1788. In oppo. sing such a proceeding he was guilty of no inconsiss tency of conduct. He had been of opinion that it was unconstitutional in 1788, and he still continued to think so, for reasons which he should proceed to state to the House. The Right Honourable Gentleman had said there was no comparison between the pre sent situation of the country and that in which it was placed at the time of the Revolution in 1688. He (Mr. P.) thought with the last Speaker that they were parallel cases. In the present instance the ra cancy arose not from the abdication of the Monarch. but from the incapacity of him who holds tlant situa tion to discharge the functions of Royalty. Though his person is there, his mind is absent, he is wholly unable to fulfil the duties of his high office, and it consequently became their duty to remedy the deka., thence arising. It was proposed to lodge the execoeiva power in the hands of another, during his Majesty's mental incapacity ; and the mode by which this was proposed to be done was by Bill; by an Act, which implied the consent of each ,of the branches of the Government. It was most preposterously proposed the royal assent to that Bill, which was only to be passed because he who alone can give the royal assent was unable to give it. It went to make inca pability capable, to make derangement rational, and to make incompetent competent. To succeed it was necessary that all this should be done. But were they rational if they could embrace such an ex travagant proposition ? If they could receive Inch a proposition as reasonable, as one which ought to be adopted, never let the man who is the strong est Protestant, oho is least friendly to the Catho lic religion, laugh again at the doctrine of tran substantiation. Never again let them laugh at the absurdities, of others, if a grave assembly „like that could say, that an act was complete, because the as sent of him is pretended to be obtained whose incom petency to give that assent is the cause of the Act being made. He hoped the Right Honourable Genii tletnan would find he had not eloquence enough to persuade the House to came into such a proposition. The Right Honourable Gentleman, referring to the precedent of 1789, had told them, that after the re covery of his Majesty, he (the King) 'had approved of what had been done, a , . I ratified the Acts previ ously made. Did the Honourable Gentleman re collect that his Majesty on his recovery knew who had acted so without his authority ? and recollecting those were retained, and that his Majesty continued - undee the influence of the same advisers, could he think such a precedent strong enough to overpower the dictates of common sense, to overturn reason itself, and render that worthy of imitation which was in itself a palpa ble contradiction of what it purported to be ? But, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his Majesty hay. ing when recovered given his assent to the bill, such is' proceeding had now the force of the whole Parli anent. From the time that the billreceived his Majesty's assent., • he admitted the Act to be legal and constitutional, as were certain Acts in the cases of the Restoration and the, Revolution. In those cases the royal assent made valid the Acts previously passed, which they never could be while wanting that sanction. The _Right. Hon, Gentleman bad said that it was their duty to provide for the emergency of the case, byinacing some per sons in a situation to exercise the functions of rop ally. The public suffer for the iuccmpetency of the. King, and therefore his place men be supplied bn, some person equal to the duties of that high office.- But how were they in their present state to pass an - Act—how legislate without the three Powers of Par liament ? How but by giving some person the au- thority to do that which the *king should do if able 4 The Right Honourable Gentleman had said that it was the right of Parliament to command thw Great sal. Be would maintain that the Gr p Seal belonged to the King, and not to the Lords or to the Commons. It belonged to the King and to him only. If the King was incapable of coos. ing it to be used, who then should direct in what cases and to what Acts it should be applied f--es Should the House of Lords or the House of Com mons take upon themselves to exercise that 'sower. or should they supply the defect in the Govern ment if they could.? According to the Right Hon. Gentleman they ought not to supply the defect in the Constitution, but ought to usurp themselves the au: thority of the great seal, and order it to be used tat they should think fit for the purposes of legislature. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had said, b e conceived this authority could be used with confer-- mity to the principles of the Constitution. He now wished to examine this position, to see how the Right Honourable Gentleman was warranted is malting tech an assertion. Since the Constitution of 'the country had assumed a more exact and metheth. ' cal form *1 exercising its powers, since it had been generally uaderstood. but two cases, the restoration and the revolution, directly in point, and in neither o( these did either Ouse think of proceeding as t h e y were now advised to proceed, and as they had4t his opinion most unfortunately) acted in 1789. public business and the courts of justice being wholly at a stand, wanting the authority of the great seal.— The Commons formerly applied to the Lords (think. ing they had a right to do so) to cause the Great Seal to be made use of. The Lords, however, re fused to accede to their wishes and w ould do nothing 1 1 I I