The Sun.
London, England, 1830-11-16 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, NOVEM BER Jo, 1830.

No. 11,912.

ineny districts in, the, neighbourhood of the meqoplis.
wholly unprotected before.
Lord TENTERDEN bore testimony to the goi4 con
duct of the Police, and observed there were inanyi mor.
apprehensions now than formerly. I '
Lord DVAHAAI wished to know whether Minister.
.wete prepared, to institute an enquiry into the New Yule e.
• Lord ROSSLyN.said that Ministers were not prepared.
THE 'REGENCY.
The LORA CrIA.NCEII,LOR then left the Woollack,
and addressed their Lordships to the following effect :
My Lords, I rise inconsequence of the notice which 11 give
lest week, in order to submit to your Lordships' judgment
the measure .which his Majesty's Government have pre-
pared, in consequence of his Majesty's recommendation iti
his most gracious Speech from the Throne, for the purpose
of providing for the administration of the Government of
the country, in the event of the demise of his Mitiesty, be-
fore the successor to the Crown shall have arrived at years
of maturity. My Lords, Ido not intend on this occasion
to enter into ;any. detailed consideration of the inert sure.
At present I will confine myself to state the prineiples on
which his Majesty's Government have proceeded in framing
the which I hold in may hand, and to'describe: the out-
line, of ite provisions. In the first place, my Lords, must
observe, that in framing this' Bill his. Majesty's Qovem•
'Pent heve,tint thought it 'necessary to provide "10 t'vrry
possible contingency that may occur. The principle by '
which they have been goVerned is this; Hiving,' in the
Artie place, Considered what were the various exigencies that
might arise, the various periods at whiclt those exigencies
might arise, and the means which would exist of legislating
for any of those exigencies at any of those periods, his
Majesty's Government, for those cases in which it appeared
to them that it would he difficult or inconvenient to
legislate on ,their occurrence, have proposed to legis-
late
on the present occasion. On the contrary, my
Lords, wl.enever it , appeared to them, that on the oceur-
rein° of any of the events under consideration, an oppor-
tunity would be afforded for legislating with no more diffi-
culty or inconvenience than at the present moment, they
have determined not to anticipate the decision of a future
Legislature, but to leave the question free and untouched.
Again, my Lords, in framing the Bill which I am shout
to have the honour of requesting your Lordships will allow
me to lay on the table, his Majesty's Ministers have
thought it the wise and prudent course to legislate as little

as the necessity of the case would admit, and to leave the
existing law and the Constitution to operate wherever
they are applicable. I think your Lordships will feet
that, in pursuing this course, and acting on these princi-
ples, his Majesty's Government have discharged their duty
in a manner the most' consistent with prudence and wis-
dom. It must be obvious to your Lordehipi that the main
point is to protect the person, and to secure the succession
to the throne of her Royal Highness the Princess Victoria.
That illustrious personage is now in the twelfth year of
her age. The period of her majority, as qualifying het
for the Sovereignty of this country, will not arrive until
her Royal Highness is eighteen years old. The principal
object of this Bill, therefore, is to provide, ha the event of
the demise of his Majesty before the Princess Victoriashall
haVe arrived at the age of 18, for the Administration of
the Government of the country during the interval. That,
my Lords, was the duty imposed upon his Majesty's 'fili•
nistere in preparing this Bill ; but I am quite sure
that lam Milt speaking in unison with the feelings of
every Noble Lord who hears me, and in unison with the
feelings of the great body of the people of this country,
when I offer an earnest prayer that the valuable life of his
Majesty may be lung preserved to his faithful and affec-
tionate subjecte.—( Rear, hear.)—l am quite sure that
your Lordships and the great body of the people of this
country feel that no greater calamity could befell us than
the death of our present most gracious Sovereign.—(Hear,
hear.)—But, my Lords, notwithstanding all the wishes
and all the hopes that we may entertain on that point, it
is neceseary that we look to what, however much it is to
be deprecated, is .neverthelesa a possible occurrence ; and
it is in that view of the subject that his Msjesty'e Mini-
sters have prepared the measure in question. The provi-
*ions of that measure are of the most simple character.
The first qu'estion which your Lordships will naturally ask
is—whom we propose as the guardian alter Royal High •
now under the circumstances inferred? lam sure, how-
ever, that the answer will at once suggest itself to every
mind. It would be quite impossible that we should re-
commend any other individual for that high office than
the illustrious Princess, the mother of her Royal High-
ness the Princese Victoria.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—The
manner in which her Royal highness the Duchess of
Kent has hitherto discharged her duty in the educe-
thin of her illustrious offspring—and I speak upon
the subject not from vague report, but from accurate
information—gives us the' best anticipation of her Royal
Higlinesee future Conduet..-4Hear, hear.)—Looking at
the past, it is evident that we Cannot find a better guardian
for the time to c0me...411m, hear.)—With respect to
the Regency, and the means to provide for discharging
the functions of the Sovereignty, it is important to sepa-
rate that consideration from the other. It is, however,
the recommendation of his Majesty's Ministers that on the
'event of the demise of the Crown, what appears to us to
he the only constitutional course should be adopted, and
that her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent should be
appointed sole Regent.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—There is
another question on which it is necessary for me to say a
few words. It will be asked me;—" it may happen that
a child may be born to his present Majesty ; do you intend
to provide in your Bill or that event ?" My answer is
distinctly in the negative. His Majesty's Ministers have
thought it unnecessary to provide for such a contingency,
for this reason—whenever such an event may occur, or
Whenever there may be at reasonable probability of its
speedy occurrence, as it will be competent to the Legisla-
ture to provide for it, and it will he inore'easy to provide
for it at the lime than by anticipation, the case comes
under the principle upon which we determined to frame the
ineasure—namely, to abstain from legislating with refe•
rence to those contingencies, on which,whenever they occur,
Parliament may legislate without any difficulty or incon-
venieuce. For that reason, my Lords, we do not propose
to provide for such an event. The next point to which I
on desirous of calling your Lordships' attention, is one of
no incensideruble importance. I 'have already said that
his Majesty's Ministers pCopose diet her Royal Highness
.

the Duchess of Kent shah be the' sole Regent. The
question is, whether her Royal Highness should have a
Council to moist her? If we were to be gulls' by prece-
dents, those precedents are in favour of the appointment of
such a Council. I do not Speak of the precedents of old
times; the alteration of habits, the change in the eircum-
stances ism/ situation of the country, tinder strch pmee-
!lents very remotely applicable to the present case. It
would 4 difficult also to find in any of those ancient pre-
cedents au instance similar to the present. Passing by,
therefore, all those precedents, I proceed at woe to advert
to two of more modern date-- the one occurring in the
latter part of the reign of George 11., in the year 1751 ;
he other occurring in the fifty-first year of George 111.
In both thoae cases a Council was appointed to assist the
Urgent. My Lords, no opportunity has been afforded us
if judging by practical experience how far those prece-
dents were such as it lyould tse desirable to follow. On
that point, therefore, ne argument can be eaised. But,
my Lords, ►t has appeared to his Majesty's Government,
and I have no doubt that it will appear to your Lordship,
that as the prerogatives with which th'e CroWn is in-
' vested are intended for the preservation of that balance
between the different estates of tbe rerbti 11019,en-
' sable to the maintpnance of the ,Constitution-L-and ar
therefore the Crown itself ought not to he deprived of pre•
rogatives So essential, the expediency of not diminishing
the royal prerogatives applies still more strongly to a Re-
gent; .because the limited duration of the power of a Re-
gent renders that power less influential. lf, my Lords, you
take from' a Regent those prerogatives which you would
besilite to take from a Sovereign, because you know that
by so doing yo 4 would endanger the Constitution, you
would more certeinly produce the evil that yon would wish
to avoid. On these principles, and on these grounds, we
object to the appointment of a Council, professedly to
assist, but in reality to contralti the Regent. I do not
mean to say that a position of affairs might not arise--
that a Regent might nut he chosen, which position and
which choke might not render it highly proper to appoint
a Council. A case might occur in which at would be
neecsattry to select as Regent an individual of great afabi
outs, of great popularity, of great influence, of great autho-
city, whose sole sway might lie dangerous to the State.
file power of such an indtvidusl it might be wise and
prudent to circumscribe by surrounding bins with a
Council. But such, my Lords, is not the case now. The
11.-gent whom we propose to appoint can never succeed
to the Thyme ; her interests are identified with those

of the future Sovereign ; she is united to her by the
tenderest ties ; it will be the interest of the Regent to
'it'd to the authority of the future Sovereign ; none of
those motives for self.aggrandieement can occur in this real
ease which might occur in the imaginary casethat I have
;uet described. In the precedent of 1751 manydebates
took place in the other House of Parliament. The argu-
,nents of Mr. Sp, aker Onslow, and of other Hon. Mem-
bers who were opposed to the appointment of a Omitted)
of Regency, appear to me 'to have great weight. The
Attorney-General of that day, Mr. Dudley Ryder, gave
it as his decided opinion, that a sole Regent, unfettered
any Council of Regency. was much more consonant to
he principles of the Constitution than a Regent surrounded
Ind checked by such a Council. The only argument'.
urged at that time by the supporters of. the Council was,
that Pediment was establishing a precedent; ustd that
cases might occur in which the appointment of a Council
of Regency would he highly expedient, but might be re-
'listed on the score of precedent. But surely, my Lords,
that was weak and shallow reasoning. Why not allow
every case to be judged of by its own merits? Why not
leave the Legislature to deal with every future emergency
precisely according to its particular character and circum-
stances? To me it appears to be a monstrous proles—
sition,.. that . if at any period the interests of the country.
require the appointment of a Council of Regency,
the Legislature shall be precluded front making such
an aPpointinent, because a preceding Legislature, un-
der circumstance* of a different nature, had abstained
from it! At the period to which I have b.en ad-
verting, the Council was to be compt B.d of fourteen indi-
viduals, seven of whom were to be Ministers of State.
There was this provision, that no Nlernher of the Council
should be removed from it without the concurrence of
half the Members of the Council. Looking, therefore,
even at the manner in which the Council was funned, it
is nut a precedent which 1 could recommend for imitation.
Fur these reasons, I submit to your Lordship that it is
far better, in the present instance, that her Royal High-
ness the Duchess of Kent should not be fettered by any
Council; but that she should be left to administer the
Government by means of the responsible Ministers of the
Crown. That is the course which his Majesty's Ministers
conceive to be most consistent with a just and efficient
administration of the Government. There is still ano-
ther question, my Lords, to which, however reluctantly,
lem compelled to advert. I *ay reluctantly, because it
refers to a possible case for which we have no authority,
no precedent. The subject was alluded to in the last

Session by a Noble Earl who is not now in his place.—
It is a subject is certainly beset with very grave
difficulties) ; arUi I conies., my Lords, that I approach it
with some degree of apprehension. It was stated by the
Noble Earl, to whom I have alluded, that, although

the Monarch might have no child living at the
time of his death, a posthumous child might neverthe-
less be. horn. In that case, my Lords, ' clearly,
and without the possibility of controversy, that rbild,
whenever its birds took place, would instantly sue.
teed to the Throne. Of that, there is no doubt what-
ever. But the great difficulty is to decide what are the
existing rights in the interval between the demise of the
Crown and the birth of such a child. It is very extra-
ordinary, my Lords, that as far as I have been able to as-
-certain, aa.isted on the subject as I have been by some
able friends, no case of the hind has occurred in this coun-
try since the Norman Conquest. It is very extreordinary
that with respect to this point, no notice has been taken
by any old writer on our Ilw and oonstitution. In the
debetee on the Exclusion Bill in the reign of Charles IL,
it was incidentally noticed in the other Houseef Parlia-
ment.; A Learned Gentleman, Mr. Hargreave, in a work
entitled ,f Brief Deductions," has stated in distinct terms,
that the law on the subject is unsettled; and I confess,
my Lords, that I have been unable to find anything op-
inured to that statement. If we divert our attention front
our own country, and look to what has occurred with re-
ference to the Monarchy of France, we shall. find only two
instance*, in which a Royal posthumous eland has been
born The. one was subsequently to the death of Henry
V. . On that occasion, on the demise of the Sovereign,
the Presumptive Heir .to the Crown wee declared Regent.
The child proved to be a son, and of course borne-
diately succeeded to the Throne. Charles the Fair left
his widow seven mouths gone with child, iu that ease
also, the Presumptive Heir to the Crown was declared Re-
gent. But in that ease, the child proved to be a daughter,
arid was of emirs* excluded from the Throne by the
'align° law. But, my Lords, the principles of a foreign
Government are not those to which we ought to lock for
a model. Nor are the circumstances of the two countries
the same. We are, therefore, driven to the necessity of
con-idering the subject with reference to what appears to
lie the general principle of our own law. The descent of
the Crown follows the rules of the descent of real pro-
perty, In most respects, except where there are two daugh-
ters, in which the real property is shared between them.
It becomes, therefore, important to inquire what happens
with reference is/ a posthumous child entitled to real pro.
perty. My Lords, it has been settled in the Courts of
Justice of this country, that such a child, before it is born,
cannot be seised of such property. The right to enjoy
and possess it is in the presumptive, heir. He has the
whole interest in it; from the death of his predecessor
until the birth of the child. That precisely the lame doe.
trine stands good with respect to the Crown, I win not
assert with confidence; but this principle is undoubtedly
common to both ; namely, that there can be no abeyance,
that there can be no vacancy. The King , never dies.
There must always be a Sovereign. The principle. ap-
plied to real property is applicable to the Crown.
The, child unborn cannot be seised of the Crown ; it
must devolve for the time to the presumptive heir.
My Lords, I know that this is only reasoning from
analogy. I submit it to your Lordship.' consider.
ation. I beg to say, to your Lonlships' indulgent
consideration ; seeing the nature of the question, and the
diffiaulties which surround it.—( Hear, bear.) My Lords,
we have two course to pursue ; we must either adopt the
course taken in the French Monarchy, or we must appoint
a Regent to administer the functions of the Government
iu the interval between the death of the Monarch end the
Arai of the posthumous Add. Your Lordships will,
however, advert to this eircutabtatice—Ahat the Govern-
ment, under any Regeneyi mug be administered in the
name and on behalf of the Sovereign. If you appoint a
Regent to administer the Government, without stating
that he is to administer it in the name and on the behalf 07

the Sovereign, you create a'Parliamentsry. Sovereign under
the title of Regent. It would he more tterrect, therefme,
under such circumstances, to say that the Regent shall ad-
minister the Government in the name and on !Audi of the
Presumptive Heir; and that he stall be liable to be di-
vested of hie authority on the birth of the posthumous
ehi'd. When I say that the King never dies, I appall to
the uniform proceedings of. our Courts of Justice, TV re
is no proceeding in any civil ease, there is no pmcceding in
any criminal cave, which does not take plat* in the name
of the King. Such or such an act is said to he quivio
the King's peace. The King is riiwgya vuppowd to exist.
I repeat, thereforg, toy LOrds, that the best course will b,
to appoint a Regent, to act for the Presumptive Heir to
the Crown, liable to be divested of his authority on the

birth of a p istliumous child. The sei.in in 14w must rest
somewhere, and in whom ought it to rest if not in the
heir Presumptive ? This is the principle of ths ry of
reel property ; and the e.me 40' the same prin-
ciple apply, in the I,4lleut extent, if we argue from analogy
in regulating the &went of the Crown. There it, too,
another point connected with this part oldie emotion,
which I think merits your Lordship.' consideration.
If you say that the succession to the Throne oan lk4
either vacant or in suspension until there .;* tt
of a child being horn to deetroy eiaint of the'heir Pro-
.umptive, it may happen Slat, even with the probability of
such art event taring Place, 'a child tuay eventually not be
Itorn. 'Now' my 'Lords, it Max', therefore, oCcw ti tit the
prettungrive heir was the Illooerch entitled to the throne
upon tlie very instant of the demise of the last postetwor of
the Crown, and that you have, by the appointment of a
Regency under such circumstances, and under the expec-
tation of the birth of snot'icr heir to the throne, deprived
him of his right, and excluded him from taking that which
wipi his right the moment of the ilemiee of the forinii.sk::
vereigo, -7:(h ear, hear. consitleriim all' the be sin
of u queacteit o ditfiCtift acid complicated, j have It It
my duty to consult all tl.use learned men who are the
official edvisers of the Crtetvn, anti they tine and all con-
cur in,that view of the question which I have now endea-
voured to explain to your Lordships, and agree in opiition
that there are no eases on record by which we turn regulate
our decision, but that WC must guide ourselves by Vtii*Ort-
ing from analogy, and by 4 reference to those laws regu-
lating the descent of VW property to which 1 have airway

called your Lordships' attention. Before your Lordship,
come to any decision on a question of such grave import
ance, I would suggeat the propriety of allowing some littL
time to pass by, in order that your Lordships may hay,
an opportunity to put Yourselves in poasession of al?
the Authorities which are connected with that part 0'
the subject. On the principle, however, that it is ne-
ceseary to provide for the possibility of the birth of t
posthumous chill, we Kopec, on the same terms and to
the Same extent that we have thought it right to mark,
her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent the guardian I,
or heiress presturiptive, and the Regent of the kingilon
iluring her mintnity—we now propose, I say, to provide
bye Bill, that in the event of the birth of a child afte
the demise of the Sovereign, her Majesty the Queen ahoule
~ecorne the guardian of that child, and the Regent of th,
kingdom during the continuance of the minority of tha
child—(Hear, hear, hear)—the same arguments and th,
,
mine principles applying equally to the one case as to tht
other---(hear, hear)—the deep interest which the parent
mustrdways have in the safety mid prosperity of her off-
spring pointing out that parent as the fittest and moat pro-
per person to be the guardian of the infant and the Regent
tharingiits minority. This, my Lords, is the outline at
the Bill which I submit to yoursonsideration. I abstain
hoot entering into details, because I feel that those, details
will be much better understood by an examination of the
Bill itself. We propose then, my Lords, that her Royal
Highness the Duchess of Kent shall, in the event of the
demise of the present Sovereign, he the Guardian of the
Heiress Presumptive, and the Regent of the kingdom, until
the Princess arrives at her majority—that is, the age of
eighteen years; and we also propose that in the event of
the birth of a posthumous child, her Majesty the Queen
should be in the same manner the guardian of the child
and the Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf or
the infant during its minority. These, tny Lords, are the
heads of the Bill. The details, as I said before, it is un-
necessary to enter into at this moment, and I shall there-
fine conclude by laying the Bill ou your Lordships' table,
and praying leave that it may now he read a first time.—
, Hear, hear, hear.)

The Earl of ELDON said he could not allow that op-
portunity to pass by without expressing his feeling that the
Mune and the country were deeply indebted to the Noble
Lord for the attention he had bestowed on a question of so
couch importance, and still more for the able and eloquent
manner is which he had brought it under their considera-
tion, and stated the grounds on which be relied for their
concurrence.—( Hear, hear. )—He (Lord Eldon) thought he
should stand justly charged with most unpardonable vanity,
if, after the grave and weighty consideration which the
Noble Lord bad bestowed on every part of the question, he
should now presume to express any difference of opinion
without maturely weighing and examining all the provisions
of the Bill. One thing, however, ho might say now, and
that was, that on the question of the law, as it applied to
the cases stated by the Noble Lord, he (Lord Eldon) fully
agreed witty the Noble Lord. All the points connected
with the law of the case had been so fully and ably stated
by the Noble and Learned Lord, that he had very, little to
say, but he would observe, that it was the interest of all on
whom the settlement of this important question depended
to take c ire that there should he perfect unanimity.--
(ilear)—on all that was said and done connected with it.
Under that persuasion he was confident that advice, from
whatever quarter, would he well received and conscientiously
acted upon. He should for the present content himself
w;th expressing again his Concurrence in all that had heen
said of the law of the case, and take a few days for delibe,
ration before he offered any opinion on the details.
The Bill, entitled " Au Act to provide for the Adnii.
mistration of the Government of the country, in the event
of the demise of the Crown," was then read a first time,
and the Hope immediately Adjourned.

A greet number of their Lordships remained in the
House after the departure of the Lord Chancellor, and
collected in groups, apparently for the purpose of ex-
posing their opinions an tie provisions of thellith •