Star.
London, England, 1810-12-28 00:00:00

all the oltgereatlens and
used by the No
beiroterettie
he enter into a d'r assion 1
einisinita. Regent, Wunder t
A ditirreqce oPopunon on
corded tut the Journals, and
question .of whether the'ri,
fapparent, or otherwise ?
i V. AS i 1141111411110 Houses ;

heir appareni ; others agai

He would not attempt to

opinions, though they migL_ into
lone conclusion, that the sole right was vested in the
IPrince. But to avoid all discussion of that question
he should move the previous question. If that was
agreed to, he should then move another resolution, for
'taking such measures to supply the defect in the per-
sonal exercise of the royal functions as the interests
iof the realm might require, and which should be con-
formable to the principles of the hereditary monarchy
and the law Of succession to tho Crown. His Lord-
ship concluded with moving—" That the House do
resume, and that the question on the Resolution be
now put."
This motion was also rejected without a division.
The second Resolution was then put, and carried
without any further opposition.
On the question being put to agree to the third re-
solution,
Lord El OLLANDagain rose to propose an amend.
ment to that Resolution, and in what he had to offer
on this point, he would endeavour to keep as close
as possible to the question. In some of the observe-
Cons oldie Noble Secretary he was disposed to ac-
quiesce, but not in all. The Noble Earl endeavoured
to distinguish between the political capacity of the
Sovereign, and his ability for the personal exer-
cise of the Royal functions. To a certain degree,
perhaps the, distinction might be just ; he was not
however, prepared to say that it was, or that it
was not. If lie rightly understood it, it would in-
fer that there was a power somewhere to exercise that
right, and that it could not be delegated to another.
He did not imagine that in the whole of our history
there could be found a single instance of it. Could
any man assume to exercise the prerogatives of the
Crown in favour of the people, for whose interests
they were originally conferred ? Such a right might,
perhaps, be assumed by Parliament. Yes; but it
must be by a full Parliament—a Parliament consist-
ing of the three ea-ordinate branches of the Constitu-•
tion—the Commons, Lords, and King ; by some
person properly authorized br such a Parliament so
to act. The Noble Lord seemed to insinuate, that
such was the power of Parliament, in such cases as
the present, that they might chuse a Regent not the
next of blood ; that they might confer the Regency
on the lowest individual. In this he might agree ;
but that would not be an Act of Parliament. If the
Noble Earl looks to such acts of Parliament, then he
loses sight of the question altogether. Such a mode
of proceeding would, in no sense, be analogous to
the Constitution of the country : and however he
might disapprove of wresting that right from the
Prince of Wales, he would contend that there was no
instance of it, when there was full competence to ex-
ercise these functions. But it is said, every Regent
should be put under restrictions. This did not hold
good in the present instance: Even a full Parliament,
under circumstances like the present, should not im-
pose any limitations or restriction's on the Regent ;
no, not even temporary restrictions.. It would be
imposing restrictions, not for the security of the peo-
ple, but as an insult to the person in whom the power
of the Regent was to be vested. He felt that he stood
up in that House for the peoplof Englaud, and not
for the Royal Branches ; but, at the same time, he
would contend, that none but a full Parliament could
fetter the Regency with limitations and restrictions.
There might be restrictions imposed on Councils of
Regency, but these restrictions did not affect the right.
So far for the principles laid down by the Noble Earl.
He should now more particularly examine the third
resolution : it says, that it is the right of the two
Houses to supply the defect in the personal exercise
of the royal functions ; that is to say, no doubt, that
they have that power, but that they cannot exercise
it without the assistance of the Great Seal. This is
a most curious sort of logic—certainly a mode of rea-
soning.not regulated in the usual forms of syllogism.
What is it but to say, I have two legs, and am fully
able to walk, therefore I must have a crutch. If chit,
two Houses have the power of providing for the
(ficiency in the present instance, why not exercise it ?
why have recourse to some person or thing in order
to pass a Bill enabling them so to act ? When that
person or thing is so brought forward and employed,
the mode of giving the Royal Assent is made impe-
rative in him, but would not that be in the nature or
form of a Rov,el Assent ? To get rid of those diffi-
culties, it was his intention to move that the Prince
.4 Wales be requested to take upon himself the Re-
gency during the illness of his Royal Father, in be-
half and in the name of the King, and then propose
to the Prince that be abstain from all powers not
' necessary under all the circumstances of the moment.
This would be the proper manner of proposing what
limitations or restrictions should be imposed on the
power of the Regent. But the question of restric-
tions did not now properly come under discussion—
the question now merely was, whether the House
should proceed by way of Bill or by the mode of Ad-
dress, and which of the two moties•was most conso-
nant to the theory and the practice of the Constitu-
tion, which was the more convenient, indeed neces-
sary, under the circumstances of the present case?—
Of all modes of proceeding the mode by Bill was, in
his opinion, the most unconstitutional—and he agreed
with his Noble Friend (Lord Stanhope), that all the
'principles and precedents referred to by the Noble
Secretary of state were wholly inapplicable, or di-
rectly adverse to the mode of proceeding by Bill.—
And first, in a constitutional point of view, he would
I ask, what is the Royal Assent ? or what is an Act of
' Parliament ?or how do we make a law ? Nothing
may appear more easy or plain—and the question re-
I minded him' of an ingenious pamphlet, entitled An-
tieipation, in which it is proposed to examine the
British Constitution. It is stated to be a three-told
Constitution, consisting of King, Lords, and Com-
mons. In that publication it is made matter of ridi-
cule seriously to examine a thing so obvious an 4
plain., But what was there considered as so ridicu-
lous, the Noble Lords opposite him now stand up se-
riously to defend. An Act of Parliament is a tripar-
tite indepture. If that be so, then they must now liaui

~S

. for the person absent, or he wfll(
acting. But vo, ;hat will not be the.
take upon them tb act as his attor-
83d ti Henry 11/47111. and' the Ist of
tlta law of this realty that the Royal
given to Bills -br • the
Commission signed by hi Ss own ereigh
provided, that if any person assert
°v
Parliament may make a law, the ,
asserting should be liable to the ptnal-
, premeeire. How do. these apply to the
now proposed ?—But it wilt be said that-the
ncoicidncese wsehciiciht proposedwheas,buwabelree to
:richb
lectiwoneisg;hht;
still was
es
objection!. His plan was at least more expeditious
and more candid. It did not carry with it the marks
of art, cunning and contrivance. All principles and
precedents were in favour of it, and altogether hostile
to the other mode proposed. The Noble Lord then
proceeded to examine the precedents down from the
year 1641, to the Revolution and restoration. All
tended to prove that the most convenient and expedi-
tious mode of proceeding was by address. But their
Lordships are told that the Throne was then vacant.
Yes, but the Address was carried up, before the
Houses had declared the Throne vacant. Surely the
Noble Secretary must have trusted to want of indus-
try and diligence in that part of the House, when he
attempted to impose such doctrines on them as he had
this night attempted to establish. Such was not the
conduct, nor the wisdom of our ancestors, their mode
of proceeding was candid, open, speedy, and explicit.
There was nothing in it ungracious or disgusting, as
in the mode that would now be adopted. This was
his way of considering the question without the influ-
ence of any bias, or partiality for any recent transae-
tions—he would nct at least rest his opinion upon an-
incomplete transaction, like that of 1788—a transac-
tion and precedent which rested merely on the au-
thority of those who acted in it, and which had
neither the sanction of wisdom or experience to coun-
tenance and confirm it. The Noble Lord next re-
ferred to the proceedings of the Irish Houses of Par-
liament in 1788. They had approved of the pro;
ceeding by Address, and their conduct would not be
thought wrong, merely because it was disapproved by
the Lord Lieutenant for the time. And here he
could not help observing, and the people of Ireland
will, perhaps, observe it with disgust, that so little
attention or respect was paid to them on the present
occasion ; that not even one of their Representatives
was appointed on the Committee for examining the
Physicians—a mark of disrespect which he should
not be surprised to see them come and complain of
at their Lordships' Bar. If he looked to the present
state of the country, which was so alarming in every
point of view, he must consider the delay that has
occurred as most blameable—already it was double
the time that had been so employed at the Revolu-
tion. In the mean time the Noble Secretary and his
colleagues have in the eye of open day usurped the
Monarchy of Great Britain, and the regal power is
kept out of the hands of him who should in every re.
spect be looked to, and called upon to exercise it, and
into whose hands it is the universal wish and opi-
nion of the country that it ought to devolve. How
, did our relations stand with respect to America ? How
were we situated with respect. to Spanish America ?
Did we ad.lvise an amicable mediation between the
Mother Country and the Spanish Colonies ? He
thought he could perceive that the Noble Lord who
presided over that department (Lord Wellesley) did
not pretend to take upon himself the same power
which his colleagues have affected to assume. In
justice to his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales,
in justice to their Lordships' House, and to the peo.
ple at large, the suspension of the Royal functions
cannot be longer continued.- Whether his Majesty
happily recover or not, some proceeding must be
adopted to provide in future for the melancholy oc-
currence under which the country now labours.—
Their Lordships owed it to their count! y—they owed
it to themselves—to institute a sever scrutiny into
many transactions which have been stated upon oath
to have passed since his Majesty was first afflicted
with the calamity under which he now labours. Has
it not appeared that Commissions have been signed
by his Majesty, when, perhaps, from what has been
stated by some of the Physicians, he was under the
pressure of that complaint which gives such ascen-
dancy to one mind over that of another ? He was
ready to confess it, that it was a shame to the Admi-
nistration of which he had been an unworthy Mem-
ber, that they bad taken no measures for providing
for such an emergency as the present, and which cut
short the country of all regal authority. The duty
was a delicate one, no doubt ; but it was a duty
which must be performed. The Noble Lord then
concluded by moving, that an Address be presented
to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, in the
words and form which he had opened to their Lord-
ships in the body of his speech.
The Duke of NORFOLK seconded the Address,
which he conceived the only constitutional mode by
which the Parliament could make known their senti-
ments to his Royal Highness. With respect to the
Great Seal, about which so much had been said by
the Noble Earl, that was a piece of metal and wax
which, unless the Sovereign authority was in force,
had no effect. The two branches of the Legislature
now assembled were indubitably competent to vote
themselves Keepers of that seal, and it any act of le-
gislative authority was necessary to be done, the use
of the seal must be in them. In point of fact, the
two Houses of Parliament were like the Republic of
Genoa, absolute for the time beyond all dispute ;
they were to be regarded as .111.1 g, Lords, and Com-
mons. The Noble Duke observed, that in ;looking
back to the precedent of 1688, he could not but stn
th tt the Parliament were placed in a similar situation
with the then Parliament, for at that time it could
not be well then foreseen that the country would have
to complain of a tyrant King, who fortunately, by
his abdication, had prevented much inconvenience.—
The Parliament, as now, the Throne being, as h-
must contend, vacant, proceeded to address the
Prince of Orange, the next in succession. At that
day, however-, the Crown, by the Constitution, de-
volved on the infant Prince, but they did not go so
far, In adopting the Address of his Noble Friend,
.hey would pursue that course in the present exigency
which would be most safely pursued for the benefit of
the State.

The Duke of SUSSEX, in risiv to concur with
the Noble Mover of the Address, wished to caution
the House against the unnecessary delay and su.spenc

orrietiats itat had Loon ii person to set
of State ; • led from ac
where t :irt • they will 1
✓ t e present 4
,ances, y the 83d
n that head already Willi it is made th
Ind he would notAtt!tieel to Assent shall be give
right was vested in Ore be person, or by a Coy
Sou* contended the` rlht It has ever been pri
; others that it was in the that the Houses o
ain, that it was in the people. person so asserting
o reconcile all these jarring ties of x premanir
night be all reconciled into measure now propo