Star.
London, England, 1811-01-18 00:00:00

1788, when properly eonsidered,,affarded no example
for the limitation that was now proposed. If he were
permitted to conjecture the principles on which the
two Houses had acted is sanctioning the Resolutions
they had come to, he would say, that the leading prin-
ciple seemed to he this, that a. marked distinction
should be made between the possession of the Royal
Authority, and the election of a Regent. The mode
of proceeding by Bill had already suificiantly marked
the distinction; and having already voted against
restrictions on the Regent's authority, he must of
course be decidedly adrerse to the longest of the two
periods no 1A- proposed. Another reason which weighed
with him in favour of the shorter period was, that if the
Regent was to have the disadvantage of the principle,
he ougja, also, to have the advantage. He objected,
therefore, to the longer period : because, if it was to
;be the measure of the King's recovery, he rejected it
as no measure at all : and if it was not so, he did not

wish it again to be a subject of Parliamentary dis-

cussinn.

Mr. BATHURST differed very much from the
Hon. Gentleman who spoke last. In his (Mr. B.'s)
opinion, the view of Mr. Pitt, in bringing in the Bill
of 1733-9 for an unlimited period, was to prevent the
House of Lordsfrom disagreeing at any future period
to the restoration of the Prerogative, because they did
not wish their House to be enlarged ; and the main
ground was, that his Majesty, in case of his reco-
very, might find the House of Lords in the state',
he left it—and as all former instances of the King's
recovery had been within six months, it appeared to
him more reasonable, that the limitation should he
such as to afford sufficient time for that now to take
place, from the passing of this Bill. The King ought
also now to have the chance of finding the House of
Lords in the same state in which he left it. If he did

not, it might militate against the best interests of the
country. He ridiculed the idea of the present Bill
being justly to be attributed to any jealousy of the
Prince ; and defended that part of the limitation to
six weeks after the meeting of Parliament. He de- I
nied there would be any necessity for the Prince of
Wales, or any one in his behalf, to come forward on
the Ist Of February, to move to take off the restric-
tions, because the law itself did that at the period
they were by the provisions of the Act to expire.
Taking the case generally, he did not think twelve
months too long, especially as it would happen at a
time when Parliament was usually sitthig.
Mr. WHITBREAD, in allusion to what had been
said by a Right Hon. Gentleman, on what had fallen
from him, that Parliamentary interest might be crea-
ted on making a Baronet, assured the Right Hon.
Gentleman, he did not mean to say as much might
be done by the one way as the other, but that making
Baronets might certainly be turned into such a source
—and he believed that the Right Honourable Gen-
tleman was not so unversed in a knowledge of the
world, as not to know that not only making a Baronet,
but even that of a mere Privy Councillor, had been
~deemed so.

Mr. BATHURST said, if the Hon. Gentleman
meant to allude to the circumstance of his being !Rade
a Privy Councillor
Mr. WHITBREAD declared he meant no such
!allusion.

Mr. TIERNEY said he would only trouble the
House with one observation. By adopting this course
nothing would be obtained. Parliament from the late
period of its commencement must now sit four or five
months; and it, towards the end of that time, there
should appear any well-grounded prospect of his Ma-
jesty's recovery, it would be in the power of any
Member to move, before the rising of Parliament, for
a protraction of the restrictions ; and he thought the
mode provided by the present course could only arise
from a desire to insult and wound the feelings of the
Prince of Wales..
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman was
fallacious, for he knew very well that no Bill for ex-
tending the restrictions could be brought in during
the present Session, wiles; there was some clause in
the Bill now before the House to warrant such a pro-
ceeding, which there was not. As to his meaning
any insult to or suspicion of the Prince of Wales, he
positively disclaimed it. His whole conduct, on the
contrary, had been actuated by his duty to his King,
and was founded on one general principle and ab-
stract reasoning, and had nothing reflecting or in-
sulting attached to it.-4 loud cry of Qufstion, Queition.
Mr. FULLER said, it was the unanimous opinion
of the Physicians, that it the King's recovery did not
take place in twelve months, it would be a lost case.
That period he did not think too long to wait for such
an event, and therefore he would stand by his King
to the last drop of his blood.
The question being again generally called for, a
division took place.—For the Amendment 160
Against it 181—Majority in favour of Ministers '2l.
When re-admitted into the Gallery we found
Mr. TIERNEY on his legs, speaking on the sub-
jeet of Pensions for life, the restriction of granting
which it contained in the 10th clause. He said, the
power of granting pensions for life was not given to
his Majesty in compliment to the King, but becanse
it was necessary for the support of the prerogative ;
and if that was necessary for the King, it must be
equally so for the Regent. He could not, therefore,
look on it in any other view, than that of a marked
distrust of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales :
arid then the Right Hon. Gentleman came back to
his old argument of having no distrust of the Prince,.
but of the ill-advisers he might have around him.—
For his own part, he could see no reason why any
one should suppose the Prince should have any worse
advisers than King George the Third bud met with.
If he should, be feared the country would be in an
unfortunate situation. If the Right Hon. Gentleman
meant to argue, that pensions should be done away i
altogether, let him say so; but he could not agree
that the Regent should have all the trouble and re-
sponsibility, without an of those supports from the
prerogative which were to enable him to contend
with the various difficulties of the situation.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
replied, that so often as the Right Hon. Gentleman
who spoke last should advert to that subject of inten-
ding to distrust or insult the Prince of Wales, 8o of-
ten would he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
deny it ; and he could not see how, in any fairness et
argument, any such intention could:be attributed to
him. He disclaimed the mean and paltry view of
endeavouring to recommend himself to'the future
notice of his 'Majesty, by his Want eafgavourt to