his zeal was so very furious in defence of the British constitution, that he quite forgot how much he injured his own, by his great warmth and irrascibility, which he assured the right hon. gentleman were exceedingly prejudicial to the animal economy; therefore, though it clearly appeared from his speech, that he had no need either of salts or cream of tartar, yet he was of opinion, that some gentle alteratives and correctives would be very serviceable to the right hon. gentleman, in his present situation. Sir Richard said, he had no intentions of visiting those dreadful mansions which the right hon. member had been speaking of, though he did not desire to curb the right hon. gentleman's curiosity in this respect, nor did he pretend to say how long it might be needful for the right hon. gentleman to stay there. Having said thus much, be should only revert to what he had hinted when he first rose, viz. that as he thought the hon. gentleman's exalted flights called more for indulgence than for reply, he should therefore adopt the advice of good king Hezekiah concerning Rabshakeh, "answer him not a word." Sir Charles Gould approved of the regulation, as he thought it favourable to the circumstance of his Majesty's being restored to his government on his recovery. Mr. Powys moved, that the physicians be examined by the Queen's council on oath; which was negatived. He also moved an amendment, declaring, that his Majesty's health shall be such as to enable him to resume the personal exercise. This was carried. Mr. Sheridan, after again urging the necessity of parliamentary investigation of the recovery of his Majesty, moved, that the Regency be obliged to communicate to Parliament the notification of the King's recovery. Upon this motion, after some conversation, the House divided: Yeas, 113; Noes, 181. The Committee then proceeded to fill up the blanks in the remaining clauses, and the bill, having been gone through, the House was resumed, the report was received, and the amendments read, and agreed to. Feb. 12. The Regency Bill being read a third time, Mr. Pulteney rose to move the clause, of which he had given notice the preceding evening, viz. a clause to limit the duration of that part of the Bill which [VOL. XXVII.] restrained the power of the Regent in regard to the increase of peerages. In order to explain the principles on which he thought some limitation on that restriction necessary, he proceeded to call the attention of the House to the different degrees of check and controul, which the different branches of the legislature had upon each other; a system wisely provided by the constitution, in order to keep alive that proper jealousy, the constant attention to which, tended so effectually to the preservation of the constitution itself. The Sovereign of the British empire, as head of the three estates, had, he observed, a variety of prerogatives and functions, independent of the two Houses of Parliament, and essentially necessary to the conducting the legislative, as well as the carrying on of the executive government of the country; the two other branches of the legislature in like manner possessed rights, powers, and privileges peculiar to themselves, and equally requi site for the maintenance of their independance, and the security of that independance from the encroachment of either of the other two estates. The Crown stood connected with both Houses of Parliament, in a peculiar manner, and each House possessed powers of counteracting the Crown to a reasonable degree, whenever the Crown should go beyond the constitutional limits of its prerogative. In that House, as they well knew, whenever they thought it necessary so to do, they could control the Crown in many respects, and especially by with-holding the supplies, or refusing to pass the Mutiny Bill; but if any improper use were made of their power, his Majesty might dissolve the Parliament, and send them back to their constituents. On the other hand, should the other House refuse to lend their aid in passing the bills of supply, there was no other means of coercing them, but by creating new peers, which had more than once restored the House to that situation in which it ought to stand. Mr. Pulteney descanted on the great utility and importance of the power of the Crown to make peers. Had not the Crown been able to exercise that power, some important acts would not have passed. And the union with Scotland could not have taken place. However opinions might have differed about the Union at the time, all men who felt for the interest of England and Scotland, had since had abundant reason to extol [4 L] its wise principles, and to rejoice at its beneficial effects. The power of creating peers, so properly lodged in the hands of the Crown for the reward of merit, and the encouragement of virtuous emulation in the service of the country, was a power that had always been exercised sparingly by the princes who had sat upon our throne. Had not this been the case, various abuses might have crept into the conduct of government, corruption would have been openly practised, and it might have happened that the House of Commons would have sunk to such a degree of want of respect and character, that there might not be found in it proper persons to be raised to the dignity of the peerage, and thus the Crown might be deprived of the means of resisting a faction in the House of Peers. Mr. Pulteney said, he had a great opinion of the House of Commons, but he did not therefore wish that the Crown might not have the power of dissolving Parliament. He mentioned the historical fact of the House of Commons, which in the reign of Charles 1, prevailed on that monarch to pass an act, that they should not be subject to dissolution, and declared that he did not believe either the monarch or the members had any idea at the time of the mischievous consequences that followed. As he wished the power of dissolving parliament to remain in the Crown, in like manner he never wished to see powers given to the House of Lords to resist the constitutional conduct of the Crown; they knew not what operation the power of restraining the Regent from creating peers might have on the minds of the House of Lords. He only looked to that clause when the other House might have an interest in opposing the repeal of the Bill. They would now tell them, no doubt, that' they did not mean to abuse it, and perhaps they would tell them so truly, according to their present feelings and intentions; but there was no answering for human frailty. Ambitious men entrusted with unlimited power, might grow fonder of it, in proportion to the length of time they possessed it, and at last refuse to part with it at all. Let them recollect the case of the republic of Rome, with regard to the Decemviri, who were magistrates appointed for the purpose of carrying the laws into execution for a year. They were at first the wisest and most able citizens of the republic, and all the executive power was entrusted in their hands for twelve months. By degrees, the time they were chosen for was increased; first, one year was added, and afterwards more, till at last they grew into such importance, and had attained to such an enormous degree of absolute power, that had it not been for the misconduct of one of them, the liberties of their country had been lost for ever. They ought, therefore, to profit by past experience, and to guard against a similar danger to their own country. He would not by any means, advise the trusting so much out of their own hands, as to suffer the restriction on the Regent from making peers to go out of the House in the Bill without some limitation. It was objected, that the Regent might abuse the power of making peers, and make too many; but was that to be put in competition with the lords refusing at some subsequent period to join in a repeal of the Act? There was no sort of proportion between the different degrees of danger to the constitution. On these grounds, therefore, he should, as a rider to the Bill, propose a clause for limiting that part of the Bill which imposed restrictions on the Regent with regard to the power of making peers, and the time he meant to propose for that restriction to cease and determine, was three years: not that he proposed that period under any idea that the Regency ought to continue the exercise of the royal authority under any restrictions, so long as three years; but, because if unfortunately they should be disappointed in their present hopes of his Majesty's recovery, he thought three years the outside of the time that under any circumstances the restrictions ought to continue. Mr. Pitt said, he had listened to the hon. gentleman with that degree of attention, which he was always desirous to pay to every suggestion that came from so respectable a quarter. If he were right in his ideas on the subject of limitations of time, in respect to any of the restrictions imposed on the Regent, the danger the hon. gentleman wished to guard against was more in theory, than likely to be carried into practice. That a majority of the Lords would wish to continue the restrictions, whenever it should be thought by that House proper to revise their proceedings, and alter them, as the circumstances of the case might require, and that limitations ought to be fixed, was a proposition first started on debating the resolution in the committee on the state of the nation, and it had been suggested that | Mr. I. H. Browne said, that he had originally expressed a desire that the restriction from making peers might have some limitation; yet in the committee he had objected to a limitation that had been proposed, because that limitation was less than two years; and though he had very great hopes that his Majesty's recovery would take place long before that period, yet he thought no limitation for a less period ought to be fixed by the Bill. Mr. Powys said, that the clause seemed to imply, that three years was, in the opinion of the House, the period that the restrictions ought to continue. For his part, he wished not to confine that restriction with regard to the making peers to a limited time, because he thought that no restriction whatever ought to exist. But if there must be restrictions on the Regent, he thought a limitation of three years too long a period; an earlier period than three years would enable parliament to examine and reconsider the whole proceeding. With regard to their declaring, by accepting the clause, that it was the sense of parliament that the restrictions ought to continue for three years, Mr. Powys desired to enter his protest against it. Sir James Johnstone said, that after a peer was once created, he was as independent the first day as he was the last; and therefore, although he suspected almost every body, he did not suspect the House of Peers. He was of opinion, however, that if the restriction had been unlimited, there might, at one time or another, be a combination between the other House and that against the Crown, and therefore he was happy that a period was to be fixed when the restriction should cease. The clause being read, Mr. Pulteney moved, that the words "three years" be inserted in the blank. Mr. Sheridan said, he was exactly of the same opinion on the subject with his hon. friend, with respect to the probability of the Lords refusing to open the door to their House, if, by passing the bill without any limitation of the duration of the restriction, in regard to the Regent's power to make peerages, they suffered the power to pass out of their hands, and the door of the House of Lords to be once shut. He was surprised at what the right hon. gentleman had said of the idea of the improbability of the Lords ever wishing to continue the power, when they once got it into their possession. The right hon. gentleman seemed to have forgot that they had gone throughout the whole of their proceedings, not on probable dangers, but on possible dangers. That such an idea as the right hon. gentleman had stated was implied by parliament, was not to be tolerated; the right hon. gentleman, and the gentleman behind him, seemed to have adopted a principle that might be extended for seven years as well as three, and therefore not choosing to lend his sanction to the principle, that the executive power ought to continue maimed and crippled by useless and harsh restrictions for three years, he should move to leave out the words "three years," and that the words "one year" be inserted in the blank. Mr. Pitt said, the hon. gentleman who spoke last seemed to have done him more justice than the hon. gentleman who spoke near him, because he had expressly stated, that as they could not fix the precise period of the duration of his Majesty's illness, he would agree to three years as a period the most extreme and distant that could be taken, but that if his Majesty should not recover soon, the restrictions ought to cease within the period proposed; and the hon. member who had introduced it, had expressly stated a similar sentiment: how then could it be considered, that adopting the words "three years" to fill up the blank, under the construction that had been laid down, was making parliament declare, that its opinion was that the restrictions ought to last for three years? With regard to the amendment proposed, would not the hon. gentleman, by what he was doing, defeat his own purpose? The hon. gentleman had said, he moved an earlier day, that it might not appear that parliament thought the restrictions ought to continue three years: he should think the hon. gentleman would serve his purpose better by withdrawing his amendment, and letting the original motion be put. The question was put, and the clause filled up with the words "three years" was agreed to. just disabilities, several of which had been since repealed by the Act of Toleration in favour of the Protestant Dissenters and he thought there were others remaining that ought to be repealed; but then it ought to be done regularly, directly, and avowedly. At a fit time he should have no objection to assist in framing a proper Bill of Repeal. He stated that King William took an oath, that he would preserve the establishment of the Church of England, and he was called upon by the Church of Scotland to give a security, that their establishment also should not be touched. The whole establishment of the Church was in the Act and therefore he must object to the amendment in toto. He dared not to meddle with it. Mr. Smith said, he was willing to alter the wording of the amendment, so as to remove objections. There remained on the Statute-book penalties and provisions, that strongly partook of the spirit of persecution. He stated in particular, the penalties against persons convicted of having spoken in degradation of the Book of Common Prayer, the penalty on the first conviction was 10., and if convicted a third time, the punishment was a forfeiture of goods and chattels, and imprisonment for life. Mr. William Smith rose to move an amendment in the Uniformity clause. He Mr. Pitt professed himself to be a zea. stated the illiberal, severe, and unjust pe- lous and firm friend to the established nalties to which the protestant dissenters, Church of England, and stated, that the among a variety of descriptions of sects, object of the hon. gentleman lay in a differing from the established church, were narrow compass. He proceeded to desliable by the statute of Charles 2. The sribe it, and to mention the general heads chief of these penalties had long been of the Act of Uniformity. He also stated deemed obsolete, but they had never been that at the Reformation their ancestors formally repealed; the protestant dis-had not quite purged their Liturgies (of senters lay, therefore, at the mercy of every informer. He stated some of these penalties and disabilities, one of which was, that a papist should not practice the art of an apothecary in the city of London under a heavy penalty. Surely such a disability ought not to remain on the statute book! He mentioned several others, and at length stated his amendment, the object of which was no more than to prevent any new difficulty being placed by the Regency-bill, in the way of the repeal of the Test-act, if application should be made for such a repeal hereafter. Lord Belgrave seconded the amend ment. The Master of the Rolls said it was true that there were, in the statute of Charles 2, many severe penalties and un which there had been two or three different ones) from the superstition of the Romish Church. The offences created by the different statutes were, he said, indefinite; but the punishment was definite, and to a great extent. Sir George Howard thought the amend ment proposed was out of place, and that no alteration of acts of so important a nature ought to be done by a side wind. Mr. Martin thanked the Master of the Rolls, for having promised the Protestant Dissenters his assistance in preparing a Bill to repeal some of the existing penalties and disabilities against them on account of their religious opinions. Mr. I. H. Browne feared the amendment would not do any good whatever: but occasion a clamour among the people, who might think they had taken up the subject superficially. Mr. Addington was extremely anxious that the amendment should not be pressed to a division, as it did not come on regularly, and might injure the cause it was intended to serve. Mr. Smith consented to withdraw his motion. Mr. Alderman Newnham said, it would show a want of spirit in him if he did not oppose the whole Bill, excepting only that part of it which declared, that the Prince of Wales should be Regent. He thought the provisions of the Bill disgraceful to the honour of his Royal Highness. He spoke of the virtues of the Prince, and said, he had been called to account the other day, because he had mentioned an act of his Royal Highness's benevolence; and an hon. and learned gentleman had complained of the ostentatious parade of the Prince's charity, and asked if he had stated the fact with the knowledge of his Royal Highness? The Alderman said, he was at the time mentioning an act of public bounty, not an act of private charity of that kind, where the right hand ought not to know what the left hand did; he had besides used it as an argument against their locking up money from the Prince as they did by that Bill. The Alderman said, the restrictions against making peerages, were limited to too long a time; and the reserving the household was the most absurd thing that could be imagined. For what did they do by it? they gave splendour where it could not be seen, and took it away, where it was necessary to be exhibited. In fact, they gave the King what could not make him rich, and took from the Prince what made him poor indeed. He condemned the resumption clause, and said, he hoped, when his Majesty did come forward to re-assume the exercise of his royal authority, which he heartily wished he might soon do, he would come forward in a manner free from suspicion, and the minds of the people would be cleared. Mr. Alderman Watson gave his explicit approbation to the Bill itself, and to its various clauses, because they were consistent with his conviction, and that of his constituents. Mr. Sheridan moved another amendment to the Bill, by adding, at the end thereof, the words "And be it enacted, that no general commission to be granted by his Majesty, after issuing the said proclamation for opening the parliament, shall be construed to authorize any person or persons therein to be named to give the royal assent to any bill or bills to be agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament." Colonel Phipps said, there needed not all the wisdom and knowledge to be gleaned from the learned dialogue, that the House had heard between doctor and student, to furnish an answer to the hon. gentleman's clause. He could give his hon. friend a reason why his clause ought not to stand, in a very few sentences. In the first place, no clause could possibly be received contrary to the general purview of a Bill, as expressed in the preamble. If the hon. gentleman would look to the preamble, he would not find a single word about placing restrictions on his Majesty's exercise of his royal authority, when he had an undoubted right to exercise it. If it were necessary the colonel said, to restrain the power of the Crown, let it be done after his Majesty's recovery, not while he is lying on his bed of sickness. The amendment was negatived.-On the question, that the Bill do pass, Mr. Brandling said, he thought it his duty to declare, that he approved of the whole of the Bill. He spoke in terms of warm praise of Mr. Pitt's conduct throughout the proceeding, and in particular of his having agitated and brought to a decision the question of right, a question so important to the constitutional privileges of the two Houses of Parliament. Mr. Grey rose to assert, what, he said, he ever would assert, as often as the subject was agitated, namely, that no right whatever to exercise the royal authority, independent of the authority of parliament, had been claimed or even urged. His right hon. friend (Mr. Fox) had stated it to be his opinion, that such a right existed, but he had expressly declared, at the time, that he mentioned it merely as his private opinion, and without any authority whatever. The Bill was then passed, and ordered to be carried up to the Lords. Copy of the Regency Bill, as passed by the Commons.] As the Regency Bill, in consequence of his Majesty's recovery, was never passed into a law, and is consequently not to be found in the Statutebook, a copy of the said Bill, as it passed the House of Commons, is here preserved : A Bill, intituled An Act to provide for the Care of his Majesty's Royal Person, |