Mr. Burke said, it was directly against the | having occasion to appoint a Lord Chanprinciples of the constitution; and he asked, cellor, or a Lord Keeper. In that case, if no great men in this kingdom existed the Regent must necessarily look to high worthy of being distinguished, except situations in the law, or to barristers in those whom the right hon. gentleman had great practice, and as the place of a Lord distinguished? He contended, that this Chancellor was precarious, from its being was an affront to the noble young men of a political situation, it could not be exthe kingdom, and he put several cases hy-pected, that any man would quit the pothetically of young men of noble families fit to be made peers. He took notice of the declaration of the Lord Chancellor in the House of Peers, that the Prince might indemnify himself by promises, which he considered as an affront to the law, the landed interest, and the noblesse of the House of Commons. Mr. Burke went over lord North's ground of argument, that the restriction in question would tend to support the House of Lords in a combination against the Crown, and to encourage a faction in that House; points which he urged with additional force of argument. In the course of his speech, Mr. Burke more than once, by the vehemence of his manner, caused an expression of laughter from the other side of the House; on one of these occasions he remarked, that gentlemen might laugh poor honesty out of countenance, but they would better prove their claim to respect, by answering his arguments. Mr. Thistlethwaite highly applauded Mr. Pitt's conduct. He had not shown the least disrespect to the Prince of Wales, and there was, in his opinion, no foundation for the complaint of a crippled Regency. The clause was agreed to. The next clause on which any debate took place, was respecting the grant of pensions and places in reversion. Lord North renewed his argument, that the King ought, on his recovery, to find himself in no worse situation, than before his illness, and that therefore, although the Regent might be restrained from converting any place during pleasure, into a place for life, yet he ought to be enabled to grant places for life, as they fell in. His lordship moved, as an amendment, to insert words substantially, importing that the Regent should have no power to grant such places for life, as were on the 1st of November last, places during his Majesty's pleasure. After some conversation, the amend ment was put, and negatived. Lord North next suggested the propriety of an amendment, grounded on the probable circumstance of the Regent's bench or the bar, without some security, The amendment, and the intended clause were accordingly read. Mr. Burke made a short speech in re lation to his own bill, the object of which he complained had been frustrated by the conduct of those who had acted on a different system. The Marquis of Graham objected to the amendment, and to the clause, because he conceived they tended to give the Regent a power beyond any that the Crown enjoyed. Mr. Pitt said, he believed it was not parliamentary to discuss, whether there was a certainty of finding a successor to the noble and learned lord, who now held the Great Seals; he hoped so unfortunate a circumstance as the country being deprived of the assistance of so able a minister was not likely to happen; certain he was, a fit successor could not easily be found. When this matter had been alluded to by the right hon. gentleman, who was absent, he had fairly stated what he thought to be the fact, that there ought to be the means of inducing a person fit to hold the office, to take the Great Seal. He was of the same opinion still, but he did not conceive the House ought to anticipate such a vacancy, and to provide for it before it happened. With regard to the sum of 2700l. a year as the amount of a floating pension, to provide for the person who might be dismissed from the Great Seal, he thought it a fair proposal; but he objected to its being adopted, as part of the present Bill, because he deemed it both premature and unnecessary. Whenever the occasion occurred, a bill might be brought in to provide for it, and he saw not the smallest objection that could be made to it; but if they agreed to it now, they would seem to anticipate a declaration of an opinion, that the Regent must necessarily have a new Chancellor, an event which he was persuaded would be seriously lamented by the country. Lord North said, that he hoped, with the right hon. gentleman, there might be no occasion; but he must say, that if the power was not put into the Regent's hands, they receded from their declaration of giving him the power of choosing his political servants. If upon a vacancy of the Great Seal, the matter was to be debated again, it was breaking the corner stone of the plan, the foundation of which was, that the Regent, and not the parliament, should have the choice of his political servants. Mr. Pitt persisted in his argument that the amendment was not necessary, as no [VOL. XXVII.] objection could be made, when the occasion to apply to parliament should be necessary. Lord North contended, that it was and had been usual for parliament to interfere with ministry holding their places, by addressing the Crown to remove certain ministers from its councils but it had never gone so far, as to advise the Crown to appoint A. B. or C. D. ministers, and that, he contended, would in effect be the consequence of not adopting his amend ment. The Committee proceeded through the next clause, respecting the Duchy of Lancaster. After which the chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again. Feb. 9. The House having again resolved itself into a Committee on the Regency Bill, on the clause respecting the care of the King's property being read, Mr. Anstruther observed, that though this clause stated that the care or management of the King's property should not be in the Prince of Wales, yet it was totally silent in what hands it should vest. There had been various accounts concerning the vast amount of that property; whatever it might be, it was but right that it should be properly taken care of, and not be so placed that it might be embez zled by anonymous purloiners, whom nobody could call to account, because nobody knew. He was therefore of opinion, that a commission be appointed, to consist of the Queen, the Princes of the Blood, the great Officers of State, the Lord Chancellor, and the two Chief Justices, for executing the said trust. Mr. Pitt said, that as to the amount of that property, he believed there could be nothing but guess work; at least he had no clue by which to enable him to form any thing like a judgment; whatever it might be, it had already been deposited in such hands as would always be obliged to account for their trust. Mr. Burke supported the proposition offered by Mr. Anstruther, and considered this as a farther proof of the unjust and illiberal treatment of the Princes of the Blood Royal, who were thus excluded from, and deemed unworthy of any share of that trust, in which they had undoubt edly the first interest and the deepest concern. The clause passed without amendment, [4 H] The fourteenth clause, providing for the payment of his Majesty's household, under the direction of her Majesty being read, Sir James Erskine opposed it, as granting larger powers than were necessary, and insisted that the expense of the household might be much diminished. Mr. Pitt said, that some circumstances arising from his Majesty's situation, rather tended to increase than diminish the expense of some parts of the household. Mr. Sheridan objected to the clause, as wholly unnecessary, and as tending to create a double government of the household, in the Queen, and in the Treasury. Mr. Pitt replied, that there would be no double government, the Treasury having no more to do with the household, by the present clause, than to issue the sums ordered. Mr. Burke maintained, that the clause might probably introduce, not only the subversion of the Act of Establishment of the Civil List, but the subversion of economy, as being calculated only for the purpose of providing for a favourite and necessary corps. have 4000l. for guessing what charities the King would wish to bestow: but the Prince, who might be supposed to know as well as any other, was not to be allowed one shilling; and yet he would venture to say, that without any ill compliment to her Majesty, the charitable disposition of the Prince stood as high as that of any other person whatever; witness the care he had taken of a very respectable gentleman, who was supposed to be very nearly related to him, his uncle by half blood, whom he had relieved from almost indigence and obscurity, by a munificent and well-timed pension, besides a hundred other instances which it would be tedious to mention. How unjust was it then, to compare his bounty with that of the King. We read, that the widow's two mites were more acceptable in the sight of Heaven, than all the wealthy offerings of the whole world to the Temple. How much more laudable, then, did his 2001. appear, when it was known that the whole of his income, by which he was to support not only the dignity of Prince of Wales, but the dignity and splendour of the British Crown, as Regent, upon only 10,000l. more than the King's mere pocket money. Mr. Powys moved, that the clause be postponed, in which motion he was supported by lord North, upon the ground Sir W. Molesworth said, that he did not of the propriety of deciding upon a sub-mean to contend against the sum proposed sequent clause first, which was the basis to be taken from the money of his Maof the present. Upon this, the Commit-jesty's privy purse, which was appropriated tee divided: Yeas, 87; Noes, 132. The clause was then agreed to. On the clause for appropriating the King's privy purse, Mr. Dempster contended against the impropriety of excluding the Prince from all opportunity of exercising that charity for which it was chiefly intended. Sir W. Molesworth felt the impropriety of the measure so forcibly, that were he to stand single, he was determined to divide the House in favour of the Prince. Sir W. Cunynghame bore testimony to the charity of the Prince in giving 2001. to the poor of Edinburgh during the late inclement season, to the charities mentioned; but not thinking it proper that the remainder should be kept from the Prince, he moved, as an amendment, to add the words, "and that the remainder shall be paid over to the treasurer of the privy purse of the Regent." Upon this amendment the Committee divided: Yeas, 101; Noes, 156. The seventeenth clause was next read, vesting in her Majesty the care of the King's person, and the government of the household. Mr. Powys objected to that part of the clause which gave her Majesty power over the household; he condemned it as a Mr. Dundas did not mean to detract division of power with the executive authofrom the Prince's merit in so doing, but it rity, which was unjustifiable and inadmiswas no more than his father and grand-sible. The power given to her Majesty father had done before him, they having annually sent 200l. to that city. Mr. Burke remarked on the gradual increase of the privy purse, from 36,000/ in the late king's reign, to 60,000l. in the present, a sum which was independant of every other possible expense the King could be at of this the Queen was to over the household, and the clause restraining the Regent from creating Peers, paved the way for the introduction of a dangerous controul over the two Houses, and the country, which was put into irresponsible hands. He concluded, by moving an amendment to the preamble of the clause, leaving it open for future revision Mr. Pitt agreed to the amendment, and said, that in the course of the business one of the principles which he had always invariably maintained was, that the whole of the bill ought constantly to be kept open, and subject to the future revision and alteration of Parliament. The amendment being put and agreed to, was inserted in the clause. Sir Peter Burrell condemned the latter part of the clause, the patronage given by which, he said, was so loosely expressed, that it was impossible to ascertain the amount of it, and of which he conceived the House ought to be acquainted previously to their adopting the clause. Mr. Pitt assured the hon. baronet, that the whole amount of the salaries of the household, from the great officers at the head of the different departments, down to the most menial servants in any of the palaces, or the stables, was no more than 100,000l. per annum; out of which sum there was no more than about 30,000l. received for salaries by members of the two Houses of Parliament; there were seven in the House of Commons, whose salaries amounted to about 4000l. and eighteen Lords in the other House, whose salaries amounted to about 26,000l. Such influence was not, likely hereafter to preclude any revision or necessary alteration in the system proposed for the present emergency. Lord North observed that in spite of all that had been advanced, he could not yet perceive that it was a self-evident proposition, that all the officers of the household must be made subject to the controul and nomination of the Committee of the King. He denied that it was a self-evident proposition; nor could he imagine that the Queen ought to have any power or controul over any officers of the household, excepting only such of those officers as were, from their situation in the household, obliged to attend upon the King's person. The rest of the officers who could be of no service to the King's person, ought not, in his opinion, to be under the controul of the Committee of the King, but ought to be annexed to the person who actually exercised the royal authority. Why could not the right hon. gentleman try to separate the household? To separate the regal office from the royal prerogative seemed a difficult point; but, to separate the grooms, the equerries, and the pages, from the lord chamberlain, the Jord steward, and the master of the horse, had been deemed almost impracticable, and yet it was of the utmost consequence. He asked, which of the two evils was the greatest, and which was of the most consequence, and established the worst precedent-the separating of the household, or the withholding from the Regent the source of that general influence which the constitution had deemed necessary to be given to the Crown and to the executive power of the country; that general influence without which the Crown could not exercise its duties? In all general influence there was necessarily a degree of parliamentary and political influence; but he saw no harm in this, and yet this influence was treated as of very little consequence. The right hon. gentleman had acknowledged that eighteen peers of parliament belonged to the household. Did gentlemen consider that eighteen peers voting on one side, made the difference of thirtysix on a division; and was that nothing? He did not say that a bad use would be made of that influence; but the withholding it from the person exercising the royal authority, was contrary to the principles of the constitution. It had been argued, that it would prove a comfort to the King to see his household about him; yet, for his part, he could see no comfort which could accrue to his Majesty, during his illness, by having this power of his representative vested in other hands. Who would say, that his Majesty himself, when he recovered, would not revolt at such a principle? He had not heard what single royal duty was not expected from the Regent; and therefore, if the Regent was to continue charged with the whole duties of a king, why was he to be curtailed in his prerogatives? The consequences of introducing such a new principle into the constitution, might, when his Majesty should be restored, disturb the peace of his reign. The constitution annexed all the power of the royal prerogatives to the Crown, because all this power was necessary. If it were not necessary, it was too much, and if too much, it was pernicious, and ought to be abolished. Might not, at a future period, that question be agitated in respect to the power of the Crown? Might they not reason thus, and say, what is gained from the Crown is gained to the people? No, his Majesty would say," the constitution gave me all the prerogatives, and my government cannot stand without them." They might then answer, as the right hon. gentleman answered now," Let your Majesty's ministers act rightly, and they will not want this patronage." With regard to the persons holding the great offices in the household at present, was it thought that their loss would be irreparable? Would it be so great a public misfortune for them to be changed, that they were to have their places secured to them? He did not mean to speak disrespectfully of the present officers of the household; but he was confident that there might be found among the young nobility, many qualified to fill every one of their places. What were the qualifications to make an officer of the Court? Good manners, politeness, breeding, and some degree of personal dignity. To fill an office about the court, it was not necessary to serve an apprenticeship to it, as to an art or a craft. An officer of the court might be said, generally speaking, to be like a poet, nascitur non fit. His situation might proceed oftener from his birth than his education. There were, therefore, many persons capable of it; and, as to the change of the household giving his Majesty pain, when he recovered, if it should give him a moment's uneasiness, it could be remedied immediately. No mischief could possibly arise from it. Lord North, addressing the chairman by name, said, "You, Mr. Watson, as a man who have been engaged in mercantile concerns, have no doubt, often heard of a maxim of trade, which I heard of early in life; it was this; take care of the pence, and the pounds will take care of themselves." The meaning, he conceived was, take care of small things, and they will enable you to secure the greater objects. But, it was said, it would secure the services of the present ministers. That was, undoubtedly, a great object, but even gold might be bought too dear; and if a great rule of government was to be sacrificed to any ministers, he should be of opinion that parliament and the public paid a very dear price for such an acquisition. Mr. Grosvenor said, that the greater part of the noble lord's argument went against the whole of the clause. The noble lord had said, that all the powers of the Crown were necessary; he admitted that they were so, but the Committee ought to remember, that they were not going to make a king, but a regent. He had very deliberately considered the whole of the system contained in the bill, and was convinced that the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and every part of his system, had been wise, distinct, discreet, prudent, and loyal. Had there remained in his mind any doubt upon either, that doubt would have been effectually removed by a speech which he had lately heard from the right hon. gentleman, who filled the chair of the House. Sounder argument he had never heard. Every sentence the right hon. gentleman had uttered, tended to confirm him in the opinion, that the steps taken by the two Houses were legal and constitutional. General Norton contended, that the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse, with the lords of the bedchamber, were the political servants of the Crown, and not the mere domestics of the King, Their duties chiefly consisted in making a part of the pageantry that surrounded the King on public occa sions. He thought those great officers, under the present unfortunate circumstances of his Majesty, contributed neither to the service nor to the comfort of the Sovereign, because they could have nothing to do near him. Mr. Wilbraham said, it had been justly remarked, that the whole House of Brunswick were excluded from the present bill. It was a most unaccountable exclusion. He saw no reason why her Majesty should be the sole committee of the King's person. He thought that the Prince ought to have been joint committee with her Majesty, and that would have removed much of the objection to which the clause was liable. But, if it were deemed improper that the Prince of Wales should have any share in the custody of the King's person, what had the duke of York done, that he should not have been named jointly with her Majesty? Had the duke of York given such proofs of his want of filial affection, that he deserved to be passed by? Why also had the two brothers of the King been wholly unuoticed in the bill. Mr. Keene stated the number of officers in the household, declaring that they amounted to nearly 150. He spoke also of the influence arising from other circumstances in the household, and particularly exemplified the duty and the patronage of the Lord Chamberlain, in order to prove that he was an officer of state, and an officer possessing great weight and influence. When a foreign minister left this country, he stated what the Lord Chamberlain's duty was, thereby proving that he was an officer |