absolutely necessary to be about the per- | son of the King or his representative. Among the instances of his patronage, he spoke of the appointing the King's Chaplains, a favour often conferred on the members of that House, by the nomination of their friends and relations; the appointment of the Exchequer Officers, the Yeomen of the Guard, the Gentlemen Ushers, and many others. Mr. Pitt asked, whether it was possible for gentlemen seriously to suppose that they could not invest the Regent with royal dignity, but by depriving the King of every sort of dignity whatever? The grounds of objection to the clause were now stated to be that of parliamentary influence; grounds which he would venture to say it was wholly unusual to take broadly and openly in that House; because, whatever might have been gentlemen's private opinions respecting that particular kind of influence, it never had been avowed to be necessary to government, till the lords had thought proper to avow it that day. When it was said, that it was necessary to keep up the state and splendor of the Regent, by decorating him with those external marks of the royal dignity, ought not the King's dignity to be kept up by such marks? Ought they, in the earliest moments of his Majesty's illness, to be eager to strip him of every mark of dignity, in order to deck out the Regent with unnecessary powers? He contended, that they ought not; but it was their duty to manifest that they had not forgotten the reverence due to a sovereign, who had, throughout his reign, proved himself the father of his people. Gentlemen were aware that it was intended, at a fit opportunity, to provide for the Regent such an establishment, as should be adequate to invest him with a degree of state and dignity, which the exalted situation he was to fill rendered necessary for the honour of the nation. Lord North said, that the right hon. gentleman seemed to reduce them to the alternative of giving the Regent the government of the country, without any part of the splendour, which of right belonged to the royal authority, or of calling upon the public to bear the burthen of providing a new additional household for the Regent; an expense which the public thought, perhaps, it had already provided for. The true way of supporting his Majesty's dignity was, by supporting that of his representative. With regard to the charge against him, on the ground of his having avowed that the Regent ought to have the patronage of the household, for the sake of the parliamentary influence which accompanied it, he declared he had avowed no such doctrine, but had said, that the patronage of the household certainly gave some general, and, of course, parliamentary influence. Mr. Marsham said, that it was his duty to trouble the House with a few words, after the manner in which the right hon. gentleman had delivered his sentiments, He would affirm, that there were members of parliament under influence. He re, minded the Committee, how often they had attempted, by various bills, to prevent persons holding places, from having seats in that House; and it was no reflection on the persons so disqualified. He instanced the Excise and Customs, in which every person enjoying a salary of four or 5001, a year, was, by act of parliament, rendered incapable of a seat in that House. With regard to the influence resulting from the patronage of the King's household, if the right hon. gentleman would add to it the weight of influence arising from the members of the two Houses holding places in the household of the Queen, and would put the parliamentary influence of the two households together, he would find that the number would be nearer sixty than thirty. He was one of those who had supported the restriction which prevented the Regent from making peers. He thought that, under the present circumstance, a right restriction. With regard to the imposing an additional burthen on the people, by establishing a new household for the Regent, he should oppose such a proposition. He reminded the Committee of the unexampled weight of the taxes, and spoke in terms of great praise of the patience with which the people bore them. He asked, if there ever had been in that country, a war concluded without a single tax being taken off? Most assuredly there had not. Why, then, should the people be additionally burthened, when there was an useless household existing already? Mr. Powys said, that he would oppose the motion for a new household, whenever it should be brought forward. Mr. Sheridan said, that if the right hon. gentleman was in earnest in his proposi tion, they might effect a division in the household, as proposed by the noble lord near him. He added, that whilst the right hon. gentleman was throwing out jealousies and insults against another person, he was assuming the highest degree of confidence to himself, by expecting that it was to be believed explicitly, that he would make no use of the parliamentary influence he was providing to support him out of office. The right hon. gentleman had termed the Lord Steward, the Master of the Horse, and the Lord Chamberlain, on a former occasion, the menial servants of the King, like those to be found in the families of most noblemen. Was there any truth in this comparison? Had the menial servants of noblemen any public duties? and would it be contended, that the great officers of the household had not very high and important public duties? These were, and had ever been, considered as the great officers of the Crown; and that they had been so deemed, was evident from an act passed in the reign of Henry 8, to which he referred. Having read the extract, he took notice of Mr. Grosvenor's declaration, that the House had not, thank God, a king to make. He said, were he not aware that the hon. gentleman was a friend to the monarchy, he should have thought that the language of a republican, who wished to shake the monarchy, and introduce another form of government. Under the idea of affection to the King, they were endeavouring to subvert the royal prerogative. Let those gentlemen separate the personal idea of a king from a monarchy, and they would see what a blow had been aimed at the monarchy. Was it nothing to have been without the representative of a king for almost four months, during which time the arm of government had remained inanimate? The right hon. gentleman having represented his Majesty as destitute of dignity, unless he had the white staves with him, was a libel on his Majesty's feelings, as a father and a king, and argued that he was destitute of the dignified sentiments which ought to inspire the one character, and the tender affection which should fill the breast of the other. If his Majesty reigned in the hearts of his -people, and it was true that he did, it was the less necessary that his calamity should be contrasted with the appearance of grandeur, an ostentatious parade be made of disease, and the melancholy situation of his Majesty rendered indeed more public and more distressing. He condemned the idea of the Queen's having the power to change the officers of the household in her own name, observing, that they had all been appointed in his Majesty's name. If it was so necessary to keep the household remaining, the places ought to be put in a state of suspension and abeyance during the continuance of his Majesty's unhappy malady, and the words " salary, profits, and emoluments," left out of the clause. He spoke of the indecency of the officers of the household coming down to that House, and voting their own salaries, when they were conscious it was not likely for them to be called upon to do any duty. He noticed the declaration of Mr. Pitt to make new establishments for the Regent. He asked how the right hon. gentleman could dare to suggest such an idea, after having heard the declaration, from authority, that the Prince of Wales desired to have no such establishment created as should cause fresh burthens to be laid on the people? Did the right hon. gentleman mean not to leave the Prince the free will to refuse the establishment, if offered ? Had he forgotten what he had heard upon the subject from his right hon. friend? The right hon. gentleman must, he said, have a pretty considerable share of presumption in taking it for granted, that the King, on his recovery, would be pleased to hear that a new tax had been imposed on his people. He believed his Majesty would consider it as the most fatal consequence of his illness, if it had caused his subjects to sustain an addition to the burthens under which they already laboured. Mr. M. Montague considered the idea of the Queen's obstructing the government of her own son, as most unnatural and improbable. He spoke of her Majesty's high character and moderation hitherto, and declared that politics must be a strange science, so totally to obstruct every feeling of parental regard and ma ternal affection. Sir W. Dolben said, that the Regent having the office and duties of a King, should also have some of the patronage of the Crown; and yet, he could not admit, that the officers of the household were the political servants of the Crown. The superior officers might very properly attend the Regent; and if there were any dismissions, they ought to be in the name of her Majesty; but, the supply of the vacancies should be in the Regent. He thought there was as much patronage annexed to the Regency as ought to belong to it. He was aware, that there were many claimants for the loaves and fishes; that some would faint by the road-side, and others the Prince would be forced to send empty away; but then, he would have many vacancies to fill, and more would fall in every day. clothe his bed with purple? Ought they to make a mockery of him, to put a crown of thorns on his head, a reed in his hand, Mr. Burke said, that the House was almost and dressing him in a raiment of purple, exhausted, and that his power of engaging to cry, "Hail! King of the Britons!"their attention was almost exhausted like- Mr. Burke censured the idea of giving wise, though the subject was by no means the powers of the Crown to one person, exhausted; he would, therefore, for the and its patronage to another; because, at present, only say a few words on the as- a moment like the present, every precau tonishing assertions of the right hon. gen- tion should be taken to preserve the safety tleman. To justify that panegyric on the of the constitution, and the lustre of the Sovereign which the right hon. gentleman royal dignity unimpaired: but, was that had pronounced, he was called upon to the way to effect it? As the right hon. bring him forth as a pageant, dressed up gentleman had planned the business, the with useless splendour and degrading dig government would be weak, enervated, nity, to serve the purposes of ambitious and altogether destitute of dignity; there men. The right hon. gentleman had would be no mark of royalty about the asked, would they strip the King of every Regent for ambassadors to observe, and mark of royalty, and transfer all the digni- thence the country would stand degraded ties of the Crown to another person? No, and sunk in the eyes of all Europe, and, Heaven forbid, when the person wearing however we might pass it over, and put up the Crown could lend a grace to those with the inconvenience among ourselves dignities, and derive a lustre from the at home, the impression given of our gosplendour of his household. But, did vernment abroad was highly material. they recollect that they were talking of a How would the King, on his recovery, be sick King, of a Monarch smitten by the pleased at seeing the patronage of the hand of Omnipotence, and that the Al- household taken from the Prince of Wales, mighty had hurled him from his throne, his representative, and given to the Queen? and plunged him into a condition which He must be shocked at the idea, unless drew down upon him the pity of the they supposed, what it was monstrous to meanest peasant in his kingdom- Mr. suppose, that the King was a good husBurke was called to order by the other band and a bad father. An hon. gentleside of the House. The Marquis of Gra- man had said, that they were not going ham said, that neither the right hon. gen- to make a king. He was afraid they tleman, nor any other man in that House, were. It was meant that the person who should dare to say the King was hurled should represent his Majesty, should not from his throne.-There being a general have the attendance which ought to accry of "Take down his words," Mr. company royalty. When had such a proBurke rose again, and as soon as he had ject been ever before practised as a sepaobtained a hearing, said, he would give gen-ration of the royal dignity from the regal tlemen a full opportunity of taking down his words. He declared that he had been interrupted in the midst of a sentence, and that scripture itself, so maimed and mangled, might be rendered blasphemy. But when it was said in their churches, that the King was afflicted for their sins, might it not be said, that he was struck by the hand of God. At a time when they were putting up their prayers in their temples to Heaven to restore the King, prostrating themselves before the Deity, and declaring that it was in punishment of their iniquities that the Sovereign was taken ill (which he thought had better not have been said) might he not have liberty to declare that Omnipotence had smitten his Majesty? His illness was caused by no act of theirs; but ought they, at that hour of sickness and calamity, to office? He put the case of a minor king, of seventeen years, and said, in that case, would not a regent be provided and invested with all the royal dignity of a king? He referred to the Regency Bills in the reign of George 2, and the Regency Bill passed in the present reign, and contended, that in both, the full powers were given. He maintained also, that the royal family were noticed in each, whereas they were totally excluded from the present Bill, and power of an enormous magnitude was taken out of the hands of the King's eldest son, and put into the hands of a person not of his Majesty's blood. The Regent was tied up from making peers; he was debarred from granting pensions and offices; he was restrained from exercising charities, bestowing bounties, or doing any one grateful office which served as a balance against the dreadful attributes of sovereignty. Where was he to get money to distribute bounties? Was he to take it out of his own privy purse, or the receipts of the little paltry duchy of Lancaster? To the Queen the House proposed to be prodigal; to the heir apparent they had not given the least dignity in the world. What were they then doing? They were about to give a mock crown, a tinsel robe, and a sceptre from the theatre, lackered over, and unreal; and at the same time, they rendered it necessary to tax the people, so that the Prince's name should never be mentioned without some recollection which must excite unpopularity. The right hon. gentleman was to have 300,000l. influence when he went out. The right hon. gentleman thought the Prince might do without influence, although he knew that he could not do without it himself. In former times, the way to popularity was, by standing up in defence of the liberties of the people, but the right hon. gentleman was born for the age in which he lived; he took another road; his first object was by some means or other, to get court favour, and having obtained indirectly a degree of power, he thought to gain popularity afterwards, if he could. The right hon. gentleman had contrived the Bill to fortify himself when out of office. The separation of power from royalty must destroy the representation of this country, or the Queen's government must destroy the Regent's. His Majesty might continue ill for twenty years, and then, what a state of anarchy, disunion, and difficulty, the divided government they were setting up, would create ! By depriving the Regent of the power of making peers, they had shut the door of the House of Lords against the people. They had put it out of their own power ever to correct their error, and made the House of Lords the great, independent, and omnipotent branch of the legislature. Mr. Pitt said, that in the right hon. gentleman's speech, he seemed rather to have addressed him personally, than endeavoured to argue the clause in question. The right hon. gentleman appeared to think that his going out of office, was a point of greater importance than any thing contained in the clause under consideration. The right hon. gentleman had charged him with having told the House he was going out of office; the fact was, he never had told them any such thing, nor did he know that he was to go out. But whether he staid in, or went out, he should endeavour to be serviceable to his country. -The next argument the right hon. gentleman had resorted to, by way of charge against him, was neither more nor less than a direct fiction, because the right hon. gentleman had chosen to say, that he was to have a connexion with the power placed in the Queen's hands; an assertion which was a fiction, as he most undoubtedly was to have no such connection. Another matter the right hon. gentleman had repeatedly mentioned was, that the amount of the patronage was 300,000l. a year. The right hon. gentleman did not know the civil list, if he said the offices amounted to 300,000%. a year. The sum did not amount altogether to much above 200,000/., and in that sum were included all the approved tradesmen's bills, amounting to near half the money, and which had no connexion whatever with political or parliamentary influence. Mr. Pitt defended himself from having called the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse, the menial servants of the Crown, and said, it was the very term bestowed on those officers by the right hon. gentleman in his own bill, for the reform of the civil list. He then took notice of Mr. Sheridan's assertion, that the best way to support royalty was, to separate the person of the King from every royal dignity. He denied that his Majesty was at present in a humiliating condition; instead of his state being low, abject, and degrading, as the right hon. gentleman had described it, it was very much the contrary. Mr. Sheridan said, that with regard to the sum of 300,000/. which his right hon. friend had said was the amount of the patronage of the household, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had denied that it amounted to so much; but the Committee would recollect, that the right hon. gentleman had told them, first, that it amounted only to 100,000l. a year, and in his last speech he had acknowledged, that it amounted to more than 200,000l. a year. The right hon. gentleman had averred, that more than one half of that sum consisted of the approved bills of tradesmen, which had nothing to do with parliamentary influence. He denied the fact to be so." He could easily see how great a degree of parliamentary influence arose out of those bills. Was there mover such s thing as a Westminster election? Would the right hon. gentleman, with that orange cape to his coat, take upon him to declare, that no parliamentary influence could be exercised through the medium of the tradesmen of the household, at such an election? He contended, that both at an election, and in various ways, influence would result from the tradesmen's bills, as well as from the officers of admitted importance in the household. He added, that he should move an amendment, to fulfil the idea of the noble lord near him, of separating those officers of the household, who were merely officers of state. With this view he then moved to annex some words to the clause, purporting to impower her Majesty to have the direction and control over such officers of the household, as should be deemed necessary to attend about his Majesty's royal person. Mr. Pitt objected to it, because it was inconsistent with the principles on which they argued, and with the mode of proceeding. If the Amendment were agreed to, it would be necessary to move an additional clause to explain to what the ge neral words of the Amendment referred. After a short conversation, the Committee divided on Mr. Sheridan's amendment: Yeas, 118; Noes, 173. The original clause was then agreed to. Feb. 10. The House being again in a Committee on the Regency Bill, Mr. Alderman Watson in the chair, the following clause was read: "And whereas the execution of the weighty and arduous trusts, hereby committed to the Queen's most excellent Majesty, in respect of the care of his Majesty's royal person, and of the disposing, ordering, and managing of all matters and things relating thereto, may require the assistance of a council, with whom her Majesty may consult and advise in the discharge of the same; be it therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that, in order to assist and advise her said most excellent Majesty, in the several mátters aforesaid, there shall be, during the continuance of his Majesty's illness, a council, consisting of Which council shall, from time to time, meet as her Majesty shall be pleased to direct; and, if it should happen that any of them, the said should depart this life, then, and in such case, it shall be lawful for the Queen's [VOL. XXVII.] most excellent Majesty, by an instrument in writing, signed and sealed by her Majesty, revocable at her will and pleasure, to nominate and appoint some one person, being, or having been a member of one of his Majesty's most hon. privy council, to be a member of the said council, to advise and assist her Majesty in the room and place of each and every of the said counsellors so departing this life; which nomination and appointment shall be forthwith certified by an instrument in writing, signed and sealed by her Majesty, to the lords of his Majesty's most hon. privy council, and shall be entered in the books thereof." It Mr Pitt rose for the purpose of proposing to fill up the first blank, with the names of such persons as the House might think proper to nominate, to assist her Majesty in the trust appointed her for the care of his Majesty's person. would be necessary to put the question singly on each person proposed; but for the satisfaction of the House, he would, previous to his putting any single name, submit to the House the whole of the names which he meant to propose to fill up the blank. He meant to propose the heads of the different departments over which her Majesty was to have control. Those persons, he had no doubt, would be admitted to be proper; but as it might appear necessary to have other great and important persons to assist her Majesty, it was natural to look to the heads of the church and the law. The persons whom he should, therefore, submit to the committee as proper to be of her Majesty's council, were the two heads of the church, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the heads of the law, the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Justice of the King's Bench. These persons, in addition to the respect of their high situations, had been approved by his Majesty, and no persons, he conceived, were more proper to be appointed of her Majesty's council, than those who had been approved of by his Majesty for their ability and integrity. In addition to those persons, he should have to mention the four officers at the head of the departments of the household for the time being; the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, the Master of the Horse, and the Groom of the Stole. His first motion, therefore would be, "That John, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, be one of her Majesty's council." Lord North rose not to oppose the no[4] |