Sect. 39. Ecclesiastical jurisdictions reserved against offenders against this Act. 13 and 14 Ch. 2, chap. 4, sect. 2, (4th Book of Common Prayer.) Sect 24. Applies all the good laws then in force for persecution to the new book. 29 Ch. 2, chap. 9, An Act for taking away the writ de hæretico comburendo.' Sect 1. Heretics not to be burnt to death: but in sect. 2, curious proviso. 1 W. and M. stat. 1, ch. 18. Toleration Act confirmed by 10 Ann, ch. 2, extended by 19 G. 3. These said laws were not repealed, but were in force, not as to all Dissenters, but in force as to all persons of the church of England, and some classes of Dissenters. Earl Stanhope mentioned also the 27 Henry 6. Act for pardoning all priests for all manner and kind of felonies and rapes by them perpetrated." shall be awarded, shall not in the same His lordship made a variety of pointed animadversions in the progress of his mention of the several statutes above referred to, and in particular stated, that passing ecclesiastical censure on persons refusing to go to church, and punishing them for idolatry, was directly contrary to Magna Charta. It might do for the clergy, but not for laymen. Magna Charta said "No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs; or be outlawed or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed, but by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land." His lordship said, he did not mean then to propose any thing respecting the abominable acts of parliament that he had referred to; but he had resolved, at a future opportunity, to call their lordships' serious attention to the subject, having undergone the drudgery of going through the whole statute book, and found that there were no less than 300 acts in it upon religion. He did not wish materially to alter the clause, he only desired to leave the question open. As the clause then stood, the Prince Regent might repeal Magna Charta, the Habeas Corpus Act, or Mr. Grenville's Act for trying controverted elections, and the best and most useful statutes ever passed, but he could not repeal the worst, not even that most barefaced statute of Henry 6, which for gave the clergy all the felonies and rapes they had committed. That Act was less infamous than several of those which he had mentioned, because it only pardoned the guilty; whereas, those to which he had referred, punished the innocent. His lordship concluded with reading the opinions of lord Chatham and lord Mansfield, two of the greatest men that had ever lived, though they were known to have acted on very opposite principles, on the subject of toleration in matters of religion. The late earl of Chatham in the House of Lords on the Dissenters Bill, had said, "the Reformation has laid open the Scriptures to all-let not the bishops shut them again. Laws in support of ecclesiastic power are pleaded for, which it would shock humanity to execute. It is said that religious sects have done great mischief, when they were not kept under strict restraint. History affords no proof that sects have ever been mischievous when they were not oppressed and persecuted by the ruling church."Lord Mansfield, in the House of Lords, in the case of Allan Evans, as reported by Dr. Richard Burn in his ecclesiastical law, title Dissenters, said: "What bloodshed and confusion have been occasioned from the reign of Henry 4, when the first penal statutes were enacted, down to the Revolution in the kingdom, by laws made to force conscience! There is nothing certainly more unreasonable, more inconsistent with the rights of human nature, more contrary to the spirit and precepts of the Christian religion, more iniquitous and unjust, more impolitic, than persecution. It is against natural religion, against revealed religion, and sound policy. Sad experience, and a large mind, taught that great man, the president de Thou, this doctrine. Let any man read the many admirable things which (though a papist) he had dared to advance upon the subject, in the dedication of his history to Henry 4 of France, which I never read without rapture, and he will be fully convinced, not only how cruel, but how impolitic it is, to persecute for religious opinions," And the late earl of Chatham, in a letter to the rev. Dr. Price, says," it is impossible to be writing to Dr. Price, without the mind going of itself, to that most interesting of all objects to fallible man,toleration. Be assured, Sir, that on this sacred unalienable right of nature, and bulwark of truth, my warm wishes will always keep pace with your own." His lordship ended with moving an amendment similar to that moved in the Commons, by by Mr. W. Smith. ferred to in the enacting clause of the 13th Charles 2; much less was he disposed to stand up the defender of those statutes. He considered their discussion, however proper hereafter, as wholly out of time at present, and was convinced, that the main subject of the Bill was of sufficient magnitude to occupy the whole of their lordships attention. He had, besides, hoped to have persuaded the noble earl, that he had not examined the subject of the Act of Uniformity with the degree of accuracy that was due to a matter of such moment, by showing his lordship before hand, that he had omitted to take notice of several points essential to be considered and remarked in a general view of that question. His grace proceeded to state, that the several matters cognizable and punishable by the statutes mentioned by the noble earl, were applicable solely to the conduct of ministers of the Church of England, who having taken an oath to uphold and maintain the Book of Common Prayer, were declared punishable in the manner proposed in those statutes, if they held doctrines derogatory of that Book of Common Prayer, which they had solemnly sworn they would uphold and maintain. With regard to the offences themselves, the noble earl had not contended that they ought not to be the subject of some restraint; but had only argued against the excess of the restraint, and the severity of the punishment provided by the statutes in question; and upon this principle, and no other, the noble earl had objected to them all. With regard to the penalties on conviction of not going to church, they had been repealed in favour of the Dissenters by the Act of Toleration. The Bishop of Salisbury said, that when the noble earl had talked of the persecuting spirit of those statutes, would not any one have imagined that they were prosecuting upon those statutes with the utmost rigour? So far from it, those statutes had long been buried in oblivion, and in all probability would have remained so, had not the noble earl chosen to have called them forth to their lordships recollection. Let the noble earl produce a single instance in which any one of those statutes had been put in force for more than a century past. The moderation of the Church of England was her boast and her chief pride. With regard to the part of The Archbishop of Canterbury said, he the clause in the Bill which restrained the rose not to enter into any argument with Regent from giving the royal assent to the noble earl, respecting the statutes re-any bill or bills, for the repeal of the Act [VOL. XXVII.] [4 N] of Settlement, and the Act of Uniformity, such a restriction was equally wise and expedient, because it should be recollected, that the Regent having a delegated power, he ought to be restrained from doing that which no authority but that of the King upon the throne ought to be able to effect. He would take that opportunity of declaring, that every vote he had given in the progress of the business then under their consideration, was a vote arising out of the clearest conviction of his mind, that the system was a wise system, founded in constitutional principles, and adapted to the exigency of the case. He was, his lordship thanked God, perfectly independent. The goodness of Providence, and the bounty of his sovereign, had set him above the reach of party influence. He spoke, therefore, and acted in that House, merely as his conscience dictated; and so satisfied was he of the excellence of the measures that had been pursued, that he could not sit down, without giving his thanks to the two great men who had piloted the vessel of state through a stormy and turbulent sea, with so much manly perseverance and immoveable firmness, that the present age could not but look up to them with astonishment; nor was it possible for posterity to consider their conduct, without feeling an equal mixture of esteem and admiration. The Bishop of Gloucester spoke with similar expressions of feeling respecting the 13th Charles 2, and the penal statutes referred to in the enacting clause of that Act, the objects of which, his lordship remarked, went merely to enforce obedience to the rules and forms of the Church of England in the ecclesiastics of that Church. . Earl Stanhope consented to let his amendment be negatived, declaring he was satisfied with having brought the subject under their consideration, and desiring it to be remembered that no one of the rev. prelates, who had spoken on the occasion, had attempted to defend or jus tify the statutes to which he had referred. The Earl of Radnor moved as an amendment to the proviso, enabling the Regent to grant the rank of peerage to such of his Majesty's royal issue as should have attained the full age of twenty-one, to add the words," and shall be actually resident in Great Britain." Viscount Stormont said, he hoped by the amendment, it was not proposed to restrain the Regent from granting a peerage to any one of the royal family as should be of full age, who might be employed abroad in a military capacity, in the public service. The Committee divided on the amendment:-Contents, 58; Not-contents, 69. The Marquis of Carmarthen moved, that, "all the palaces, houses, gardens, parks, &c. now possessed by his Majesty, or shall be employed by or for him, during his indisposition, shall be under the control and management of her Majesty," which, after some conversation, passed in the affirmative. He next moved, that "all the royal offspring under the age of twenty-one, should be under the care of her Majesty," which also passed in the affirmative. The chairman then reported progress, and the House adjourned. Feb. 18. Their Lordships went again into a Commitee on the Regency Bill. On the clause being read, respecting the King's Household, Lord Rawdon rose, and after stating to the Committee that the clause giving her Majesty full power over the King's Household, was setting up an authority in direct opposition to that of the person holding the executive government, reminded their lordships, that they with whom he acted had objected to the restriction on which that clause was founded, when it had been first proposed. That its object since had been explained, and that now they knew what that object was, there objections were substantiated. He recapitulated the three heads of argument, that had in former debates been advanced in support of it. The keeping the officers in their situations, separate from the control of the Regent, could not add any thing to the comfort of his Majesty, in his present unhappy situation, while the depriving the Regent of the attendance of those officers was taking away from that splendour which was so necessary to his dignity. He addressed not his argument to their lordships, or to philosophers; they knew that obedience was due to government from those who were governed, whether the person of the governor was surrounded with splendour or not; but the multitude felt differently; it was necessary to work upon their prejudices, and to procure subordination and respect by the dazzling lustre of appearances. It had been said, that although the household was withheld from the Regent, yet a substitute was to be provided suitable to the rank and im. portance of his office; but he well knew the feelings of his Royal Highness upon that subject, and it was a matter of deep regret to him, that his taking upon himself the government of the kingdom during his Majesty's illness, was to throw a new weight upon the nation. This proposition was erroneous in every point of view. During his Majesty's illness the question resulted, would they have a government or not? The Bill said, what the people felt, that a government was necessary, but how could a government go on with the combination in the Bill, the provisions of which had proceeded from a false but generous principle of attachment to the sovereign? No part of it was in his mind more reprehensible than the clauses respecting the Queen. They were going to give her Majesty a power and government of money to an extent she had never known before, and which, of course, was liable to great abuse. The Prince had an evident interest in the due management of the several concerns intrusted to the Queen, but her Majesty had no interest whatever. His lordship concluded with moving to insert after the words, " also the direction and government of" words to the following effect, "such part of his Majesty's household as shall be deemed necessary to attend on his Majesty during his illness." The Earl of Hopetoun objected to the amendment, and ́adduced a variety of arguments to show, that it tended to introduce a new arrangement, totally foreign from that which the House had already discussed and argued, and such as in all probability they would not be disposed to make. The whole Bill was founded on the principle, that it was a temporary measure, calculated to answer a temporary purpose; whereas it was obvious, that the proposed amendment proceeded on a permanent principle. That his Majesty's indisposition was to continue long, was nei ther consonant to their lordships feelings, nor to the feelings of the country. It was, in his mind, improper to separate the officers of the household, and divide them into classes. He had no objection to giving the Regent not only all the necessary authority for carrying on the government, but all the splendour and brilliancy that the dignity of the high office of Regent required. They were to recollect, that they were putting the Prince's hand on the chair of state, not placing his foot upon the throne. It was said, that what was given to the Queen was taken from the government. He denied the truth of the assertion, and contended that the idea of influence in either House of Parliament attending the nomination of places in the Household, was unparliamentary, and that the government that depended on such a petty and circumscribed support, as that paltry pittance of influence, must be a poor and miserable government indeed. The Earl of Radnor said, the noble lord had not explained the whole extent of his amendment, and till he heard what it was to lead to, it was impossible for him to say, whether he could support it or not. Lord Rawdon said, his object was to follow the amendment, if carried, with motions" seriatim" separating those officers, who could not exercise any present functions of their offices, from the control and appointment of her Majesty. The Earl of Radnor said, the noble lord's amendment did not entirely meet his ideas, and therefore he would explain what he meant ; an explanation which he should give without designing offence to any individual. He took the clause to be neither more nor less, than conferring on the Queen a direct and notorious influence in both Houses of Parliament. He had voted against the famous India Bill of 1783, because he conceived it to go to the creation of a powerful influence, which if united with the Crown would have made it too strong, and if exercised against it, would have rendered it too weak. In speaking of the present situation of affairs, he would use some plain, strong words, but they should be but few. If the Prince of Wales was affectionate to his father, and acted wisely, he would continue, as much as might be, the present measures and the present ministry. That was the advice he would give him as a counsellor; but speaking as a member of parliament, if the Prince thought proper to exercise that discretion with which he would be constitutionally invested, and should choose to change the ministry, he would not be one to establish a possibility of hampering his measures. Viscount Stormont conceived that the amendment was such as the noble earl could not oppose, because it went to nothing specific, but only opened the door for farther amendments. The Earl of Radnor read a clause which he had drawn up and meant to introduce, the object of which was, among other provisions, to separate the nomination and appointment of the noble lords with white staves from the control of the Queen, but to render them subservient to her Majesty's order. larger powers, than the Regent under either of the two former bills would have possessed. Viscount Stormont supported the amendment. So far from its appearing to him a paltry subject and not likely to cripple government, he meant to go on the ground of its crippling government most dangerously and fundamentally. In former Re The Duke of Richmond objected to lord Rawdon's amendment, because the noble lord had not explained the whole that it was intended to go to. If the amendment were agreed to, they necessarily ought to move that the great officers of the household should be remove-gency Bills, he saw the whole executive able by the Regent. He reminded the Committee, that his Majesty was to be considered as King of this country, notwithstanding his present situation, and that it ought to be remembered that under the present Bill, the Prince of Wales was the son of the King acting as Regent, but not the king; a distinction which the Prince ought to feel in every step he took. As Prince of Wales and Regent, he ought undoubtedly to have great splendour, but not the same as the King himself. Till he knew how the noble lord who spoke first, meant the great officers of the household should be removed, he could not argue against his proposition; but if the proposition contained in the clause just read by the noble earl was substantially the same, one answer would do for both. If the control were removed over those offices, they removed the responsibility, and it was necessary that the responsibility should remain. Lord Rawdon said, the noble earl had shown him his clause, which he thought would completely answer the object of what he had intended for his second motion, and would obviate the charge of influence; he therefore would substitute the noble earl's clause, as the subject of his intended motion, if the amendment should be carried. His lordship alluded to the possible conjuncture of affairs that might arise from the state of Europe to make negociations with foreign powers necessary, and put the case, that the influence of the household might be exercised adversely to the existing government, in the midst of a proceeding deemed essential to the safety and security of the country, which, it might tend to check and prevent. The Duke of Richmond treated the idea of a parliamentary influence resulting from the placing the household under the power and control of the Queen as a matter too insignificant to merit much notice. His grace alluded to the two former Regency Bills, and contended, that the present Bill gave the Regent infinitely powers of government given. It was not the attempt of men in those times to curtail the authority of the Regent, because they knew the whole powers of the Crown were necessary to carry on government. It was said, that in former Regency Bills, the power was divided between the Regent and a council, but it was forgot, that all the princes of the blood were in that council. Had the example of former Regency Bills been followed, he was free to say, he should have opposed it, because he thought those Bills liable to strong objection; but so far was he from giving the noble duke and his colleagues oredit for not having followed the example before them, he thought, unwise and impolitic as those Regency bills had been, they were more wise and more politic than the present. When they instituted a weak government, they knew not the extent of the mischiefs that might ensue. His lordship declared he did not fear any thing from open, bold ambition, but he dreaded every thing from that dark, mean ambition, which worked like a mole under ground, undermining all above it, and attempting by anticipation to weaken that government in which it was not to have a share, and to cripple what it dared not oppose. patronage of the household, he said, extended to all the offices, and was not less than 100,000l. a year, which amounted to more than all the offices suppressed by the Bill of 1782. It was an influence that was not trifling, but extending far and wide, and, as the promoters of it themselves thought, of most pernicious consequence. He reprobated the idea of appointing great officers of the realm, who could be of no service to the King during his present situation, to be under the Queen's control, because her Majesty was entrusted with the care of the King's person. He alluded to the Lord Chancellor's celebrated speech a few weeks since, when the resolution, on which the clause was founded, was under consideration, and said it was rather an address to the public than to that House. Those The |