might be by a dissolution of the parliament; the second step his Majesty might take, might be, under his sign manual, to appoint a new regency, by lords justices, or otherwise; and thus, when parliament should again assemble, they might meet, not his Majesty, who might be relapsed, but his commission, without ever having any proof laid before them of the re-establishment of his health.

Mr. Dundas and other members having spoken,

Mr. Sheridan rose again. He complimented Mr. Dundas, declaring, that with regard to the beginning of his speech, he never had heard any thing more able, more earnest, or more eloquent; but that, towards the end of it, the right honourable and learned gentleman got himself entangled in an argument which destroyed the principle of all his former reasoning. The right honourable and learned gentleman had first doubted whether he had any right to impose restrictions on his Majesty's re-assumption of his royal authority; and he had afterwards said that the bill had provided all the necessary checks and restrictions, thus contradicting the right honourable gentleman's assertions. The right honourable and learned gentleman had asked whether his Majesty ought to be a supplicant to parliament for the exercise of those prerogatives which of right belonged to him? He would answer that it would be better for his Majesty to supplicate that house for his crown, than either his council of eight, or his nine privy councillors. Mr. Sheridan charged Mr. Dundas with flying to the common-place topics of pitying the king, and saying all he felt for him and his situation. They all, no doubt, felt as they ought to do for his Majesty; but they ought likewise to feel for their country, which was of equal consideration. The right honourable and learned gentleman, disdaining to read the bill upon which he had been speaking, had made several gross blunders; and plainly proved that he was not master of the various clauses which the bill contained; perhaps he had not read them. He had talked of what might happen in case of the queen's death, whereas the bill contained an express provision for that circumstance. He had all along understood, Mr. Sheridan said, that they were not to argue on grounds of personal confidence; and the right honourable and learned gentleman in particular had a few days since declared that arguments of this kind were unmanly and improper; and yet, in his speech of that day, he had

resorted to that sort of argument; he had called upon the house to know whether Lord Thurlow, Lord Kenyon, and the rest of her Majesty's council, were not the fit persons to advise her Majesty? Will you not, said he, believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a person fit to be trusted, and that he will connive at no fraud which leads to the circumstance of bringing forward his Majesty for the re-assumption of his royal authority? Undoubtedly, Mr. Sheridan observed, it was not likely to be supposed that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Thurlow, and the rest of her Majesty's council, were persons very likely to betray their trust; but, they all knew that personal confidence was not a fit ground for parliamentary argument. The right honourable and learned gentleman had, the preceding day, declared that the council of the queen was only a council of advice; and yet, that day they had heard him contend that it was a check, and a council of control. Mr. Sheridan desired the committee to recollect on what grounds the Irish parliament proceeded, and that they took up the circumstance of the king's incapacity, upon the declaration of the English parliament, and proceeded upon a principle of respect to them. He urged the necessity, therefore, of their settling the mode of his Majesty's re-assumption of his royal authority, in such a manner as the Irish parliament should be willing to adopt.

Mr. Powis moved several amendments.

Mr. Sheridan observed that, as the bill stood, his Majesty's recovery would not come before parliament at all, even if it were sitting. He reminded the house of what he had spoken before, when he adverted to the possible case of his Majesty's recovery, and the very first act of his executive government being a dissolution of the parliament. He put the case also of the king's being recovered to a degree, and substituting a new form of government without parliament. He stated, likewise, that his Majesty might recover, and might not choose to appear in public, but might nominate other persons as custodes regni, to carry on the government for him. Mr. Sheridan moved an amendment, which he explained to be introductory to still farther amendments meant to be afterwards proposed, with a view of procuring the object aimed at by those who thought as he did, that parliament ought to be the medium of restoring the government to the king on his recovery.

Mr. Sheridan's amendment tended to oblige the privy council to take care that the instrument stating his Majesty to be recovered, which was to be sent to the Lord Mayor of London, and inserted in the London Gazette, be previously before parlia

ment.

The committee divided on the amendment; ayes 113; noes 181. They then went through the whole bill—the report was brought up and agreed to, and the bill ordered for the third reading on the morrow.

FEBRUARY 12.

REGENCY RESTRICTION BILL.

Upon the third reading a clause was proposed to be added by Mr. Pulteney, limiting the restriction relative to the creation of peers to three years.

MR. SHERIDAN remarked, that his sentiments coincided with those of his honourable friend (Mr. Pulteney) in regard 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 with respect to the regent's power to make peers, they suffered the power to pass out of their hands, and the door of the house of lords to be once shut. Mr. Sheridan declared he was surprised at what the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt) 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 honourable gentleman seemed to have forgotten they had gone throughout the whole of their proceedings, not on probable dangers, but on possible dangers; and every danger which was morally possible to happen had been most studiously and cautiously guarded against. That such an idea as the right honourable gentleman had stated was implied by parliament, was not, Mr. Sheridan thought, to be tolerated; the right honourable gentleman, and the gentleman behind him, seemed to have adopted a principle which 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 and that the words "one year" be inserted in the blank.

years,"

Mr. Chancellor Pitt answered, that the honourable gentleman who spoke last, seemed to have done him more justice than the honourable gentleman 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 sooner, the restrictions ought to cease within the period proposed; and the honourable and respectable 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 which 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 honourable gentleman, by what he was doing, defeat his own purpose? The honourable gentleman had observed that he moved an earlier day that it might not appear to be the opinion of parliament that parliament thought the restrictions ought to continue three years. He should conceive that the honourable gentleman would serve his purpose better hy withdrawing his amendment, and letting the original motion be put.

Mr. Sheridan answered, if the motion for filling the blank with the words "three years" was carried, the right honourable gentleman had declared, it would appear that it was not the opinion of the house that the restriction should continue for three years. This was, Mr. Sheridan said, the most extraordinary opinion he had ever heard, and therefore he should certainly persist in his amendment.

The question was put, and the clause filled up with the words " three years,” agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the bill.

Mr. Sheridan begged leave to ask a question of the honourable and learned gentleman whom he saw opposite to him, the answer given to which would show whether his amendment was necessary or not. His Majesty had power to grant a commission for opening parliament; and he desired to know whether the king had not power to invest those commissioners with full regal authorities. He found from the precedents with which they had been furnished, that in the case of Henry the Sixth, when the Duke of York was appointed to exercise the royal authority in parliament, it might be done. What he wished to know then, was, could the king do the same thing by a general commission; or whether, as in the case of Lord Hardwicke, in the year 1754, he must issue a second commission to give the royal assent to any bill or bills?

The master of the rolls answered, that if the honourable gentleman meant to inquire whether the king could delegate the whole of his authority by one commission, he thought he could not do so;-he could not, for instance, make his attorney-general king. To make any man king by attorney, was a power that the king of England did not possess. With regard to the commissions issued in Henry the Sixth's reign, in the cases of the Duke of Gloucester in the commencement, and

the Duke of York in u subsequent period; in both those cases the commissions issued under the great seal, and were confirmed by parliament.

Mr. Sheridan thanked the honourable and learned gentleman for answering him in part, but he had reasoned rather than answered him entirely. Mr. Sheridan proceeded to put his case again, and maintained that the commission appointing the Duke of Gloucester to hold the parliament, and give the royal assent to bills was a case in point. The king was then a minor, incapable of acting for himself, as our king was at present incapable, though from another cause. Was there not in the king a power not only to issue a commission investing commissioners with authority to open parliament, but to give the royal assent to a bill, and to act in every instance with the royal authority?

The attorney-general said he would answer the honourable gentleman in three words: the king cannot.

Mr. Sheridan afterwards went again into the question which he had before put to the lawyers, grounding his second application upon a clause which he moved; the object of which was, to restrain his Majesty from granting any general commission, investing the commissioners with powers to open the parliament, give the royal assent to bills, &c. &c. &c.

The question was put on Mr. Sheridan's clause and negatived.

MARCH 19.

ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.

The report of the resolutions voted by the committee of supply on the ordnance estimates having been brought up by Mr. Gilbert and the resolutions read a first time, on the question being put "That these resolutions be read a second time," General Burgoyne, Mr. Courtenay, and Mr. Sheridan opposed them. The object of the resolution was to grant a sum of £218,000 for the extraordinaries of the ordnance. This demand was made by ministers in consequence of a plan formed by the master-general, for fortifying to a certain extent the West India islands. In the course of the debate Mr. Courtenay was called to order by the speaker.

MR. SHERIDAN rose to defend his honourable friend Mr. Courtenay, who had, he thought, been rather improperly called to order.

The speaker answered, that it was an essential part of his duty to preserve order. It was at all times disagreeable to him to interrupt gentlemen; but when they in a second speech went into new reasoning and argument, instead of confining themselves to explanation, he felt it to be his duty to interrupt them; and, however he might on any occasion mistake the point of duty, in respect to order, yet, when his intentions were of the nature which he had described, he conceived it to be unhandsome to make any reflection on his conduct.