« ZurückWeiter »
“ security of the Monarch, and the rights of his “ family.
“ Upon that part of the plan which re“ gards the King's real and personal property, “ the Prince feels himself compelled to remark, 56 that it was not necessary for Mr. Pitt, nor “ proper, to suggest to the Prince the restraint so he proposes against the Prince’s granting “ away the King's real and personal property. “ The Prince does not conceive that, during " the King's life, he is, by law, entitled to “ make any such grant; and he is sure that “ he has never shewn the smallest inclination to “ possess any such power. But it remains with • Mr. Pitt to consider the eventual interests of " the Royal Family, and to provide a proper " and natural security against the mismanage“ ment of them by others.
“ The Prince has discharged an indis“ pensable duty, in thus giving his free opi" nion on the plan submitted to his consi" deration.
“ His conviction of the evils which may " arise to the King's interests, to the peace and “ happiness of the Royal Family, and to the “ safety and welfare of the nation, from the “ government of the country remaining any “ longer in its present maimed and debilitated “ state, outweighs, in the Prince's mind, every
in other consideration, and will determine him “ to undertake the painful trust imposed upon “ him by the present melancholy necessity “ (which of all the King's subjects he deplores “ the most) in full confidence, that the affec« tion and loyalty to the King, the experienced “ attachment to the House of Brunswick, and “ the generosity which has always distin“ guished this nation, will carry him through “ the many difficulties, inseparable from this
most critical situation, with comfort to hima “ self, with honour to the King, and with ad. “ vantage to the public.
(Signed) “ G. P.
This paper was delivered by the Prince to the Lord Chancellor.-It was no doubt intended to produce an effect on the future deliberations of the two Houses, and might, indeed, be considered as an appeal from the ministers to the Parliament. At all events, it afforded a complete answer to the question of one of his partisans—" Would any advise the Prince to say, I accept the regency under the limitations you propose, which I think are improper, and which I hope Parliament will annul!"*
* See Mr. Sheridan's speech of December 22.
Different opinions of the Physicians relative to the probavle
duration of his Majesty's malady--Discussions on the Regency resumed--Another examination of the King's Physicians, by a Committee of the House, ordered on the motion of Mr. Loveden.—Mr. Pitt opens his proposed plan of restrictions on the Regent-Examines the grounds of the opposite opinions entertained by two of the King's Physicians—Reminds the House that they were not about to place a King upon the Throne--Distinguishes the powers of a Regent from those of a King-Urges the necessity of establishing a constitutional precedent-ReAections on the subject-Restrictions justified, not only on general principles, but on the recorded sentiments and opinions of the men who were destined to be Ministers of the Regent-Personal Character of the Regent not a proper criterion for the regulation of his powers-Mr. Pitt proposes to prevent the Regent from creating Peers His reasons for the proposal-His restrictions respecting the grant of places and pensions-Respecting the King's personal property-Proposes to entrust the care of the King's person, and the management of the Royal Household, to the Queen; and to move a Council of Advice to assist the Queen in the discharge of her trust-His resolutions violently opposed by Mr. Powis-Ridiculed by Mr. Sheridan-Censured by Mr. Fullarton, whose misrepresentation of French History is correctedSupported
by Lord Belgrave-Able Speech of Mr. William (now Lord) Grenville, in favour of them—The first four resolutions carried - Debate postponed-Mr. Pitt's Speech in defence of the fifth resolution -- Disclaims all views of factious opposition to the Regent's AdministrationViolent Speech of Lord Maitland; he libels the People of England-Misstates the ground of the argument–Objects to trust the King's person to the Queen-Probable motives of such objection-Objection supported by Mr. Grey— Resolutions supported by Mr. Dundas and Mr. PulteneyOpposed by Mr. Fox-Denies that the King's Political Character continues to subsist during his natural lifeThe state and splendour of the Regent a national concern -Resolution carried by a majority of fifty-six.—Mr. Rolle revives the subject of the reported marriage of the Prince of Wales with Mrs. Fitzherbert-Called to order by Sir Francis Basset-Necessity of the investigation affirmed from the penal disqualifications attached to such marriage if it had really taken place-Resolutions pass in the Commons-Proceedings in the House of LordsAgree to the Resolutions—Mr. Pitt proposes to submit the Resolutions to the Prince of Wales; and defends himself against some imputations of disrespect to the Prince, which had been urged against him by Mr. Burke and Mr. Grey-Asserts the existence of a Duty to his King and Country paramount to all considerations of respect to the Prince-Joint resolutions of the two Houses laid before the Prince and the Queen-Answer of the Prince and of the Queen.-Earl Camden proposes a commission, under the great seal, for giving the Royal Assent to the Bill A better mode of proceeding suggested-His Lordship justifies the proposal by precedents from English History -The Princes of the Blood desire their names may be erased from the commission-Mr. Pitt brings in the Regency Bill--Opposed, on the second reading, by Mr. Burke.His intemperate language-Is called to order by Mr. Pitt-Mr. Rolle proposes a clause for excluding from the Regency any person proved to be married, either in law or in fact, to a Papist, or one of the Roman Catholic persuasion-Clause opposed by Lord Belgrave-Reasons for an Enquiry into the business Mr. Wellbore Ellis contenids, that the Act of the present King, which annuls all marriages of the Royal Family, without the Royal Assent, decided the question, as that could not be true in fact which was not good in law—The imputed effect of this Act denied-Mr. Ellis's inference adopted by Lord North, Mr. Sheridan, and others--Silence of the Crown Lawyerson the subject-Inference resisted by Mr. Dundas, who maintains that the penalties of the Act of Settlement still subsist-Mr. Rolle proposes to withdraw his motion
-Is ridiculed by Mr. Courtenay-Reviled by Mr. GreyMr. Grey's intemperance censured by Mr. Pitt.—Debates on the Queen's Council pursued-Mr. Burke is again called to order-Lord North censures Mr. Pitt for ņot introducing the names of the Princes of the Blood, and, noves for the insertion of their names in the list-His motion resisted by Mr. Pitt, who explains the grounds of their exclusión-Motion rejected by the House-Mr. Pitt defends the means proposed by him for making known the Recovery of the King, and the resumption of the Royal power-Inconsisteney of the Opposition—Extraordinary Speech of Mr. Burke--Restrictions on the creation of Peers limited to Three Years-Bill carried to the Lords All further proceedings stopped by the King's restoration to bealth.-Reflections on Mr. Pitt's conduct during these discussions on the proposed dismission of the King's Confidential Servants by the Regent-Proceedings on the Regency in the Irish Parliament-Their precipitate conduct-Declare the Prince Regent-Glaring instance of their inaccuracy on a constitutional point - The Marquis