know from the right honorable gentleman, what could occasion this failure of his promise, and consequently this impediment to business.

Mr. Pitt answered, that he readily acknowledged having expressed a hope on Tuesday, of the houses being able to proceed us that day, in the committee on the state of the nation, and, at the time, he had expected that his hope would have been fulfilled; but events had since taken such a turn, as rendered it impossible. He could not, in a parliamentary manner, communicate what those events were; but as he was anxious, at all times, to give the house every possible satisfaction, out of order as it was, he would venture to mention, that he believed his Royal Highness had appointed the next day, at three o'clock, to receive the joint address of the two houses; and that the house of lords would sit on Saturday, to take the next step for providing a commission for opening the parliament, and therefore it would be to no purpose for that house to sit on the same day.

Mr. Sheridan admitted, that it was unparliamentary to take any notice of what the right honorable gentleman had said; but, as it had been expected on the preceding Monday, that the address would have been moved in the house of lords on that day, and one of His Majesty's ministers had prevented it ;-so the same hindrance might arise again, in respect to the commission to be issued for opening the parliament. On Tuesday last, the right honorable gentleman had declared, that there existed the most perfect harmony and cordiality among His Majesty's servants; he hoped, therefore, that the right honorable gentleman would feel no difficulty in giving the house a positive assurance, that the business would be proceeded on in the house of lords on Saturday, either by pledging himself for the fact, or stating that he really had good reason to believe it would so turn out; or, if he was unwilling to do this, that he would suffer that house to sit on Saturday, that they might enter upon the business, in case the lords should disappoint them, as they had done on the preceding Monday. He could not, Mr. Sheridan remarked, presume to say that the Prince of Wales would have been ready to receive the joint address, and to have given his answer upon that day; but would the right honor

f

able gentleman undertake to declare, that His Royal Highness would not have received it that morning?

To this no answer was given.

3

Mr. Sheridan moved, as an amendment to the motion, to leave out the word "Monday," and insert the word " Saturday." By sitting on Saturday, the house, he said, would at least have one advantage;-if a part of administration should prevent the business proceeding in the house of lords on that day, as they had done, in the case of the address, on the preceding Monday; that house could go on with it, and thus prevent farther delay.

"At length" the question was put, and the house divided, that the words, "Monday next," stand part of this question.-Ayes 70 ; noes 52. The main question was then put, and agreed to.

FEBRUARY 2.

REGENCY RESTRICTIONS.

The following resolution passed by the lords, having been com municated to the house of commons, Mr. Pitt moved for their concurrence therein. This motion, which was at length carried without a division, gave rise to a long and warm debate.

Resolved, "That it is expedient and necessary, that letters patent, under the great seal of Great Britain, be empowered to be issued by the authority of the two houses of parliament, in the tenor and form following." Here followed an exact transcript of the writ usually issued under the sign manual, empowering certain commissioners to open and hold the King's parliament at Westminster. The commissioners nominated by the present letters patent were, the Prince of 9 Wales, the Dukes of York, Cumberland, and Gloucester, together › with the other persons usually inserted therein.

Mr. SHERIDAN observed, that he rose merely in consequence of what had fallen from an honorable gentleman over the way (Mr. Rolle). Mr. Sheridan denied that his right honorable friend (Mr. Fox), who was not then present, had ever asserted the Prince of Wales's right to assume the exercise

of the royal authority, without the adjudication of the two houses of parliament. The question of right was, therefore, unnecessarily agitated, because the doctrine of the two houses having a right to provide for the defect in the exercise of the royal authority, had never been denied. With regard to his right honorable friend standing high in the confidence of the Prince of Wales, the fact undoubtedly was, that his right honorable friend stood higher in the opinion of his Royal Highness than any other person; and the reason was, that his Royal Highness reposed the greatest confidence where he found the greatest merits. Of the secession to which the honorable gentleman had alluded, the reason was obvious. It was extraordinary, that the minister should have been with the Prince of Wales the day before the commission had been proposed in the other house of parliament, and that he should not have consulted his Royal Highness, whether it was agreeable to him, or to his royal brother, and royal uncles, to admit the respective insertion of their names in a commission, issued on principles repugnant to those contained in a protest, which the Duke of York had subscribed and recognized. As to the base coinage which was intended to be issued in the name of royalty, without its bearing one feature of the royal countenance, Mr. Sheridan said, that after the able arguments which had been urged, and particularly the speech of his right honorable friend (Mr. Burke), to which it was enough barely to allude, he would not pay remarks of such expressive force so ill a compliment, as to trouble the committee with an attempt to give them, what they did not want, additional validity, by a continuance of reasoning upon the subject.

FEBRUARY 7.

REGENCY RESTRICTIONS.

On the 3d of February Mr. Pitt had moved for leave to bring in a bill, to provide for the care of His Majesty's royal person, and for the administration of the regal authority during His Majesty's illness. Leave was accordingly given; and the bill was brought in and read for the first time on the day following; a second time on the 6th, and ordered to be committed on the 7th.

The regency bill consisted of thirty-two clauses.-The clause which was first objected to in the committee, was that which contained the oath to be taken by the Regent. Two parts of this oath were objected to by Mr. Burke.-First, that by which he was bound" to take care of the personal safety of the King to the utmost of his power and ability;" a provision which could only be considered as a mockery and insult upon the Prince of Wales, when it was well known that he was not in the smallest degree entrusted with the care of the royal person. Secondly, that part by which he was bound" to govern, according to the stipulations and regulations contained in the bill." It was asked for what purpose this idea of a covenant was embodied; and why the words did not run in general terms, as in the coronation," according to the laws of the land" of which that bill, when it passed, would of course make a part. In answer to both these objections, it was said, that the oath was taken from that inserted in the regency act of the present reign; and with regard to the first objection, it was said, that the Regent, possessing almost the whole executive power, would be possessed of means peculiar to himself of providing for the King's illness; such as protecting him against treason, seditions, and riots, in case of civil war, or of invasion. The seventh clause, providing against the non-residence of the Prince, and against his marrying a Papist, being read, Mr. Rolle rose, and again brought on the subject of the rumour which had formerly prevailed of the Prince's marriage. He concluded

with moving, that the words " or who is or should be married in law, or in fact to a Papist," should be added. This produced much altercation, in which the mover was treated with great asperity, by Lord North, Mr. Grey, Mr. Courtenay, and Mr. Sheridan.

Mr. Sheridan observed, that he should now trespass much less than he at first designed upon the attention of the house, because the noble lord (North) in the blue riband, had so completely answered his purpose of rising at all. There was undoubtedly a disposition on the side of the house on which he sat, to treat the matter without much discussion; but he could not help thinking the right

honorable gentleman had endeavored to raise a warm discussion, by imputing intentions which could not exist. The noble lord in the blue riband had treated the subject with that levity, which better became it, than the pompous solemnity it had been dressed up with by those honorable gentlemen, who had said they had their doubts, but that they wished them to be hushed up. If any gentleman seriously thought that the matter, so darkly hinted at, had taken place, it was his duty to state the ground why he thought it necessary to propose an inquiry, and to probe that inquiry to the bottom. With regard to the honorable gentleman's motives, continued Mr. Sheridan, "I plainly say, I doubt the honorable gentleman's motives; and I say so, because I can judge only from his actions, of the purity of his motives. I can't pronounce them bad, because I can't possibly know what they are; but, let us compare them with his conduct. The honorable gentleman says, he has his doubts-he does not state why; he has had acts of parliament consulted, tending darkly to sustain those doubts. What motive can he have but to give suspicion wing, and disseminate alarm? Who has said any thing in favor of those doubts? It is true, a pamphlet has been written by an ingenious gentleman, the madness and folly of which are apparent in every page, and the whole drift of which betrays the author to be a bad citizen; because, when he roundly asserts that he seriously believes the fact he refers to, to have taken place, and then resorts to no means of elucidating it; he insinuates what he ought not to have insinuated, without proceeding to establish it by something, at least, that bore the resemblance to truth." The honorable gentleman opposite had acted exactly in the same manner; and therefore the committee were entitled to doubt his motives. The right honorable gentleman, it was plain, did not believe the fact in question, or he would have been ready enough to adopt the amendment