her majesty's council. It was proposed, therefore, to vest in the queen the power of appointing such additional members, not exceeding a number to be fixed by the bill. It was necessary for this purpose to have the sanction of parliament, the members of the queen's council acting under the obligation and responsibility of an oath, directed to be administered by the provisions of the Regency act.

The second object of the bill referred to the possible case of a cessation on the part of the queen to have the care of the king's person. According to the Regency act, should this cessation occur, the parliament must meet forthwith; and in the event of the parliament being dissolved, and the new parliament not having met, the old parliament must assemble forthwith. He was not aware of any reason for the introduction of this clause into the act. There was no evident cause why the cessation on the part of the queen to have the care of the king's person should render imperative the meeting of parliament forthwith; there being a clause in the act, that, in case of the occurrence of such an event, the care of the king's person should be vested in the queen's council, until farther provision should be made by parliament, and there being a power in the crown, under the existing law, to summon parliament to meet in fourteen days. Under these circumstances probably their lordships would have no objection to a provision, which substituted to a forthwith meeting, a meeting at fourteen days notice.

Earl Grey said, that he did not mean to object to the first reading of the bill; but he wished it to be understood that he did not thereby pledge himself to approve of it in a subsequent stage. On the contrary, some points connected with the subject seemed to him either as forming grounds of objection, or as requiring explanation: Accordingly, he employed some time in taking notice of what had particularly struck his mind on the present occasion.

The Earl of Liverpool found it necessary not to suffer some of the noble earl's remarks to pass without observation.

The Lord Chancellor proposed, at the second reading, to enter at large into the consideration of the measures which he had laid before their lordships.

The bill was now read a first time.

On the 22nd of May, the order of the day standing for the second reading of the bill to amend the Regency act, the Lord Chancellor repeated, that the bill had two objects. The first of these was, to authorize an increase of the number of persons composing her majesty's council. It had been intimated by the noble earl who spoke on the introduction of the bill, that he had no objection to the increase, but to the mode by which it was to be effected. Their lordships, however, would recollect, that the act now in force provided, that if a vacancy should occur in the council, her majesty was to supply the same by her nomination; and in fact she had already in one instance exercised the authority with which she was

invested;

invested; and under the same provision she might supply sub. stitutes for the greater part, or even the whole, of the members originally appointed by parlia. ment. The main object, how ever, of this first part of the bill was, that there should be an increase; and it would be for their lordships to decide, in the progress of the bill, whether the appointments should be made by her majesty, or by parliament.

With respect to the other object of the bill, he thought their lordships could not fail to perceive that it tended to effect a very necessary amendment in the act of the 51st of the king. That act provided that, if her majesty should cease to have the custody of his majesty's person during a prorogation, parliament should assemble forthwith; and in case of the event happening between the dissolution of one parliament, and the day of meeting of another, the old parliament was to assem ble forthwith, even though that event should happen only the day before that appointed for the meeting of the new parliament. Now, if such an event should occur during a dissolution; after the writs were issued, or any day previous to writs being returnable, the greatest inconvenience would be occasioned; for all the expense which individuals might be put to in the elections would be lost, as the returns to the new parliament would, in fact, be abrogated. The act had made the same provision for the case of her majesty ceasing to have the custody of the king's person, as for the demise of the king; but though it might be very proper to put

the case of the demise of the Regent on the same footing as that of the king, there could be no reason for similar provisions in the case of her majesty. As, by the Regency act, the care of the king would, in the event of the demise of the queen, be vested in her majesty's council, there was clearly no necessity for the forthwith meeting of parliament; and he could see no solid objection to the alteration of the clause alluded to, by substituting the power to summon parliament at a short notice.

The Lord Chancellor concluded by moving the second reading of the bill, in the committee on which he intimated that he had some additional clauses to propose.

Earl Grey, after some strictures on the unprepared manner in which the noble and learned lord had thought proper to lay his bill before the House, began with saying that he had a word or two previously to mention on the first clause. If, he observed, it really did appear that the duties of the queen's council could not be performed by the present number, an addition ought certainly to be made. With respect to the mode of effecting the addition, he continued to think that it would be better to follow the example of the first formation of the council. This was, however, a matter of inferior importance compared with the other part of the bill, which made a material alteration in the Regency act, the second part of which was neither more nor less than a total repeal of the act which related to the meeting of parlia

ment

ment in the event of the demise of the queen. For this repeal not only had no reason been stated, nor any motive assigned, but there was not one word upon the subject in the preamble of the bill. The noble and learned lord had indeed hinted his opinion that the clause which provided for the re-assembling of the old parliament must have slipped in by inadvertence; a notion which greatly surprised him, when he recollected that his lordship filled the office of solicitor general, and possessed high eminence at the bar, at the time of the first Regency bill, and was in his present high station when, in 1811, the clause was copied. It could not be said that any thing was then done with haste and precipitation: on the contrary, his majesty's ministers acted with the greatest deliberation, and were little disposed to overlook the effect of any of the clauses in the bill which they then introduced. He must again ask, if there were any reason for this measure, why was it not discovered before? During the period that had elapsed since the king's unhappy malady, the prerogative of the crown had been repeatedly exercised in the prorogation of the parliament. How happened it, that during all this period no discovery of inconvenience had been made? He admitted that this was a case inferior in degree of importance to that of the demise of the Prince Regent; but he could not admit that it was of so little importance, as not to require the immediate attention of parliament to provide for the care of the king's person,

He had complained that no grounds had been stated for the introduction of the measure, and he had also to complair. that no good reasons were stated in the preamble. It was set forth in the preamble, that her majesty's health might occasionally require her absence from Windsor, and it was inferred that an additional number of her council was therefore necessary; but if that inference should be found just, it did not follow that her majesty ought to have the nomination of the new members of that body. After the clause respecting the council, came the clause for repealing that of the Regency act, which authorized the re-assembling of the old parliament; but of this there was not the slightest reference in the pream. ble. This was a mode of proceeding contrary to all parliamentary usage. No grounds for the measure were laid in the preamble; none of any consequence had been stated by the noble and learned lord; and he trusted that parliament would require very strong reasons before they consented to pass this uncalled for bill.

The noble earl then gave his opinion respecting several circumstances which might incidentally require to be considered in the course of events. He concluded by moving the previous question.

The Earl of Liverpool, in going over the bill, defended the Lord Chancellor in every point from the imputations of the last speaker.

The Earl of Carnarvon chiefly followed the suggestions of Earl Grey.

The

The Earl of Lauderdale, agreeing in general with the Chancel lor's suggestion, said that if, however, the whole patronage of the Windsor establishment was to be vested in the queen, he should feel himself under the necessity of objecting to it.

The Lord Chancellor declared, that with a very little alteration there could not be a better bill than that which he had presented to the House; and that even as it now stood, he conceived it was not less calculated for the general benefit of the state than any that could be founded upon the suggestions of those noble lords who opposed it. With respect to the principal difficulty to which that noble earl had adverted, he would find in the last clause a provision that removed his objection altogether. It was there stated, that the powers granted to the commissioners under this bill were only such as they would have derived under the 51 of the king.

The Marquis of Buckingham expressed his gratitude to the noble and learned lord for the readiness he showed in making an essential alteration in the bill; for he could not help saying that, in strict principle, he should be better satisfied to have the new commissioners appointed by parliament, than by any other power.

The previous question was then negatived, and the bill was read a second time.

On May 25th, the House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill, the Lord Chancellor said, that it appearing to be the opinion of their lord

ships that the additional members of the queen's council should be nominated by parliament, as in the Regency act, he had prepared amendments for the purpose of framing the first clause in that view, giving the power to the queen of filling up any vacancy that might occur, by an instrument under her majesty's hand and seal. He then proposed four additional members of the queen's council to be appointed in the bill; namely, George earl of Macclesfield, William lord bishop of London, Alleyn lord St. Hellens, Morton lord Henley of Ireland.

The insertion of these names was agreed to.

Lord Holland then rose, and observed, that upon former occasions they had been called upon to legislate with a view to the probable recovery of the king, in which view the provisions of the Regency act were worded. If they were now to be called upon to alter those provisions, which could only be upon the ground of [the probability of the king's recovery having ceased, it was not in any respect satisfactory that such alteration should be confined to the provision now in question. If that trust had become of a less important nature from the less probability of the king's recovery, at any rate this fact fought to be ascertained by previous inquiry, and then it might be a ground not for this partial measure, but for a general review of the Regency act. His lordship then instanced in the Windsor establishment, which, considering the general distress of the country, it would be an +

act

act of charity to take off from the people.

The Earl of Liverpool denied that this measure was entered into on the ground of there being no probability of the king's recovery; on the contrary, he should regret to see that such probability was considered as given up. With respect to the ques tion as to the meeting of parliament in case of the queen's demise, every practical purpose would be answered by a clause, which his noble and learned friend intended to propose, for the purpose of limiting the period within which parliament should in that event be summoned to meet.

Earl Grey said, there was one point with regard to a possible contingency respecting the meeting of parliament after a dissolution, to which he wished to allude. In the event of the demise of the crown after the dissolution of parliament, and before the assembling of the new one, then, of course, by the act of the demise, the king's writs ceased to be operative, and the old parliament must re-assemble; but in the case of the demise of the Prince Regent during such an interval, the writs for the new elections being issued in the king's name, a doubt might arise, though the old parliament was directed to reassemble immediately, how far the king's writs were vacated; and to prevent those disputes which might take place from candidates insisting upon sheriffs proceeding with the new elections, it would be advisable to introduce some proviso to enact that, in such an event, the king's

writs for the new election should cease to be operative.

The Lord Chancellor proposed clauses with a view to the possible event of the demise of the queen, after the day appointed for the meeting of a new parliament, previous to the day of the meeting, and on the day of the dissolution: their object was, that the new writs should be operative, and that the parliament should be summoned to meet within 60 days. His lordship added, that he intended to propose a clause to obviate the difficulty stated by the noble earl, with regard to the possible event of the demise of the Prince Regent, his opinion being, that the king's writ would not in that case be vacated.

The original clause respecting the meeting of parliament was agreed to; and the other amendments being made, the House resumed.

Of the Regency Act Amendment bill nothing farther is mentioned in the House of Lords, whence we may conclude that, by means of the suggestions of different members, it was rendered fit for the purpose which the Lord Chancellor had in view.

On the first of June it was introduced into the House of Commons by Lord Castlereagh, who, in moving the second reading of the bill, thought it proper to acquaint the House with its object. His lordship was content with a simple explanation of the measure as it came into the House, and having briefly gone through this task, he moved for its second reading.

Mr. Tierney made a consider

able