Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer having moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report of the Committee on the Regency Bill;

rose and said, that, when he considered all that had passed in the course of the proceedings, which led to this Bill, and upon this Bill, and with the view which he had of the principles upon which it was founded, as well as the object at which it professed to aim, he felt that he should not be doing his duty if he omitted to oppose the further consideration of a measure which appeared to him liable to so many objections. He objected to the entire report, but more particularly to that part by which the splendour of state, that should be attached to the executive power, was to be separated from it. This, in the case of a power intended to be of a temporary nature (which of itself necessarily induced weakness), was still more improper. He had before contended that the provision should not be temporary—and he was still ready to contend for the same principle. A permanent measure should have been produced; such as would have provided for any future exigency. This measure appeared to him to be a rash and dangerous experiment. But highly objectionable as it was in its own nature, it was rendered still more so by the manner in which it had been argued. Gentlemen in discussing this question seemed to argue it as a mere question of property; as if the King had a property in the powers of the executive branch of the constitution, instead of holding all his privileges and prerogatives in trust for the people and to be exercised for their benefit and advantage. It was the duty of the representatives of the people to maintain the integrity and permanence of a power flowing from them-selves, and to rescue the country from the dangers that were hanging over it. It was the duty of the House to put an end as soon as possible to the vacillating state in which the government of the country had been kept for the last three months. The happiness and safety of sixteen millions of people were not to be risked by imposing restrictions upon the Regent and weakening his government. His Majesty in the course of the last twenty-two years had been four times in a state of insanity. Twice within that period the government was carried on in his name; although, from what since appeared he was utterly incapable of discharging the duties of a sovereign at the time. The King was insane with lucid intervals, the duration of which no man could calculate. Was this a state of the sovereignty in which it was advisable to cripple the powers of the Regent? Nothing could be more dangerous in his opinion, and he was surprised how the Prince of Wales could consent or be induced to accept of the Regency so restricted. Instead of putting him at the head of, and making him responsible for a weak government, they should give him augmented strength. If the government could be carried on by the Regent with diminished means, it might be also by the King. In the debates on the Bill the fears of the House had been dexterously directed to only one imaginary danger, namely, the possibility of serious obstacles to the resumption of the royal authority. There were many other considerations, however, more worthy of the attention of the House; for there could not be the least doubt that every facility would be afforded for resuming the sovereignty. But, it was impossible that a divided and weakened government could go on with satisfaction to the country. For himself he must protest against making dangerous experiments to ascertain the minimum of understanding with which a King might carry on the executive government. The men who proposed these dangerous experiments, and who affected to call themselves the King's friends, could not adopt a more expeditious and direct mode for subverting that throne of which they had declared themselves exclusively the supporters and defenders. Viewing the question, therefore, in that light, and utterly disliking the course they were pursuing, he should most strenuously oppose the motion. What, he should ask, could be more calculated to degrade the kingly office in the eyes of the people, than the manner in which the ministers had thought proper to hold out the throne to them. For years the executive government had been carried on in the name of the King, though it was notorious that his Majesty was so infirm in some respects, that he neither could read the paper presented to him to be signed, nor affix his signature to it unless his hand was held and guided for that purpose, nor hold even a Levee. Now, then, when the King was labouring under an additional calamity, the issue of which was necessarily uncertain, it was most extraordinary to find the right hon. gentlemen opposite, anxious only to make provisions to secure the resumption of his power by his Majesty, who might perhaps never again be in a state to resume it. What would the country, what should foreign nations think of a government so circumstanced and so conducted? He should not think that he performed his duty to his constituents if he did not most strongly protest against the measure now before the House.

For the reasons he had just stated, it was his opinion, that, whatever measures the House adopted in this critical and perilous conjuncture, should be of a permanent nature. As many of his friends, however, were not disposed to agree with him on that point, he should not press it, and consequently it would be unnecessary for him to trouble the House on that part of the subject. With respect to the minor parts of the plan, he would make a few observations. Of these the regulations for the partition of the offices of the household appeared to him to be the most objectionable. If the influence arising from the power of nominating to these offices was, as it had heretofore been contended on the part of ministers, necessary for carrying on the government of the King, they were much more necessary for carrying on the executive government in the hands of a Regent. This experiment, therefore, to ascertain with how little power the government could be carried on, was rash and mischievous, and the time for making it most injudiciously chosen. In proposing this plan ministers had said that they did not take the characters of individuals into consideration, but that they proceeded upon the principle of establishing a precedent for future ages. In this he could not agree with them; this was a question above all others, in which it would not be useless to take character into consideration; and thinking so, he must declare that there could be no pretence whatever for the restrictions proposed. A great deal of the time and patience of the House had been abused in arguing the question upon precedents, when it was obvious that there was not one of the former precedents which bore the least analogy to the present case, except the famous precedent of 1789. That precedent had been pretty well exposed in a former debate by a member (Mr. Sheridan) who took a distinguished share in the proceedings at that time. He had shewn that this famous precedent was any thing but what it professed to be; that, instead of being a combined effort of wisdom and constitutional principles, it was a vile job perpetuating the power of the then ministers, or at least of preparing the way for their return to office, by putting it out of the power of their successors to carry on the government in the crippled state to which it would be reduced by the restrictions proposed at that period. But on an occasion of such peril and difficulty the House was bound to discard not only this but all other precedents from their consideration, and once for all come back to common sense and common understanding. The powers vested in the executive government were either more than were necessary for carrying it on, or they were barely sufficient. If they were more than was necessary, let them be diminished, whether in the hands of a Sovereign or of a Regent; but if, as was generally maintained, they were only what were absolutely necessary for the support of a vigorous government, let them not be curtailed in the hands of a Regent, to the infinite danger of the country. The advocates for these Restrictions would do well to recollect, that they had not the same means of recommending and supporting them as the author of the plan of 1789. At that period the minister contrived to become the popular champion, and to have the popular cry in his favour; but the authors of the present measure had not the talents to excite the same enthusiasm in their favour. The apathy of the people on this occasion they construed into approbation of their proceedings. He could not account for this apathy; but he knew enough of the public sentiment to say, that it was adverse to a government with weak and divided powers, and consequently to a crippled and restricted Regency. He would not longer trespass on the time of the House by any observations on the fiction by which the Great Seal was to be put to a commission for opening parliament, and the various pretexts that ministers had had recourse to during the last three months, for the purpose of gaining time and turning it to their own advantage. It was impossible that the country could derive any benefit from the measure proposed, every part of which was objectionable. So far, therefore, from proceeding in it, the right hon. gent. would do well to recollect, that the same means by which he got a parliament to support him would soon be in the power of his political opponents, and that they might get a parliament to undo every thing that was now proposed. The proceedings, altogether, he considered as a mere pretence for delaying the settlement of the government; which, however advantageous it might be to the gentlemen on the ministerial benches, he considered as likely to be productive of very great inconvenience and danger to the country. For these reasons he should object to the Report lying on the table, but he would not take the sense of the House on the subject, as he considered it hopeless. He concluded by entering his protest against the whole of the measures pursued.

said, he drew a very different conclusion with respect to the feelings and conduct of the people on the present occasion, from that stated by the hon. bart. He did not attribute their silence to despair. He looked upon it as arguing a firm reliance on the wisdom and integrity of the House—a conviction that they would do every thing for the benefit of the kingdom. The hon. bart. then seemed to think that parliament acted upon this measure as if it had been a mere question of property—and that the interest of the people had been neglected. But he (Mr. Lockhart) thought, that the major object, both in the eyes of the House and of the public, should be a proper provision for his Majesty's resumption of his royal authority, as soon as his happy restoration to health should enable him personally to exercise its functions. The hon. bart. had expressed his disapprobation of the provision which went to separate the influence of the crown from the person to whom the executive power was to be committed; but the hon. baronet should recollect, that the House in this point had no alternative, or if it had, that it was, in truth, a choice of evils. It was necessary that the House should pursue that mode which appeared the least objectionable. So far, however, from the proposed measure weakening the Regent's government, it would give it greater strength and stability. For if the people thought the King were abandoned, it would bring the Regent's government into contempt—and the retaining a certain degree of splendour around his Majesty was the best mode of shewing that the period was anxiously looked for when he would be able to resume his authority. But he could not conceive that the government of the Regent was likely to be weak. He was convinced there would be no factious opposition made to it in that House—every man would exert himself to the utmost in support of constitutional measures. The hon. bart. had complained, that the present was not a permanent measure—but the House never considered they were in a condition to produce any such measure—they were only called upon to legislate for the case before them—and a future parliament in any case which may hereafter occur, would have an opportunity of acting as circumstances might require. The hon. bart. had asserted, that the House were trying an experiment to ascertain with what minimum of understanding government could be carried on: but was that the fact of the case? The Council which was appointed to assist the Queen proved the contrary; and it was unjust in the hon. bart. to make the assertion. There had been a sort of charge made against the right hon. gent. below him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that he had adopted the present measure for the purpose of creating delay. Argument certainly was not refuted by recrimination; although he (Mr. L.) might say there were gentlemen at least as desirous of getting into office, as he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was to retain it. (Hear! hear!)—But he was sure that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) never had been influenced by any such view. If he had, he believed he would have been able to have effected that object in a different manner. That right hon. gent. had also been accused of too closely following the principles of a great statesman (Mr. Pitt) now no more. He, (Mr. Lockhart) believed he had only followed his own ideas of loyalty to his Sovereign and of integrity to his country. However, to use the words of Mr. Burke, "In every difficulty of his life, he might think of that accusation as a consolation."

looked upon the Bill as being full of constitutional anomalies and gross absurdities—and as insulting to the illustrious personage whom they were about to raise to the situation of Regent as it possibly could be. They had taken from him those officers who were most proper to support the splendour of the kingly office—and they had placed them where they could be of no service—for it could not be contended that such officers as the Master of the Horse and the Master of the Buck-hounds could minister to the comfort of his Majesty. He (sir Thomas) should have thought, after the dignified answer of his Royal Highness to the deputation which waited on him, that he should have received all the benefit of the former Resolutions. But he was most unfairly treated; the present Bill being, in a very great degree, different from the Resolutions on which it professed to be founded. The principle on which one of the Resolutions proceeded, was "to preserve entire the royal authority;" but were they doing so when they restricted the regal authority in the hands of the Prince, and denied him those officers who were necessary to the splendour of the kingly office? Suppose the Prince should say, "I was willing to sacrifice every thing, and to accept of the arduous situation of Regent, under the impression that you would not have varied from the Resolutions—but now I find the bill very dissimilar?" (Hear! hear!)—He would be justified in saying so. On no principle of probity, as between man and man, could the conduct pursued towards his Royal Highness be justified. It was highly insulting, and he therefore must solemnly protest against the whole proceedings from beginning to end.

The Speaker then proceeded to read the Amendments which had been made in the Bill while in the Committee. When he came to the clause limiting the time to the 1st of Feb. 1812,

moved, "That instead of the 1st February 1812, and six weeks after,"—"six months after the passing of the present Bill" be inserted—which was negatived without a division.

On the clause as amended in the Committee with respect to the disposal of the King's Household being read,

again rose and said, that he particularly wished to call the attention of the House to that clause, and also to the nature of an Amendment which it was his intention to propose to it. He begged gentlemen would consider seriously the provisions of this clause, as well as the effect, which if ultimately agreed to, they would necessarily have. By the provisions of this clause the whole patronage of the Household, with the exception of two offices, would be placed under her Majesty, although the Resolutions of the two Houses of Parliament, on which the Bill containing this clause was founded, said, that nothing but what was necessary to the King's comfort and convenience, should be placed at her Majesty's disposal; and that the remainder, which was necessary to support the dignity of the crown, should remain with the Regent. As far, therefore, as the present Bill went beyond this doctrine laid down in the Resolutions, so far was it not only not consistent with the opinion of the two Houses, but in direct opposition to that opinion. In the Committee this subject had undergone considerable debate, and he as well as others had proposed certain amendments to the clause then under consideration. To his Amendment particular objections had been made by some of those, who, however, were not friendly to the clause as originally introduced; and to one or two of these objections, urged by an hon. gent. (Mr. Huskisson), to whose perspicuity and knowledge on every subject on which he chose to deliver his opinions to the House he was ever willing to attach much weight, he had since that period turned his attention. That hon. gent. from the situation in which he lately was placed (of Secretary to the Treasury) was enabled to form an accurate judgment on the points connected with the detail in the expenditure of the Household establishment. He had consequently attended to what fell from him, and had endeavoured to frame the amendments he had now to move, in such a manner as to do away the objections that hon. gent. had stated to that which he formerly proposed. The first of these objections was, that the plan proposed would go to the erection of a new board, under the controul of the Groom of the Stole, not connected with nor responsible to the civil establishment of the Household, and enabling the Groom of the Stole to order and incur expenses, independent of the three great officers of the Household—the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse. On examining this objection of the hon. gent. he became convinced that it was well founded, and more particularly when he considered the great care and pains which had been taken by Mr. Burke, in his proposed financial regulations, to provide that every great officer of the Household should be answerable for the expenses incurred in his department. It had also been objected to his former amendment by other gentlemen, that the great officers to be left to the Queen had not been specified in the Resolution; and to meet this objection he had framed his Amendment so that those given to her Majesty should be distinctly specified, as well as those officers who were to be transferred to the Regent. He had taken care too that the expenditure in their respective departments should still be under the three great officers already named; and that there should be introduced no a new mode of accounting for the expenditure, and no new charge imposed on the public.

His next amendment went to leave out the whole of that passage which related to the non-appointment of a Lord Chamberlain by the Prince of Wales, and to the Vice-Chamberlain continuing to act for that great officer. It had been talked about in the Committee, that the Regent should appoint his own Chamberlain; but he was really at a loss to know what was meant by this. The Lord Chamberlain was as old an officer as was known to the common law of the land; and since there was a Monarch on the throne he had been attached to him. His duties and powers were defined by the common law, as well as by statute, and the nature of his office completely known; but what powers or duties were there known to attach to the Chamberlain of a Regent? Yet even further than this uncertainty in taking this appointment from the Regent, no small power was taken away from the executive government. The Lord Chamberlain had other powers beyond those connected with the Household. For instance, he had the power of licensing dramatic performances; and were they to take the appointment to this office from the person exercising the office of the first magistrate? He did not mean to say it would be so; but it might happen that a Lord Chamberlain would license plays calculated to bring the Regent into contempt; and they knew from history what a powerful political instrument the stage was capable of being made. His Amendment then, as now framed, would do this—it would go to specify all the officers put under the controul of the Queen, giving to the Regent all the others, and this it would be observed was very different from the provisions of the bill as now worded, for it gave all to the Queen, save those "herein- after mentioned." When these were afterwards defined, he would ask what officers were left to the Regent?—Only two officers of very little importance, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guards, and Captain of the Band of Pensioners; and all the others, in direct opposition to the Resolution on which the bill ought to have been framed, were to be vested in the Queen. In the specification which he should make he would propose that the Groom of the Stole, the Master of the Robes, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, and six Lords of the Bed-chamber, such as her Majesty, in a declaration in writing to the Regent, should select and declare to be necessary for the attendance upon the King; also the Equerries, and so many of the inferior officers under the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, and Master of the Horse, as her Majesty in a similar declaration should state to be requisite for his Majesty's comfort, &c. during the continuance of his indisposition; all these officers would be under the control of the Queen; but the direction and controul of the expenditure would be in the same state as if this act never passed. Thus the two objections urged against his former Amendments in the Committee would be obviated. If these Amendments were carried, he would next move, that her Majesty should be enabled to appoint successors to all those officers put under her controul by this act, rendered vacant either by the death or resignation of those who held them. He would also move, that the words "herein specified" should be inserted for the words, "herein not excepted;" and after the words "his Majesty," to leave out all the rest of the clause.

The effect of these Amendments would be this—the Queen would have the controul over those named as necessary for the due attendance and personal convenience and comfort of his Majesty, and all the rest would be left to the Regent. All doubt would be done away as to the question to whom every officer should belong, and the whole arrangement would be made as specific as possible. It had been thought by some hon. members, that it would be better to leave this clause general at present, and to particularize the distribution of the Household in some future act; but to this course he felt two strong objections—in the first place because it was very disagreeable to legislate on so delicate a subject more than was ab- solutely necessary; and in the second place, because it must give rise to very invidious reflections, to prevail on the Queen to accept an important trust and not to name the officers to be placed under her controul till after the Regent's Government should be seated in the House. But the mode he proposed obviated all suspicion on this head, and he could see no reason why they might not as well, now they were upon the matter, settle all these points definitively. He could not anticipate what objection could be made to the proposition he submitted. It surely could not be said that the Resolution originally intended to assert that all the great officers of State were necessary to the comfort of his Majesty in his present situation. It could not be said that those attendant upon the exercise of the great functions of the sovereign were necessary to his Majesty, who was declared incapable of any business, or of meeting his parliament, rather than to him who was appointed to execute his authority. It could not be said that all the regal attendants were necessary, under the calamity with which his Majesty was afflicted, far less those who administered only to the royal amusements. He would like, for instance, to hear a reason assigned for giving the Master of the Buck Hounds to her Majesty, or why that officer was necessary for a person whose unhappy state precluded him from such amusements. Upon the whole, this question had been so much argued, and the House, he was sure, must be so tired of the discussion, that he would not trouble them further upon it. He hoped he had made his Amendments clearly understood, and that was all he wished to do. The House, he trusted, would, and he called on them to do so, ponder well on what they were doing. They would have to answer to the present race and to posterity, for framing a government so crippled and curtailed as to render it almost impossible for it to fulfil the mighty trust reposed in it.—If they thought this right, they would do the act; but if they did so, he would venture to say they were the only persons in the community, who felt in that manner. The right hon. gent. concluded by moving his Amendment.

stated, that the first questions to be put must be to get rid of the words proposed to be left out to make room for the Amendments.

allowed, that so far as the modification of the hon. gentleman's Amendment tended to remove the confusion which his Amendment, as proposed on a recent evening, would, if carried, have introduced into the payments of the Civil List, that modification met with his concurrence. To the opinions which he felt it his duty to throw out in the Committee he was glad to find the right hon. gent. attached the weight to which he had thought them entitled, before he ventured to obtrude upon the Committee by stating them. With respect to the Bill itself generally he had to observe, that, according to his ideas upon the subject, the House had three great objects particularly to attend to. The first was the guardianship of the royal person, and the suitable proportion of state splendour that might be thought necessary for the comfort and dignity of his Majesty. The second object was, to transfer to the Regent as much of the executive power and influence as might be thought necessary to the vigour and due exertion of the existing Government. And the third object was, to provide, as effectually as possible, for the re-assumption of the royal authority on the part of his Majesty, with all the necessary facility, on his recovery and restoration to health. Having these three objects in view, he had voted for the original Resolutions, and had conceived, that all of them in the framing of the Bill would have been duly attended to. As the Bill, however, now stood, the second object was in a great measure lost.—In the clause of the Bill under discussion, as it now stood, they had stripped the Regent of that power and influence which were indispensably necessary to enable him effectually to carry on the affairs of government with vigour, and gave to the Queen more than, in his opinion, was really necessary to accomplish the security and accommodation of the royal person with the state necessary to the King in his present circumstances, and the means of his resuming, on his recovery, the royal functions and authority. This was the great ground of his objection to this part of the Bill. It placed under the power and controul of the Queen some of the officers of the household that were not necessary to add to his Majesty's personal comfort and dignity, and that did not go to secure his Majesty's return to power. If therefore these officers were withheld from the controul of the Regent, and were not in themselves necessary to contribute to the first object he had men- tioned, the care and comfort of his Majesty's person, they had not acted, he contended, up to the spirit of their original Resolutions.—Sure he was that some of the offices withheld from the Regent were not necessary to her Majesty as guardian of the King's person. On this principle he objected to any compromise or division of this influence, which some gentlemen seemed inclined to support. All that was necessary for the Queen in the circumstances in which her Majesty was to be placed, he would grant; and all that was necessary for the due exercise of the regal authority, in the person of the Regent, he would in like manner admit; but he would protest against any thing like a division of the executive influence and authority. There were some gentlemen that had been in the habit of asserting that the influence of the Crown was too great, whatever might be the ground of their opinion on this subject, and however much disposed they might be to diminish that influence; he was certain that they would not say that to divide that influence was the proper way of diminishing it. He was certain also that the present was not a proper time to introduce any such reduction. It was necessary that the Prince Regent should have all the fair and accustomed influence of government; and if the Bill should pass as it now stood, abridging that power and influence so considerably, it would be necessary that some means should be afterwards found to remove the obstacles thus created, and to add to the influence of the executive to the degree necessary for the practical exercise of its arduous and important functions. There were others however, who thought, and according to his view of the question justly thought, that the influence of the Crown was not too great, and to these gentlemen it would be altogether unnecessary to say, that this clause of the Bill would, on this principle be the more objectionable. If the present acknowledged influence of the Crown was not too great, it would be highly impolitic to diminish and abridge it in the person of the Regent. If it was his opinion that the influence of the executive was not too great, he must look with jealousy and apprehension at any measure that went either to abridge or divide that power, and of course to render the executive less efficient.—He contended particularly against the part of the Amendment which went to impose on the Queen the necessity of selecting a certain number of the Household, of the Lords and Grooms of the Bed Chamber. This was a task of too difficult and delicate a nature, he conceived, for her Majesty, and if such a division should be thought necessary, argued that it should be provided for by the Bill, without imposing on her Majesty the painful and difficult task. Much had already been addressed to their feelings, on the circumstances in which his Majesty would find himself, on his recovery, if deprived of all his favourite servants. He did not say that such a consideration was wholly improper, but he did not conceive that this measure would obviate the objection. How was the Queen to judge which six of the twelve Lords of the Bedchamber would be most acceptable to his Majesty on his recovery? It was imposing an onus on her Majesty which the House itself in this instance declined. If six were therefore to be removed, the same difficulty in this respect might exist as if the whole were to be removed, and the question would still recur, if the remaining six were at all necessary to the King's personal comfort or dignity in his present circumstances. According to the spirit of the original Resolutions, they ought to avoid giving any political power to the Queen that was not necessary for the greater security and comfort of his Majesty's person. The sovereign authority ought not to be weakened by being divided, and all the necessary influence ought to be vested in the person of the Regent, from whom they expected the executive functions to be performed in all their due vigour and energy. He approved of leaving the whole controul of the Household so far as related to his Majesty's person, under the Queen; but for more power or influence than referred to this certainly important trust, he could not see any necessity. He therefore opposed the amendment, which would throw on the Queen an unnecessary onus, and a painful task, which, if necessary, the House ought to take upon themselves.

repeated what he had advanced on a former evening, that nothing could be more accurately defined by law than the regulations of the Civil List, and the King's Household. The amendments moved, were moved, he thought, to get rid of what was not in the least objectionable. The right hon. gent. had started an objection to the proposed arrangement on account of its being the province of the Lord Chamberlain to license plays and public spectacles. That business, he would observe, was managed in a separate department by a gentleman whose name had of late become familiar to the House (Mr. Larpent.)

said, he was sorry to trespass on the time of the House for the few minutes he would have to detain them; but considered himself happy in having an opportunity of delivering his opinion after the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Huskisson), on whose authority he could rest his decided opinion in stating that the bill did not correspond with the resolutions agreed to in the convention which preceded parliament. When they in that convention (for in effect it was really a convention and nothing else) had voted that they were the full and free representation of the people, he had abstained from delivering his sentiments on that point; but he was convinced of this, that whatever they were, the parliament which was convened in consequence of their acts, was bound to frame its bill consistently with, and conformably to their resolutions. On the minor points connected with this discussion it was not his intention to detain the House; but on this, where they were set completely at variance with the resolutions, it was time to make a stand for consistency and the constitution; and it was in this view he felt it his duty to enter his protest against the measure.—There were three points which appeared material to be attended to in this discussion—the first, the general constitutional question—the second, the difference between the bill and the resolutions on which it was framed and the effect that it might have with the other branch of the legislature, as both Houses had agreed to the resolutions, with an understanding that the bill should be framed accordingly.—And the third, the effect this change might have on the determination of his royal highness the Prince of Wales, who had consented to undertake the government upon an offer not consistent with those clauses now proposed to be altered. He might, perhaps, add a fourth consideration, viz. the effect it would have on the practical government to be thus shackled and crippled so as to render inefficiency almost unavoidable. On the first of these points, which unlike the others had not been much discussed, he would beg leave to offer one or two observations; and he trusted, that what he had to say on the subject of the con- stitutional question would not be thought too warm or intemperate. If a minister in a Committee on the State of the Nation should admit the necessity of appointing a Regent, and wishing at the same time to preserve his own power, should afterwards take care, by his influence, that the Regent should be so shackled, as either to render his government inefficient, or wholly dependent for support on that minister, what would be the necessary consequence? The Regent would merely have the name, but he could do nothing without the assistance of this minister, and would moreover find himself so shackled by the clauses of a bill such as this, that he must lend his name and authority to proceedings that would not be his own. Such exactly was the present state of the question. Ministers had yielded to the wishes of the nation, in assenting to the appointment of a Regent, and the convention of the two Houses of Parliament had agreed to certain resolutions as the basis of the Regency. Ministers, however, had afterwards brought in a bill of a different nature, and now asked their assent to it, though evidently calculated to continue their own influence, and to defeat the great object of the measure. The power of the convention, he contended, was greater than that of parliament itself, and they had no right to do away any principle to which that convention had agreed, and on the faith of which they were now acting. With respect to the Regent himself the same difficulty occurred. It had been thought necessary to consult the Prince by address, in order to learn if he was disposed to accept the Regency on certain principles. His royal highness's assent had been obtained on those principles, but they were now very materially altered, and it would, therefore, be necessary to ask him again if he would accept the Regency on the new terms; and what right had they to conclude that he would give his assent, when they had so altered one of the leading principles? Did any member of that House contemplate, when he voted for the resolution respecting the Household, that no part of the Household was to be placed under the controul of the Regent, but the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guards? They had certainly no right, at that time, to draw any such conclusion; and the Prince, perusing the resolutions, could still less conceive that such a departure would be made from their original proceeding. For his own part he imagined, that pursuant to the spirit of that resolution, nothing that was thought necessary for the dignity and state of the Sovereign would be withheld from the Regent. It might be said that a new Household might be appointed for the Regent; but this would, not by any means have the desired effect, as the old Household would be a counterpoise to the new, and might be employed in hostility to the Regent's government. It would so tie down the Regent that he could not carry on the government with sufficient energy. If the members of that House did not see the mischievous effects that might result, they were, he contended, the only individuals in the nation that were blind to the consequences. It would render the government of the Prince ineffectual, and was contrary to the contract on the faith, of which he had undertaken the government.

was of opinion that the gentlemen opposite gave to the restrictions in the Bill an importance that, in his estimation, they could not bear. It had been said by an hon. baronet, that these restrictions, in such perilous times as the present, were extremely dangerous, as they had a tendency to weaken the government, and render the necessary vigour impossible. The argument seemed to him, however, too absurd to admit of refutation. What connection had the Lords of the Bedchamber with the vigour or activity of government? or what prejudice could the government experience from certain parts of the household being attached to the person of the King, instead of the Prince? It had been said that they ought to speak plainly on this occasion, and he had no objection to speak openly and plainly, as he thought, and would ask what was the power proposed to be vested in the Queen, that could admit of objection? The regulation was only to continue for a twelvemonth, and what advantage could the Queen derive during that period? Was it possible that her Majesty could have or exercise, from this restriction, any influence prejudicial to the government of the Regent? Why did not these gentlemen state what those prejudicial effects were likely to be? He agreed with a right hon. friend of his, that it would be imposing an odious task on the Queen, to call on her Majesty to make any selection from the Household, pursuant to the proposition that had been made by the right hon. gent. opposite. It would be imposing a painful duty on the Queen, and he should be better pleased to see the right hon. gent. himself make the selection, which, however, he did not believe that he would wish to do.

contended that they had no right to conclude that this restriction was only to operate for twelve months, as the clause of the bill in question contained no such statement. He had expected that the right hon. gent. would have answered the objection brought against the clause of the bill, from its being contrary to the original Resolutions. In this expectation, however, he had been disappointed, as no attempt had yet been made to reply to it. He contended that this part of the bill, if admitted, would be a fraud committed against his royal highness, as his consent had been obtained, on a very different principle. The very exceptions that were made now, formed the ground work of the Bill. No answer had yet been made to the hon. baronet, who had so fairly stated that either these accompaniments of the royal state were necessary to the exercise of royalty, or not necessary. If necessary, they ought to be vested in the Regent; and if not necessary, they were a useless ostentation and expence. By this Bill they acknowledged they were unnecessary. They did not, however, take them away, but proposed to place them in other hands, as a counterpoise to the exercise of the executive functions. They had been told that the Household could have no influence on the executive; but it was well known that there were twenty six belonging to the other House of parliament, and six in that House, who had places in the Household, and considering how votes sometimes went, he would ask any man if this was not a considerable influence against any government that might be formed, should they have any motive to exert it. He contended, that ministers had broken their engagements, and defrauded the House, by the clause in the bill now objected to.

thought it unnecessary to say much, as the subject had been already so thoroughly discussed. It had been contended, he observed, by the gentlemen on the other side of the House, that the bill was not founded on the Resolutions, and was something amounting to a fraud on his royal highness, by violating the conditions which he had accepted. These assertions he must utterly deny, both in point of form, and in point of fact. In point of form, the Bill was ordered, without any reference to the Resolutions adopted in the Committee. He would admit, at the same time, that regard was to be had by the framers of the Bill to the spirit of the Resolutions. What, then, was their letter and spirit? Why, it was, that such a portion of the royal Household should be placed under the controul of the Queen, as parliament might deem necessary for the maintenance of the royal dignity, and the personal comfort of his Majesty. In the Resolutions, there was nothing specified as to what that portion should be; and the question now before the House was, whether that portion should be of greater or less extent. On that head, he and his friends were not bound to adopt whatever gentlemen on the other side might think best. The Resolutions admitted of contrariety of opinion, as to the greater or less portion of the Household to be given to the Queen. There was no specification in the Resolutions, none in the general understanding of the House, and none to govern those who framed and brought in the bill. Where, then, was the fraud of which some gentlemen had talked so loudly? He had all along thought, that the more the subject of the Household was discussed, the more difference of opinion would exist about it. From the first, therefore, he was firmly of opinion, though he had conceded to his right hon. friend, that the whole of the Household should be entrusted to her Majesty, though he admitted it was proper that she should not possess the power of removal. In this state it would have remained till the expiration of the twelvemonth; and then, if his Majesty had not recovered within that period, the whole of it should have been transferred to the Regent. As to influence, when the Queen was deprived of the power of removal, and the Regent put in possession of the royal prerogatives, he would ask any man, where was the danger of that counterpoise which had been so much dwelt upon.

observed, that the right hon. gent. seemed at last to have got over all his former difficulties in accepting the clause. But he would ask whether when the Resolutions were presented to the Prince for his acceptance, his Royal Highness could conceive, that so contemptible a portion of the Household was to be given him, that he was only to be attended by the Beef-eaters and the band of Gentlemen Pensioners; while the whole of the great officers of state, all those which conveyed political influence, were to go over to the Queen? He had formerly stated, that the House had departed from their own Resolution—that they had practised a fraud upon his Royal Highness. They were now come to that very point which would be a touch-stone of their own consistency, and the standard of their authority with the public. It now remained to be seen, whether the House of Commons was about to give effective strength to the government of the Regent, or to place him as it were in the hands of the present minister, or give that minister the power to create an opposition that would be banefully powerful against the Regent himself. But the House was told that the Limitation was fixed for a time, when it would at last expire; just as if the very mode in which that expiration was to take place was not to provide an egg of discord that must be fruitful in contention and embarrassment to the existing government. An hon. and learned gent. had told the House that there should be an influence distinct from that of the Regent, otherwise there would be no power left to his Majesty to force himself again into his seat of royalty. When the people, in future times, should look back on the history of those proceedings, nothing would astonish them more than to hear that any difficulties of that sort could have been dreaded or suspected for a moment: and if they were actually apprehended, what miserable expedients have been adopted to prevent them! No one could wish more than he did, for the immediate recovery of his Majesty—not only from feelings of attachment to his Sovereign and from a sense of the embarrassed state of public affairs, but to extricate the Regent at once from that lot of pain and sorrow which he foresaw must await him in a government so circumscribed and crippled. The right hon. gent. had made a provision, that for the present there should be no Lord Chamberlain; and had even thrown out a taunt that the Prince might make a Chamberlain of his own. But what sort of a Chamberlain would he be, when destitute of all the powers of office—merely for the purpose, of empty parade, to walk before the Prince with his white wand—a Chamberlain from the toyshops? It really astonished him to hear some gentlemen contending, that the buck- hounds should be retained for his Majesty, who, even were he in health, could not partake in the amusement. Could any thing be more ludicrous, than to hear a gentleman gravely get up and maintain that such an appendage was any way necessary to the dignity, or personal convenience and comfort of his Majesty? With regard to the Lord Chamberlain, that office was, it appeared, to be dormant for a time, but all the patronage was to be vested in the Vice Chamberlain. Did the House really recollect some of the patronage of the Lord Chamberlain? He appointed, for instance, many of the officers about the two Houses of Parliament; the Usher of the Black Rod and his deputies, the Serjeant at Arms of the House of Commons, and to other offices which certainly gave him considerable power. Were these offices at all connected with the dignity or comfort of his Majesty? If they were not, why should the Regent be deprived of the power of filling up that great office of state, or his government divested of the constitutional influence belonging to that high office?

For his own part he was ready to confess, that he had uniformly contended that the influence of the crown was much too great and ought to be diminished; but he would not allow, while this degree of influence actually existed, that there was any inconsistency whatever in maintaining, that it should be all vested in the Regent rather than in any other person. He never would aim a side blow at the influence of the crown, nor make an underhand attempt to steal away that which should at least be openly aimed at. If there were any men disposed to resort to such insidious and clandestine methods, the right hon. gent. opposite had set them the example; for he was divesting the crown of its lustre, and endeavouring to make the experiment how far the regal power could go on without political influence attached to it. It was also to be considered, that all the appointments of the Lord Steward and of the Master of the Horse, were connected with a very large expenditure of the public money. Was it no diminution of political influence to deprive the Regent of all such appointments? An hon. and learned gent. who usually felt very sore when hit in debate, though he had no hesitation in hitting as hard as he could whenever it was in his power, and who had done him (Mr. W.) something like an honour when he called him the "ornament of democracy," that learned gent. had asked, how long time it would take to beat down an administration. He (Mr. W.) and his friends had been attempting it for the last four years, and hitherto without success; but when unfair means were resorted to on a former occasion, it did not require more than twelve months. With the patronage, however, which the right hon. gent. would possess by the present bill, any administration of the Regent must be demolished in less than one session of parliament, and none but that right hon. gent. himself could conduct the government. To prove this it was only necessary to look at the list of those persons who were to belong to the Council of the Queen, at the head of whom was John lord Eldon; and then the right hon. gent. himself, who certainly in the course of this business had shewn the most pre-eminent talents for debate—talents which he (Mr. W.) always believed him to possess, but which had never, till now, been displayed in so conspicuous and striking a manner, would be a most formidable opponent of the Regent's government. Sorry, therefore, he most unquestionably was, to think, that these great talents were likely to be employed against any new administration, particularly when backed as they would be by all the power and political influence proposed by this measure to be withheld from the Regent.

There could not, he was persuaded, any good reason be assigned, why if the Prince Regent was to be deprived of it, this patronage and political influence should be placed in any other hands. Why should they not deal with other men as with his Royal Highness? Why presume that every one else is disinterested and forbearing, and that he alone is not endowed with either of those qualities? Why particularly ascribe and allot these virtues to John Lord Eldon, and James Duke of Montrose? Why suppose that they should act with all possible integrity, honour, forbearance, and disinterestedness, and at the same time insinuate an apprehension that the Prince of Wales would act in a manner diametrically opposite, and that he would make a wanton or imprudent use of any of the prerogatives with which parliament might think proper to entrust him? The fact was, lord Eldon as Chancellor, and the duke of Montrose, had an amazing fund of patronage within their several departments. In case of any offices becoming vacant during this time, they had also the re-appointment to such offices: and it must be plain to the commonest and most moderate understanding, that the whole of this clause was laying a ground-work for an opposition to the government of the Prince when Regent, that must in a great degree impair his powers of rendering any service to the country, weaken all his efforts, however active and praiseworthy, and ultimately prove victorious over every thing, which he and his advisers might attempt for the benefit and salvation of the country.

But, if the great officers of state were not necessary for the personal convenience and comfort of his Majesty, what were they to think of the office of Master of the Buck Hounds—what of the disgraceful vote which gave to the Queen that office—an office which could not by possibility belong to the Queen; which never could, in the estimation of any one, add to the splendour of her Majesty, or in the smallest degree contribute, in the present melancholy and unfortunate state of affairs, to the comfort or satisfaction of the King? It was evident throughout the whole of the proceeding that it was patronage that was wanted; and to gain that, the House was desired to countenance the grossest absurdities, and swallow wholesale the most conspicuous improbabilities. The office of Lord Chamberlain, one of the highest importance both in point of rank and consequence, was not to be filled up, but was to be performed by deputy. The licencing of plays was a matter of great consequence to the country, and this was entirely to be given into the hands of the Vice Chamberlain. The right hon. gent. on the opposite side of the way (Mr. Rose) maintained, however, that the plays are licensed by Mr. Larpent. "It may be so" (said Mr. W.), "and no doubt that gentleman would conscientiously discharge the duties entrusted to him; but it is very well known that Mr. Larpent acts under the inspection and directions of the Lord Chamberlain and Vice Chamberlain; and that, however the business may nominally rest with him, the patronage and influence remain entirely with them." The Vice Chamberlain at the present moment was the particular friend of the right hon. gent. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer): he was also one a his political supporters: in saying this, however, he meant nothing in the slightest degree disrespectful to either the noble lord or the right hon. gent. but merely to state the fact: and having done so, he could scarcely doubt but that every man who heard him would easily conjecture how that influence possessed by him was likely to be exerted. The right hon. gent. opposite, (Mr. Yorke) had said, however, that in a year's time the Prince might remove every Lord of the Bed Chamber. God forbid, that either the Prince, or any of his advisers, should ever entertain so base and disgraceful an idea. If the influence of the Lords of the Bed Chamber were infinitely more extensive than it now is, and that influence even exerted in the most decisive manner against the administration of the Regent, he (Mr. W.), for one, would never consent that a single man should be removed. They were those attendants, who had for many years past always appeared round the person of his Majesty; they were those who were the last on whom his attention, even in the approaches of his present calamity, must have been fixed; and he (Mr. W.) wished them so to remain about his person, that in the first glimpses of his returning reason, his Majesty might feel the unspeakable satisfaction and delight of finding himself surrounded by those faithful servants and friends to whom he had so long been attached, and the recollection of whom could not fail to be most pleasing to him. There were, however, many persons appointed by the Vice Chamberlain who had never been seen by or known to the King; and he particularly alluded to the appointment of a learned Master of the Kitchen (Mr. Kenrick), which took place last year, and which he insisted was altogether a political appointment; and taking a fair and candid view of the whole of this business, it was impossible any impartial man could say that it was for any other than political purposes that the whole of this clause was framed.

The right hon. gent. opposite speaking of the distribution that was made under. Mr. Burke's bill concerning the Household, had told them what that distribution was, but he had not favoured them with one single word as to the propriety of it. Another right hon. gent. had accused them of departing from the precedent of 1789; and endeavoured to persuade the House, that in so doing, they had plunged into a labyrinth of errors, from the ill consequences of which they would not be able easily to extricate themselves. At that time, however, the right hon. gent. did not happen to be a member of the House. The right hon. gent. had even acknowledged he had not been present, but had read all the debates. He (Mr. W.) rejoiced to find that there had not been any person so irregular at that period as to propose clearing the gallery, which that right hon. gent. had done upon a late occasion, otherwise he (Mr. Yorke) could not have got the information he seemed to have acquired. The whole proceeding he must again repeat, appeared to him to be a fatal blow to the constitution of the country; which, if it survived, must afford an irrefragable proof of its inherent energy and soundness. The right hon. gent. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had taken a ground in this proceeding from which, if he continued in power, he might certainly man his fortresses, and play off his artillery with most powerful effect; but if he was put out, he would turn those very guns against the works of his own construction, and leave the whole one mighty heap of ruins.

expressed his surprise that the hon. gent. who spoke last should have spoken with so much warmth, and apparently with so much acrimony, respecting some words which he (Mr. S.) had uttered in a former debate, expressive of a compliment to the hon. gent. He was very sorry that he had thereby given him the slightest offence; he had no intention of doing so; and the House, and the hon. gent. might rest assured, he would never be guilty of the like offence again. The hon. gent. reminded him of some animals he had read of; which were so very fierce, they will not suffer themselves to be stroked: and he remembered a very humourous author had drawn a character of a peculiar kind, whom he chose to denominate Lismahago; who was so fond of contradiction, that when any of his best friends started a subject which they thought the most congenial to his feelings, place it in whatever point of view they would, he was sure to meet it with a plump negative. During the hon. gentleman's speech, to which he had listened with the greatest attention, he found himself at a loss to account for the reason by which the hon. gent. had been induced to say what he had just concluded, but on recollection it struck him, that rumour "with her hundered tongues" had lately informed him and the public at large, that the hon. gent. was likely soon to have a place on this side (the Ministerial) of the House; a place in which he should be extremely glad to see him. But what place was this? He had no doubt the House would be surprised when he told them, it was that of a minister—no less than the war minister. He must confess he would as soon have thought of his being made master of the Ceremonies. The hon. gent. whose theme was always peace, to be a war minister! He might perhaps, be a war minister for a democracy, who would act upon the principle in Hudibras,

"The man who fights and runs away.

"May live to fight another day."

With respect to the new point that had been mentioned relating to this clause, an hon. baronet had said, that the resolutions went only to the giving of a certain portion of the household to the care and management of the Queen, whereas the clause gave a very large portion of it indeed. This he (Mr. S.) thought was perfectly right, and doing no more than what the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning.) on the floor had allowed might be done, at the time he moved the amendment to the resolution. The right hon. gent. then said, that the portion might be modified in any degree whatever, according to the will and pleasure of the House, who might give her Majesty, by a clause in the bill, either a lesser or greater portion, or even the whole patronage of the household, if they thought proper: and yet they were now told, that the present clause was a quibble and a fraud upon his royal highness, and meant only to divest him of powers which were necessary for carrying on the executive government. So far was he from being of this opinion, that he thought it would be a fraud on the House, if that clause was not passed in the manner in which it had been sanctioned by the Committee.

trusted he would be excused if he said a few words. He was certainly much obliged to the learned gentleman for the information he had given, and of which he himself knew nothing, notwithstanding the hundred tongues of fame. He would ask the learned gent. if he had ever aided in blowing the trumpet? He could assure the learned gent. that there could not be a compliment more to his mind however unworthy he might be of it, than to be called the ornament of democracy in the proper sense of the word. "The hon. gent." (said Mr. W.) has expressed his wish to sec me on the other side of the House, but I cannot believe him sincere in this declaration, as he would probably then move himself to this side. The learned gent. judging feelingly, thinks we all want something. However that may be, I hope that before his other learned friends go out, they will take care to give him all that he wants.

, not having been in the House when the Amendment under consideration was proposed, expressed a wish, that the amendment should be again read. The Amendment was read accordingly, when the right hon. gent. again rose and said: From what I had heard, Sir, of the amendment which has been just read, as well as from what I can collect of its tenor and contents during a cursory reading of it by the clerk at our table, I do not think it calculated to meet the objects which I have in contemplation so well as the Amendment which I had the honour to suggest some days ago. I agree with the hon. and learned gent. who spoke last, that the resolution of the two Houses of Parliament did leave the greatest possible latitude, as to the mode of apportioning the household between the Regent and her Majesty the Queen. In my opinion every thing ought to be assigned to the Queen, that is necessary, for the suitable care and personal comfort of his Majesty. Nothing ought to be transferred to the Regent, but what is necessary for his representative state and splendour; or what cannot be left to the Queen without involving her Majesty in the trouble and perplexity and unbecoming cares attendant on the distribution of political patronage. The right hon. gent.'s Amendment does not appear to me to be framed on a just consideration of these principles. He has no doubt endeavoured to obviate or remove the objections, which were made to his former amendment; but I do not think he has succeeded. I admit and feel the subject to be one of considerable difficulty. And that difficulty is not a little enhanced since our last debate by the anathema, which has been pronounced in that debate against all those who should presume to examine this delicate and painful subject in detail. Cold details have been most feelingly deprecated, as inconsistent with a suitable sense of respect and affection for the sovereign, and a due sensibility to his present melancholy and afflicting situation. I confess, Sir, it appears to me rather a hard mode of treating those who may consider it their duty to investigate a question brought before them for decision, to impute to them directly or by inference any want of attachment or of loyalty to the King. I do not see how we can come to any correct or satisfactory decision upon this, the most interesting, if not the most important part of the subject, without entering, and that with some minuteness, into a consideration of details. If the question is to be viewed only in one way—if only one opinion is to be formed upon it—if we have no alternative but to adopt the provision originally recommended to us by the King's ministers, in God's name why are we invited to discussion? Why those forms of a Committee which we have gone through? Why this report to the House? The delicacy that would preclude us from discussing this subject, as we are in the habit of doing others that come before us, springs, I make not the least doubt, from an excess of the best and most honourable feeling; but I am at the same time persuaded, that such feelings cannot be taken as the sole guides of our conduct, that we act more in the spirit of our public duty, when we endeavour to extricate ourselves from the embarrassment arising from feelings so natural and commendable in themselves, in order that we may fully, fairly, and without biass or partiality examine into the merits of the measure in all its details. Surely there is nothing in this conduct so irreverent and so hardhearted, as those more enthusiastic and sensitive persons, who would stifle all discussion, presume. How constantly does it happen in private life, that, on the most melancholy and afflicting occasions, persons are unavoidably obliged to make a sort of compromise with their feelings, however acute or poignant they may be, and to mix details of business even with the first ebullitions of their sorrow! can it be imputed to a son as a want of reverence for the memory of a deceased father if even while the transports of his grief were yet upon him, he yielded to the absolute necessity of the case, and communicated with his steward upon the subject of any arrangements which the situation of his affairs rendered indispensable? Is it then to be pretended, that those, who from a sense of what they owe to their country look closely at a question which they are compelled to decide upon public grounds, do not feel as deeply and sincerely as those who only generalise and declaim and lament upon it? Sir, for myself I utterly deny the justice of such an inference. An important public duty has devolved upon us, and we are bound to perform it at whatever expence of personal considerations and private feeling. It cannot at this time be said that we have been taken by surprise. The subject has been now a considerable time fully in the contemplation of the House. There may be delicate natures (I do not mean to question their sincerity) who cannot yet accustom themselves to look at it steadily. But we shall fail in our duty, if we decline the full discussion of the subject, or shrink from those minute but necessary details which the dispensation of Providence has imposed upon us the necessity of examining and adjusting. Delicate and painful as the task must be, we are called upon by higher considerations than those of mere feeling to perform it. My right hon. friend on the bench above me, (Mr. Yorke) has taken another and a much more rational ground for endeavouring to dissuade us from going into these details. He has said, that if we do proceed in the discussion in such a way we shall get into a labyrinth from which we shall not be able to extricate ourselves without difficulty—in other words, that it is better to adopt and put up with whatever is first offered to us, than to engage in a comparison of different schemes, which may be as numerous as the fancies of different individuals, and between which in the end we may find no sure rule of decision. The answer to this observation of my right hon. friend is, however, to be found in the course and the result of our preceding deliberations. We have not declined hitherto the discussion of the propositions brought before us; nor have we discussed them without considerable practical benefit. By the earlier part of our discussion upon the restrictions we got rid of the naval and military peerages. If no other improvement were to be derived from our discussions I should think that a very important and desirable one. When I consider the other amendments which have been already adopted in respect to the Household, I am clearly of opinion, that whatever sacrifice of feelings the discussion of them may have cost us, has been well and usefully incurred. By these amendments, one of them suggested by myself, and others, and adopted by my right hon. friend on the bench above me, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), the officers about the King's person are ren- dered irremoveable. That is of itself a great improvement, and well worth all the discussion that produced it. It is one which has gone far to render my right hon. friend's proposition acceptable to me. Could I have prevailed upon him to adopt another alteration founded upon the same principle, and to make a permanent instead of a temporary arrangement for the Household, I should willingly give up minor points of difference, and vote with him instead of moving an amendment. My reason for wishing this, is, that I think it will be ultimately more conducive to the object which we both have in view. Whilst our sympathy is still fresh and active, and our feelings tenderly alive to the recent affliction of his Majesty, a larger measure of state, and a higher proportion of establishment and splendour are likely to be provided for the sick King, than may be expected a year hence, when in the natural course of things, and without any blame or any disparagement to the sincerity of our present impressions, those impressions will have become fainter. That this was in fact likely to be the case no man could doubt, who is acquainted with the ordinary operations of human nature. But most certainly no man can doubt it, who has attended to the speech of my right hon. friend, (Mr. Yorke) this night; and to that of another right hon. gentleman (Mr. Dundas) who preceded him. For they have both disclosed, that should his Majesty's indisposition unhappily continue to the beginning of the next year, they then look not only to the abridging but to the abrogating his Household altogether; transferring the whole to the Regent; and grafting whatever may be absolutely necessary for the care of the King's royal person on the Household establishment of the Queen.

Thus it is, Sir, exactly as I feared, that excess at one time will produce improper retrenchment at another. We are to give all now, and to take away all hereafter. This is precisely what I would avoid. I am not for giving the whole of the Household at present to the Queen, and I shall be at the end of a twelvemonth against giving it all to the Regent. My object is to abstain from doing either; as in the one case we should be doing more than we need, and, in the other, infinitely less than I hope we shall feel it our duty to do even under circumstances the most hopeless.

With these impressions, then, I feel my- self bound to oppose both the original proposition of my right hon. friend, and the amendment moved upon it by the right hon. gentleman—the latter retrenching, as I think, more than is necessary now; and the inevitable effect of the other, which gives more at present than is necessary, being in the event of the continuance of the King's illness, to go into the other extreme at the expiration of a year, and to take from his Majesty that which, whether absolutely indispensable or not, under that supposition, for his personal comfort, cannot be taken away from him without an appearance of the most unbecoming disrespect and unkindness. The only cure for these opposite inconveniencies, is, to provide in the first instance amply, and to provide once for all, not leaving the subject open to be revised at a future period. By leaving it open to that revision, you make his Majesty liable to be stripped hereafter of the whole of his household. Such is now avowed to be the probable result; and such a result is, in my opinion, a disadvantage, which much more than counterbalance any advantage to be derived from the large portion of the household at present proposed to be given to the Queen. I have more than once, in the course of these debates, expressed my decided preference of an arrangement to be made now that shall pervade the whole of the Regency, over a series and succession of arrangements varying with the variation of our hopes, and growing gradually more disadvantageous to the King's interests in proportion to the duration of the King's illness. Upon this point it is that the difference of opinion between my right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and me is widest and most irreconcileable. In other respects, so far at least as the household is concerned, we come very near to each other.

When I applied this argument the other day to the restriction upon the prerogative of granting peerages, I was answered, and not without plausibility, by a right hon. gent. (Mr. Bathurst) that as that Restriction is to expire in due course at the end of the twelvemonth without any new enactment on the part of parliament, it was in fact now made once for all. Not so, however, as to the arrangement of the household. This question is distinctly stated and argued as being expressly reserved for further discussion on the expiration of that period. The ministers of the Regent will then have cast upon them, by the provision recommended, the invidious task of proposing to parliament to curtail the portion of the household, now to be placed for his Majesty's comfort and accommodation under the controul of the Queen, if unhappily the infirmity of the King should so long continue. It is impossible not to foresee this inconvenience, and not to wish for an arrangement, which may provide against that contention and acrimony which must necessarily arise in such a discussion. Of all the points in the settlement of the Regency, which affection for the King and fairness towards the Regent equally forbid our leaving to be settled by the future ministers of the Regent, that which relates to the household is one which duty and delicacy conspire to make the most prominent. Do not let my right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer,) suppose, however, that when I speak of the invidiousness of the task thus to be fixed upon the Regent, I mean to join with those who accuse him of designing to throw an intentional and studied insult upon the Prince of Wales. Nothing is farther from my thoughts. I state the argument as it strikes my mind; and strikes it so forcibly that I cannot help stating it strongly. But no man gives more ample credit than I do to my right hon. friend for being actuated by the best and purest motives. I am convinced, that, in what he proposes to the House, he is conscientiously discharging his duty to his Sovereign, according to his own view of that duty; and is influenced by an anxious zeal for the dignity of the crown and the interests of the country. I give to him the credit, which I ask for myself, and shall receive from him for the principles of my own conduct, upon this and every other part of this question. We have each of us acted upon our own sense of what is right, and I as little impute to him an intention of disrespect, as I expect that he should impute to me an intention of courting favour.

I happened, Sir, to have been accidentally out of the House at the proper moment for proposing my amendment for discussion, until that of the right hon. gent. is disposed of; but as it can regularly be submitted at a subsequent period of our proceedings, I shall take that opportunity to submit it formally to the consideration of the House. I will not trouble the House with a detailed statement of the amendment. It is in substance such as I opened it to the House on a former night, but with some few alterations suggested by the observations which were then made upon it, and by subsequent reflection on the suggestions that have fallen in debate.

The first general objection, that it was not understood when I formerly proposed it, I cannot but suppose to be just, because I am not surprised, that I should have failed in giving clearness and perspicuity to a complicated statement, when I see even in the Bill before us, after all the labour that has been bestowed upon it, that the clause as now drawn up is wholly unintelligible. It would have been much clearer and more simple to follow the precedent of 1789, and give a distinct enumeration of the individuals of the Household to be placed under the controul of her Majesty. At present the meaning of the clause is so involved and obscure, that I am convinced two lawyers of equal abilities might plausibly form different conclusions and give contradictory opinions upon the construction of it. I trust that what I have taken the liberty to submit will be found at least intelligible.

It was also objected that I had mentioned the Groom of the Stole as a fourth great branch of the Household, together with the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, and Master of the Horse. I confess this was a mistake: but a mistake into which I was led by following the speeches of the right hon. gent. opposite to me (Mr. Ponsonby) and of my right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer,) who both talked of the Groom of the Stole as the head of a distinct department of the Household. I had not so considered him. But upon hearing their statements I was led to suppose myself wrong: and inserted the name of that officer among those to be reserved to the Queen. I also proposed to make him removeable by her Majesty. Upon better information I have changed that provision; and propose only to make him like the rest of the Lords of the Bed Chamber, of whom in fact he is one, (being technically no more than the chief or first Gentleman of the Bed Chamber) irremoveable.

Of the Amendment of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Ponsonby), I must say, that, if obliged to agree either to that or to the clause as it stands, I should prefer the original clause with all its imperfections; simply because it does not, like the amend- ment, impose upon her Majesty the invidious task of making a choice from amongst the officers of the Household, because it does not lay upon her the onus of selecting six Lords and six Grooms of the Bed Chamber to be retained under her controul, and six others to be dismissed from their attendance on the King's person. The preference which her Majesty would be thus required to manifest, would be in my opinion extremely invidious; and directly contrary to that principle upon which her Majesty ought, as we most of us agree, to be absolved from the exercise of any political power. Of the clause which goes to prevent the filling up of the office of Lord Chamberlain, I cannot but disapprove on constitutional grounds. The Chamberlainship is an appointment of too much importance, in my opinion, to be left vacant for an indefinite time; and the transfer of the power and patronage of that office from the other House of Parliament, of which the Lord Chamberlain is always a member, to the Vice Chamberlain, who is a member of this House, appears to me an important practical change and better to be avoided.

These, however, are comparatively minute objections. My great objection is to the principle of the plan as it at present stands. And, not thinking it fair to find fault with what is proposed, without suggesting my own ideas of what might be substituted for it, I shall submit my Amendment to the House to be received and entered on the Journals. But having already fully explained the substance of my amendment, I shall submit it at the proper time without any further introduction or argument.

, in explanation, stated, that when the right hon. gent. called upon them to make provision now for what was to be arranged at the end of 12 months, he seemed to forget, that their object on this occasion was to make a temporary, not a permanent arrangement.

observed that he had been induced to take the view he had submitted to the House on this topic from an observation made by a right hon. gent. who preceded his right hon. friend in a former debate, in which he stated that the Regent need not be apprehensive as to the patronage or controul of the household; as at the end of 12 months, if his Majesty's illness should so long continue, the whole would be placed at his disposal.

rose to vindicate him- self from the allusion made to him by the right hon. gent. who had just sat down. The observations of that right hon. gent. seemed to have been so pointed that he supposed his sole intention in rising was to make them. He had, in what he had said on a former occasion, only exercised that liberty which he considered every hon. gent. to be entitled to use, in the avowal of his sentiments.

felt it necessary to say a few words as to the grounds of the vote he should give. As he could not agree to the amendment proposed, he should not vote for leaving out the words proposed to be omitted; but when they should come to a vote on the body of the bill, he should feel it his duty to negative the clause, with a view to propose an amendment which would record his sentiments upon the subject. Neither the amendment of the right hon. gent. nor the clause of his right hon. friend, would execute what, in his conception, ought to be provided with respect to the Household. He would go, farther, and say, that the clause, as it then stood, would not execute even the purpose which his right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, professed to have in view. The strongest objection, in his mind, to the clause, was, that it rendered the great officers of the Household irremoveable. Nothing could be more offensive than to place officers of that description in attendance on the royal person by the authority of Parliament, and not removeable at the pleasure of her Majesty. To such a provision he should prefer the bill of 1789; because, though that measure gave more influence to her Majesty than was necessary, it yet assigned to her all that was properly belonging to her high and exalted situation. He should therefore give his vote to negative the whole clause, in order to move an amendment which would meet his own views upon the subject.

considered the bill as it stood then, a fundamental departure from the principle recognized in the resolutions which had been agreed to by the two Houses of Parliament. He would defy any man to say that the provisions of this bill were a fair, a candid, or an honest execution of those resolutions. For his own part he would be ready to give his support to any proposition the effect of which would be to transfer the whole powers of the executive to the Regent without any abridgment or restriction whatever, When the two Houses had sanctioned the principles upon which the resolutions were founded, by their solemn and deliberate assent, he must contend that it was a violation of duty to Parliament in the framers of the bill, not to have drawn it up in conformity with those resolutions. Instead of doing so, however, they had in every instance departed from the spirit and the letter of the resolutions, but most particularly in this clause respecting the disposal of the household. The resolution of the two Houses provided that such portion of his Majesty's household should be placed under the control of the Queen "as would be requisite for due attendance on his Majesty's person, and the maintenance of his royal dignity." This resolution had been carried up and presented to the Prince of Wales. The answer of his royal highness was, "that he did not refuse to accept the office and situation proposed to him, restricted as they were." But was the House to infer from that answer, that his royal highness would have accepted the office, if it were to have been still further restricted? It was to make an ungracious return to his royal highness for this patriotic determination thus to enact, that the office was to be given under still greater restrictions, by means of which he would have still less opportunity of shewing his veneration for his royal father, and the unfeigned delicacy of his feelings.

But it had been argued, that, as only a certain portion of the Household was by the resolution to be given to her Majesty, if any portion of it were to be given to the Prince, that would be a fair execution of the resolution. But his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Stephen) who stated that argument, should recollect that the resolution was not alone the resolution of that, but also of the other House of Parliament. It had, indeed, been urged against those who thought with him, that theirs was a quibbling interpretation of the resolution; because, as a portion was smaller than the whole, any portion short of the whole was necessarily comprehended in the resolution. But he would ask, was not this a quibbling interpretation? Would any two men of honour countenance such a construction? If, in the case of an estate, a portion were to be given to one, and the remainder to another, would it be considered a fair interpretation of terms to give one acre to him who was to have the whole remainder, and to assign the whole of the estate beside to him, who was to have but a portion of it? This species of quibbling interpretation would be a disgrace to the lowest practitioner of the profession to which he belonged. Could any man then say, that this was the proper construction of the resolution? Could any man believe, that the clause in the bill was not a reversal by parliamentary tactic of the substance of the resolution? He should vote therefore for the amendment, if on no other ground, because it would give greater power to the Prince.

His right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had, on a former night, addressed to the feelings of the House, an argument which he could not but consider unparliamentary, though he believed it had had considerable effect in influencing the decisions of the House on that occasion, namely, that if any very large portion of his Majesty's household should be withdrawn, it may have a very serious effect on the mind and state of his Majesty in the event of his convalescence. But anxious as they all must be to manifest every tenderness for the feelings of the sovereign in such a case, the House should bear in mind how far that argument might be carried. On the first occasion, when it was used by his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) it had been urged, that, if a Regent were to be appointed, it might have the effect when communicated to his Majesty of bringing on a relapse into that deplorable state in which he was then unhappily placed. This argument, however, must fail to have any weight with the House in the present instance, when it was recollected that his right hon. friend himself had brought forward the measure then under consideration, though feeling so sensibly and so sincerely (he believed) for the calamity and personal sufferings of his Majesty. His right hon. friend had certainly been induced to take this course from a due regard to his own duty, and to what the public interest demanded. But if his right hon. friend had not been deterred from the performance of his duty by any morbid sensibility for the sufferings of the sovereign, his example in this struggle of his duty to the public with his feelings for the King afforded a justification to others in coming to the discussion without such considerations to bias them. The argument, therefore, should have no weight in influencing their decisions upon a question of such vital importance to the best interests of the crown and of the state. It must be with reluctance and pain, that they would resort to any provision which might by possibility be disagreeable to his Majesty; still more distressing would it be to adopt any arrangement that would be likely to retard his recovery. But they had an imperious duty to perform—they had not only to provide for the comfort of the royal person, but for the effectual maintenance of his crown—every thing that was or could be necessary for the personal comfort and convenience of the King should be given to the Queen—every thing essential to the dignity of the throne and the effectual execution of all the royal functions should be assigned to the Regent. They were not to incur a certain danger in weakening the power and constitutional influence of the executive in order to avoid, what, if it occurred, would most unquestionably be an evil, but still was contingent and uncertain.

It had been stated on a former night and upon high authority (Mr. Secretary Ryder's) that if the case of his Majesty were that of a private individual before the Court of Chancery, the care and custody of his person would not be committed to his nearest of kin, nor to his Heir Apparent; and this, on the supposition that the Heir Apparent, being to succeed to the property, would have an interest in the confinement or death of the unfortunate patient. But so far from that being the case now, so far back as the time of lord Macclesfield, that doctrine was exploded, as proceeding upon the basest suspicion that could enter into the human breast, and as it would have the effect of preventing persons in such a deplorable situation from having the benefit of the care and attention of those most attached to their persons and most interested in their recovery. The last instance which had occurred in the Court of Chancery was that of an individual, the custody of whose person was committed to a brother, the presumptive heir to his estate. He was not surprised that his right hon. and learned friend should have been led into error on the subject, as he had so long quitted the immediate study of the profession to which he had been so great an ornament!. He did not charge his right hon. friend who stated this argument (Mr. Ryder) with any wish to shew disrespect to the Prince of Wales, but really such observations had the effect of casting suspicions upon the illustrious members of the royal family, to which even the meanest of his Majesty's subjects were not exposed. He neither accused nor could he suppose his right hon. friend capable of offering any intentional insult to the Prince of Wales. He wished he could say the same of his political adherents. If so, they would not have found, those public prints, which he should not say were under the protection of the administration of his right hon. friend, but which were certainly not prosecuted with the same severity and rigour as were manifested in other instances, pursuing a systematic course of attack upon his Royal Highness, calumniating every act, and misrepresenting every word of his Royal Highness, and holding up to scorn and derision every member of the royal family (Hear! Hear!) Neither should they have found them incessantly imputing the basest motives to many members of that House for pursuing on this occasion what they conscientiously considered their duty.

, after what had taken place during the discussion, felt himself called upon to state shortly his sentiments upon this question. He had deferred offering himself to the attention of the House till that late hour of the discussion, in order that he might have an opportunity to collect what were the sentiments of other gentlemen upon the subject, and that if he had risen earlier, he might not have felt it necessary to trouble the house again with any further observations. With respect to the charge of supposed, though unintentional disrespect to his royal highness the Prince of Wales, in not committing to him the guardianship of his Majesty's person, he should only observe, that as they had all agreed that the guardianship should not be entrusted to his Royal Highness, whether that were conformable to the practice in the Court of Chancery or not, all that was now out of the question. His hon. and learned friend did him no more than justice in stating, that he did not believe him to entertain any intention of reflecting upon his royal highness the Prince of Wales. He lamented, as much as his hon. and learned friend could, any licentious expressions, which in the public prints might have been applied either to the Prince of Wales, or to any of the other branches of the royal family; but that was not the time or place for the discussion of the reflections of that kind, which may have been made upon any one description or another of public men. When his hon. and learned friend stated that the Bill was not a fair and honest execution of the Resolutions, he must beg the House to make a distinction between the Bill which he brought in and the Amendments which had since been made in the course of its progress. As he could not know, what many hon. members themselves did not seem to have known, what amendments they meant to propose, he had brought in his bill in a shape to admit of the introduction of any Amendment that might be thought eligible. In proof that gentlemen did not know their own Amendments, he called upon the right hon. gent. who brought forward the Amendment of this night, whether in the Committee on the bill he was aware of the Amendment he this night proposed? The right hon. gent., by a kind of second sight, took the hint from arguments urged by an hon. gent. on the floor (Mr. Huskisson), and formed his Amendment upon them. But where these arguments were found, as the hon. member, to whom they had been ascribed, had denied having ever used them, it was for that right hon. gent. himself to explain. But now that the right hon. gent. had heard the arguments of that hon. member that night, he doubted much whether the right hon. gent. might not fairly question the propriety of his own Amendment. It was a difficult task to frame the Bill, not only to meet the different opinions which different members might entertain of it, but the different opinions of the same persons.

The hon. member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Brand) had put a case of a member so managing his minority as to carry a particular resolution to be presented to the Prince, and then so to manage his majority as in effect to rescind that resolution. The hon. member could not, however, have stated that to be his case, because he had brought in resolutions much more restrictive than those agreed to; and it was not till his own had been rejected, that the resolutions actually carried were put upon him. The hon. gent. therefore, would, he was sure, acquit him of having laid so deep a plan for the attainment of his object. But he was ready to contend, that there was nothing in the Bill contradictory to the Resolution. When the Resolution was first proposed, the objections to it were twofold; one, that of most weight was, that it would give too much influence to the Queen, an objection which he got rid of by taking away the power of re- moval, and thereby doing away all the political influence. The only power of appointment then left was in case of vacancy by death. He had consented to this sacrifice in compliance with what he considered the prevailing sentiment of the House. This, he was ready to confess, took considerable weight from the principle upon which the resolution was originally founded; but as the time was limited, he was disposed to think that the mischief in principle would be practically done away. The great and prominent basis of this whole proceeding was to make a temporary provision, and that for a short period, without breaking in upon any settled established rule where that could be avoided. And here it was that he had the misfortune to incur the censure of his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning), for not having proposed to make the provision once for all permanent. But without meaning any disrespect to his right hon. friend, or undervaluing the suggestions he had thrown out, he must be permitted to observe, that it appeared to him monstrous that the House, in providing for the maintenance of his Majesty's dignity now, when they had a sanguine expectation that his illness would be of a very short duration, should arrange the proportion of the Household to be given to her Majesty, in the same manner as if his Majesty's calamity was to last the whole of his natural life. It would certainly be practically by far the better mode to make an arrangement that would meet both cases; but that was impossible. If his Majesty were to recover within six weeks, or three months, or even six months, would any hon. member wish to strip him of his Household to the same extent as if no hope were entertained of his recovery? His right hon. friend had called upon them to state, why they did not propose to make now a permanent provision for the arrangement of the Household? The answer was, that their measure was to provide only for a twelve-month, and that what hereafter might be necessary, should be done at the expiration of that period.

With regard to what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, who had just sat down, he must observe, that his hon. and learned friend had commented rather severely upon him for having adverted to what might be the probable feelings of his Majesty on his convalescence, in case he should find a regency established. Hs had undoubtedly on one occasion alluded to what those feelings might be in such an event, and he still retained the same impression. But however he may lament the effect, that might possibly be the consequence, a sense of the public duty, and a regard to the public interests, had compelled him to bring forward the measure for establishing a regency. In the former instance there was no pressing necessity for the measure, and he was consequently justified in abstaining from it, in consideration of the effect it might have on his Majesty's feelings, and consequently in retarding his recovery. But, if the delay in his Majesty's recovery, and the urgency of public business, compelled them now to bring forward the general question of a Regency, was that any reason why he was not to take into his consideration what may possibly be his Majesty's feelings in all the parts of that general question, where the same necessity did not exist, as was particularly the case in the arrangement respecting the proper distribution of the Household? In one case he could not avoid proceeding—in the other he could; and wherever he could avoid proceeding, he would ever contend that it was his duty to do so.

This was the view which he took of the case. He was aware indeed that it had been urged as discreditable to his Majesty's mind, if, on his recovery, he could be affected by the removal of the Gentlemen of his Bed-chamber, and not by the management of his fleets and armies. But was that a fair way of putting the case? Was it not necessary to commit the management of the fleets and armies to another? Was it equally necessary to hand over the controul of the Lords of the Bedchamber? But could any thing be more afflicting to a person suffering under this peculiar malady, than any wound to his dignity? The proposition of the right hon. gent. went to take away at once one-half of the Gentlemen of the Bed-chamber on a six-weeks' illness. Besides it would consign to her Majesty the painful task of fixing upon that part that was to be taken away. The proposition was, not that the six senior or six junior Lords were to be removed, but that six were to remain, and that her Majesty was to have the pleasurable task of selecting them, and also such other parts of the Household as she might think necessary; and all this under impressions in that House, that her influence was dangerous, and that the larger proportion of the Household ought to belong to the Prince, and the smaller to the Queen, whilst the Queen would be left to carve out the portion for herself. Nothing could be more likely to offend his Majesty or wound his feelings more than to find his Household thus mutilated and dismembered. The pencil of the painter and the pen of the poet had been happily employed in pourtraying the anguish and agonies endured by illustrious sufferers under the impression of wounded dignity. They had seen, how Richard, suffering with patience all his reverses, bitterly felt the indignity offered to him in prison; they could call to mind, too, as pourtrayed by the master-pen of Shakespeare, the pangs of Queen Catharine, when exposed to the insulting want of the respect due to her exalted rank. He would wish the House to hear the representation given in the words of a right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Sheridan,) and should therefore endeavour to recollect an appropriate passage from his eloquent and expressive pen:

"Go search where living sorrows ask relief;

"Go, while thy heart yet beats with fancied grief.

"Thy lips still conscious of the recent sigh,

"The graceful tear still ling'ring in thine eye;

"Go, and on real misery bestow

"The blest effusions of fictitious woe."

He would entreat gentlemen to bear in mind, what would be the effect, in the case of a private individual, of breaking down a whole establishment; and by what each might be supposed to feel in such a case, to judge what would be the feelings of his Majesty. With respect to what had fallen from his right hon. friend, as to the clause being unintelligible, he should only say, that as his right hon. friend had admitted that he deduced something substantive from its affirmations and negations, he had saved him much trouble. On the whole, he should observe, that the exceptions pointed out what was not to be given to the Queen; that the clause was perfectly intelligible; and, as it had nothing unconstitutional in it, should be supported by him against the Amendments of both the right hon. gentlemen.

immediately rose and spoke as follows:—Sir, I do not mean at this late hour to trespass at any length upon the time or attention of the House; but, after the very extraordinary speech which we have just heard from the right hon. gent. I feel it absolutely necessary to say a few words. The whole of that right hon. gent.'s speech from the beginning to the end consists of an appeal to the passions—an appeal as uncalled for, as it is unnecessary, in this House. The right hon. gent. in order to excite our sympathy, needed not to have quoted the beautiful lines of my right hon. friend's (Mr. Sheridan's) composition, nor appealed to the magic pen of Shakespeare; all that was necessary for him to say, was, that a revered and beloved Sovereign is labouring under the heavy calamity which afflicts him, to interest the feelings of every gentleman present. Every thing which the right hon. gent. has said beyond this, could only be intended to draw off the attention of the House from the question immediately under its consideration. When the right hon. gent. rose, I expected, that he would have endeavoured to shew, that the provisions of this Bill contained no departure from the Resolutions agreed to by both Houses—that, if the Bill should pass in its present form, his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales would be aware of the exact proportion of the regal prerogatives, and of the royal Household he is to possess, according to the declaration made to him by the two Houses of Parliament in their Resolutions. But in this expectation I have been disappointed, for upon this point the right hon. gent. has completely failed. If ever a man contrived to get rid of a question by dexterous shifting and artful manœuvres, the right hon. gent. has done so in this instance. In fact, he had no other alternative, because, in all the arguments that apply really to the subject at issue, he has been not only anticipated but completely answered by my hon. and learned friend (Sir Samuel Romilly) who preceded him. The Resolution of the two Houses states, that such portion and such only of the royal Household shall be given to the Queen, as shall be necessary for the personal comfort of his Majesty. It is absolutely impossible, that, after receiving such a Resolution, the Prince could suppose the House would be now discussing what part of the Household would be necessary for the maintenance of the splendour and comfort of the King. Upon that point there can be no difference of opinion; as every hon. member must be ready to vote whatever portion of the Household her Majesty may think necessary. Our Resolution pledges us to this, and our feelings and inclination must prompt us even to outrun her Majesty's wishes.

The right hon. gent. has said, however, that he had deferred stating his sentiments to the House in order that he might endeavour to collect what may be the sentiments of others upon this subject. If the right hon. gent. expected that the result of this delay would be consentaneous with his own views, he has failed in that point altogether. The noble lord on the bench behind him (lord Castlereagh) has intimated his intention to negative the clause with a view to substitute another more consonant to his opinions, whilst the right hon. gent. on the floor (Mr. Canning) proposed, in moving an amendment of his own, to retain only the two or three first lines of the clause. So that in fact, though pretending to meet the wishes of others, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been all this time carrying into effect his own. I am ready to admit, that, in consenting to the alteration abridging the influence of the Queen, the right hon. gent. has removed a considerable part of the objection, which applied to the clause as it originally stood in the Bill, supposing, what I can never bring myself even to suspect, that the Queen were, or could be, capable of employing her power to procure political influence in the state. But what has all this to do with the question? What has the abridgment of the Queen's power to do with the Regent? Not with respect to the Regent personally, but as a person exercising in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty, the functions of the executive? Is he to be deputed to execute the office of King, stripped of its necessary state and accustomed splendour? Is he to have imposed upon him the necessity of maintaining the dignity of the throne, divested of that influence and patronage, which has hitherto, according to the principles and practice of the constitution, belonged invariably to the person discharging the functions of the executive, and which are no less essential to the due performance of his high and arduous duties than to the state and lustre of his court? But says the right hon. gent., "the Regent will not be without the means of supporting the dignity of his exalted office—he will have a Chamberlain." A Chamberlain! yes—a Chamberlain no doubt he is to have according to the provisions of this bill? but what species of Chamberlain? A Chamber- lain, stripped of all the patronage and influence and power of that high and important office—A "man of straw" possessing no more weight or authority at court or in the state than the white wand he may bear—the emblem, not of royal confidence and official duty, but of empty pageantry and departed state. But then again, says the right hon. gentleman, "if the Regent is not to have a Chamberlain with all the customary influence and power of that great office, no other person is to have the advantage of its great patronage, because the place of Lord Chamberlain being now vacant, the Bill provides that no Lord Chamberlain is to be appointed for a certain period." But why not? Why all this juggling and peddling about an office allowed on all hands to be essential to the dignity of the person discharging the duties of the executive? Is there a man in this House, who does not in his conscience believe, that all this is done for political purposes? can any man be so blind as not to perceive that all this is a paltry expedient to withhold from the Regent a great part of the constitutional influence, that would attach to his office, for the purpose of strengthening the power of those who will be opposed to the measures of his government? The Lord Chamberlain, every body knows, has extensive, enormous patronage. According to the statement of my right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby) he has the appointment of some of the officers of this House, (none of whose offices happily are likely to be soon vacant)—he has also the appointment of some of the officers of the other House, one of whom (sir Francis Molineux) if report be correct, is in such a state, as to render a vacancy in his important and lucrative office (usher of the black rod) within a very limited period not improbable. Does the right hon. gentleman think, that he is consulting the feelings of the King in the manner in which he proposes to dispose of the immense patronage of this important office of state? Does he believe, that his Majesty, now that lord Dartmouth, to whom his Sovereign was personally attached, has been removed by death, would be gratified to find that all the patronage, which as a mark of his royal favour he confided to that nobleman, should be thus clandestinely transferred to the Vice-Chamberlain—to whom his Majesty could never have thought of committing such a trust? The right hon. gentleman, I am persuaded, cannot entertain any such notion, and I can therefore never bring myself to suppose that all this is done for any other but political purposes.

With respect to the influence or interference of her Majesty, upon the distribution of this patronage, I beg again distinctly to disclaim any the slightest insinuation that the Queen could be capable of an improper exercise of her power for political purposes. I am convinced that her Majesty is utterly incapable of any such conduct. Nay, more; I am certain that she would not condescend to enter into a conversation with any member of her council upon such a subject, if any one of them should have the presumption to mention it to her Majesty. But though her Majesty would never stoop to interfere for political purposes, we are not to forget that the members of her council are all politicians; that, as they propose to withdraw the patronage from the Prince Regent, they would be likely to exercise their influence over it for political purposes. Suppose a vacancy to occur in any considerable office, in the appointment of the Lord Chamberlain, is it not more likely, that the Vice Chamberlain, to whom the ministers propose to give the whole patronage, should consult John Lord Eldon, or some other of those to whom he owed his power, as to the filling up of the vacancy, than that he should appoint to the vacant office independently? What is this then, but its effect to give the power, denied to the Prince of Wales, to the members of her Majesty's council? In truth, the whole project and scope of the Bill is nothing but an artful scheme of political power; a contrivance, as was well observed by a right hon. gent. opposite, (Mr. Canning), to divide the unity of the government, and to set the executive at war with the palace.

The right hon. gent., in commenting upon the amendment proposed by my right hon. friend this night, has been more severe upon the course he has thought it right to pursue than either the circumstances or the occasion warranted. The drift of the right hon. gent.'s argument was to prove my right hon. friend guilty of inconsistency, in not having brought forward, in this instance, precisely the same amendment which he had proposed in the Committee. But, the fact is, that there could be no inconsistency in the case. The difference between the two amendments is not very material. Yet, even if it were, what impropriety could there be in the attempt on the part of my right hon. friend, finding himself outvoted in the Committee, to render his Amendment, by some alteration, more palatable to the House? Has the right hon. gent. himself never done any thing of that kind? Has he never new modelled a motion with a view to make it more agreeable to the House? Is the right hon. gent. to have the exclusive monopoly of the privilege of altering and amending any proposition he may bring forward for the purpose of making it more acceptable to the House? Was no improvement to be made upon learning the views of other gentlemen? Are we, then, not to learn wisdom from experience, nor to acquire more knowledge as we grow older? If there be any thing in the objection of the right hon. gentleman's, it must mean, that, having once determined to bring forward a particular proposition, any member of this House is bound to adhere even to the letter of it, and, by so doing, to risk the prospect of doing some good, merely because he could not accomplish all the good he thought desirable. Such doctrine as this is at direct variance with the whole tenor of parliamentary practice. Every gentleman's recollection must serve him to call to mind the numberless instances in which, with a view to effect some part of what may have been originally proposed, the proposer has consented to modifications, alterations, and amendments, which not unfrequently changed, altogether changed the whole frame and character of the measure first brought forward. And, indeed, how can it be otherwise? Unless he were gifted with infallibility, it is impossible for any man to reconcile the jarring, and often contradictory views and opinions of an assembly, composed as this House is, until he can ascertain, in the course of a discussion, what might be likely to prove satisfactory to a majority. In the alteration, therefore, and immaterial is the alteration, made by my right hon. friend in the Amendment proposed by him on a former night, I contend, that he has not only not been guilty of any inconsistency, but that he is fully justified by the uniform practice of parliament. But, the right hon. gent. asks, if his Amendment shall be carried, what will be the situation of the Queen, obliged, as her Majesty will then be, to choose her portion of the Household? For myself I can truly say, that I should not vote for any proposition, the effect of which would be to impose any disagreeable office on her Majesty. The Amendment of my right hon. friend, however, will have no such effect. All that is asked in that Amendment is, that six Lords of the Bedchamber should be assigned to her Majesty, as the proportions necessary and sufficient for the personal comfort of the King, and that her Majesty shall have the selection of them. Is this to impose any disagreeable office upon the Queen? Why, Sir, in another clause of this Bill it is provided, that a sum of 4,225l. shall be issued quarterly from the Privy Purse, and placed at her Majesty's disposal, to be distributed in the same manner as heretofore, or as her Majesty may think the King would wish it to be distributed. It might as well be said, by the right hon. gent., that this clause would impose the disagreeable task of selection upon her Majesty, as the Amendment of my right hon. friend, which leaves to the Queen the choice of such portion of the officers of the household as this House may think sufficient to be placed at her Majesty's disposal.

As to the apprehensions insinuated, not expressed, lest, if the household should not be secured to the Queen, the servants most acceptable to his Majesty should be removed, it is unnecessary for me, I trust, to say, that I do not believe they have even a shadow of foundation. I am persuaded that, whoever may be the advisers of his royal highness, none would recommend to him to remove any of the King's servants. But, after all, I really do not think the thing worth the contest. If it be satisfactory to the House that the disposition of the Household shall remain as regulated by this Bill, why in the name of God, let it be so. It is matter of very little comparative importance, for, in point of fact, it will be found, that the gentlemen of the Bed-chamber, with the exception of one, who in the former instance voted for an unrestricted Regency, and for that offence was afterwards removed, have never been disturbed on any change of administration. I do not mean any disrespect to those hon. persons when I say, that their conduct is uniformly such, as not to give offence to any administration. They are no doubt strongly impressed with the necessity as well as propriety of supporting government, and, therefore, by voting with the administration in office, of whomsoever composed, they never give cause for their removal. I am sure, I am as far as any man, from thinking that, in doing so, they do not act conscientiously. We all know, that there is a considerable number of members in this House, who act upon the same feeling of the necessity of supporting the government, and therefore generally vote with the existing administration. If it were not so, see what would be the consequence. If the majority that supports any particular administration were to stick fast on a change, there would be no going on with the public business without a dissolution of parliament.

With respect to the great officers of the Household, I am clearly of opinion that they ought to be transferred to the Regent. The patronage of the Lord Chamberlain, of the Lord Steward, and of the Master of the Horse, is a part and parcel of the constitutional influence of the executive. If that part be taken from the Prince, the question then is, will the Regent in such a case be the representative of the King? I am no advocate for the excessive influence of the crown, but this patronage, flowing from these great offices, is necessary to be at the disposal of the executive, as well for the security of the rights of the people as of the constitutional dignity and power of the sovereign. Without the aid of this patronage the monarchical, would soon be overborne by the democratical, branch of the constitution.

I say, then, that the whole of this arrangement is founded in a most unjust and injurious feeling of distrust in the illustrious person, who is to be Regent. The right hon. gent. indeed disclaims any such distrust. But if he were not actuated by such feeling, why should he not make provision for the Prince with the same care and zeal with which he makes provision for her Majesty? The right hon. gent. says that the only object in the contemplation of the framers of this Bill is, to secure to his Majesty the satisfaction on his recovery of finding himself surrounded and served by the persons of his choice. He would have us believe, that his Majesty, on awaking, would be likely to turn his thoughts to his former habits, and, if he found his Master of the Buck-hounds removed, be in danger of a relapse. If the right hon. gent. should, under such circumstances, and whilst his Majesty was liable to such a return of his malady from such a cause, venture to restore him to the exercise of his kingly functions, he would, I will assert, be guilty of a high crime. I would most cheerfully do every thing that is in my power to sooth his Majesty's cares and sufferings, and to render his pillow easy and comfortable, but I cannot from any respect, however great, for such his feelings, consent to forego my public duty. I am convinced, that his Majesty, if completely recovered, and if that recovery too were attested, properly attested as in cases of other individuals by the certificate of his physicians, so far from giving way to the impressions alluded to by the right hon. gent., his only feelings would be those of anxiety and solicitude for the interests and welfare of his subjects—feelings completely in unison with the whole tenor of his character and life. When, therefore, we are called upon to provide a Regent to represent our sovereign during his present afflicting incapacity, we cannot take any course so likely to gratify his paternal mind, as to furnish the Regent with full and adequate powers to exercise the functions of the exalted office he is to fill, in the manner most effectual for the dignity of the royal office, and for the essential interests of the community. The representative of the monarch should for such a purpose be invested with all the trappings and splendour of royalty. Upon the whole, then, Sir, I do most solemnly call upon this House not to make an experiment upon his royal highness the Prince of Wales which may be attended with the most serious consequences to the monarchy and the constitution of this country. I call upon this House to pause before it will give its sanction to the monstrous project of the right hon. gent. to ascertain by this dangerous experiment with how small a portion of the royal prerogatives the functions of the executive may be carried on. Let us gravely reflect, before we accede to such a measure, what may hereafter be the result of our now refusing our confidence to that illustrious person to whom, by the course of nature, our allegiance will be at no very distant period due. Let us, before we take from him, placed in the execution of the duties of the royal office, the power of creating peers, consider seriously to what consequences such a restriction, imposed now, may lead when the Prince of Wales shall hereafter succeed to the throne. We know, that differences upon political questions must at all times exist, and is it not likely that, when George the 4th on his accession to the crown, may think proper to exercise this prerogative by the creation of a new peer, those, who may think the elevation of the individual not expedient, will say, 'we should have foreseen all this, we knew the Prince when he was Regent, and we refused to place confidence in him, it is all our own fault, as we did not take care to tie him up as to this prerogative when we had him in our power.' Is not this the language that we are to expect on such an occasion, and can we justify it to ourselves to impose the restrictions now proposed without any just ground or necessity, but with a certainty that they will give rise to such feelings hereafter, as may destroy the harmony that ought to subsist between a paternal sovereign, and a loyal people? Our object at present is to appoint a representative of the King, and our first care should be to furnish him with all the powers necessary for the due performance of the royal functions, without suffering ourselves to be biassed by any political views whatever.

in explanation said, that he had mentioned that it was impossible to make any permanent provision, when perhaps after six weeks his Majesty might recover, and when they indulged the sanguine hope that his Majesty's illness would be of very short duration.

The House then divided,

For the Amendment	190
Against it	212
Majority	22

List of the Minority.
Abercrombie, hon. J.	Blackburne, J. T.
Adair, R.	Bligh, T.
Adam, W.	Bradshaw, hon. A. C.
Agar, E. F.	Brand, hon. T.
Anstruther, rt. hon. sir J.	Brogden, J.
	Brougham, H.
Antonie, W. L.	Browne, A.
Archdall, M.	Buller, J. (Exeter)
Astley, sir J.	Bunbury, sir T. C.
Aubrey, sir J.	Burdett, sir F.
Babington, T.	Butler, hon. J.
Bagenal, W.	Byng, G.
Baker, J.	Calcraft, J.
Bankes, H.	Calvert, N.
Baring, sir T.	Campbell, lord J.
Baring, A.	Canning, rt. hon. G.
Bennet, R. H. A.	Canning, G.
Bentinck, lord C.	Chaloner, R.
Bernard, S.	Cocks, J.
Bewicke, C.	Coke, T. W.
Biddulph, R. M.	Coke, E.
Blachford, B. P.	Combe, H. C.
Blackburne, J.	Corry, T. C. S.
Cuthbert, J. R.	Martin, H.
Daly, rt. hon. D. B.	Mathew, hon. M.
Dent, J.	Maxwell, W.
Dickinson, W.	Meade, hon. J.
Dundas, C.	Mexborough, earl of
Elliot, rt. hon. W.	Milbank, sir R.
Ellis, C. R.	Miller, sir T.
Evelyn, L.	Mills, C.
Fellowes, hon. N.	Mills, W.
Ferguson, R. C.	Milner, sir W.
Fitzgerald, lord H.	Milton, visc.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.	Monckton, hon. E.
Fitzgerald, W. M.	Moore, P.
Fitzgerald, A.	Morpeth, visc.
Fitzpatrick, rt. hon. R.	Morris, E.
Foley, hon. A.	Neville, hon. R.
Foley, T.	Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Folkes, sir M.	North, D.
Folkestone, visc.	Northey, W.
Forbes, visc.	O'Callaghan, J.
Frankland, W.	Ossulston, lord
Freemantle, W. H.	Palk, sir L.
Giles, D.	Palmer, C.
Gower, earl	Pierse, H.
Gower, lord G. L.	Pelham, hon. G.
Grant, G. M.	Percy, earl
Grattan, rt. hon. H.	Philipps, R. M.
Greenhill, R.	Pole, sir C.
Greenough, G. B.	Pollington, visc.
Grenfell, P.	Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Grenville, lord G.	Ponsonby, hon. G.
Halsey, Jos.	Porchester, lord
Hanbury, W.	Power, R.
Herbert, H. A.	Prittie, hon. F.
Hibbert, G.	Poyntz, W. S.
Hippisley, sir J. C.	Quin, hon. W.
Hobhouse, B.	Robarts, A.
Horner, F.	Romilly, sir S.
Horrocks, S.	Russell, lord W.
Howard, hon. W.	St. Aubyn, sir J.
Howarth, H.	Savage, F.
Hughes, W. L.	Saville, A.
Hume, W. H.	Scudamore, R. P.
Huntingfield, lord	Seymour, lord R.
Huskisson, W.	Sharp, R.
Hussey, T.	Sheridan, rt. hon. R. B.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.	Shipley, W.
Jackson, J.	Simpson, hon. J.
Jekyll, Jos.	Sloane, W.
Johnstone, sir J.	Smith, J.
Johnstone, G.	Smith, A.
Innes, H.	Smith, W.
Kensington, lord	Smith, H.
Knox, hon. T.	Somerville, sir M.
Lamb, hon. W.	Stanley, lord
Latouche, D.	Stanley, T.
Latouche, J.	Stewart, Jas.
Leach, J.	Symonds, T. P.
Lefevre, C. S.	Talbot, R. W.
Leigh, R. H.	Tarleton, B.
Lemon, sir W.	Taylor, W. M.
Lemon, J.	Taylor, M. A.
Lester, B. L.	Temple, earl
Lloyd, J. M.	Thornton, H.
Longman, G.	Thornton, R.
Macdonald, J.	Tierney, rt. hon. G.
M'Naghton, E. A.	Townsend, lord J.
Tracey, C. H.	Whitbread, S.
Turton, sir Tho.	Williams, O.
Vaughan, hon. J.	Wynn, C.
Vernon, G. V.	Wynn, sir W. W.
Walpole, hon. G.	Wrottesley, H.
Ward, hon. J. W.	Yarmouth, earl
Wharton, J.

proposed his first clause, which was to direct the Lord High Treasurer to issue certain sums for the payment of the officers of the Household; which clause was agreed to without a division.

The second required the Lord Keeper of the Privy Purse to take an oath every year before one of the Barons of the Exchequer, that no part of the annual sum of 60,000l. should be applied in any payments to any member of that House. This clause was also agreed to.

The Bill so amended was then reported to the House.

moved, that instead of the words "assisting his Majesty," should be inserted the words, "providing, for the exercise of the royal authority." He thought it was absurd to speak of assisting his Majesty in, the government at the present time.

said, that the Bill went throughout on the idea of assisting his Majesty in the government, which was to be carried on in his name. He therefore could not agree to the Amendment.

The proposed Amendment was then negatived.

then proposed as an Amendment, that before the words "resumption of his royal authority," the word "eventual" should be inserted.

This Amendment was also negatived.

also moved, that the word "mental" should be inserted before the word "health," which was also negatived.

rose to move an Amendment nearly similar to that which he had before moved in the Committee, at the same time that he wished that the Queen should have the complete controul over that part of the Household which was necessary for the comfort of the royal person, yet he wished that such a selection might be made from the Household, as to enable the Regent to appear with sufficient splendour without appointing separate officers for himself. He thought that those great officers of the Household who attended the Sovereign only on occasions of state, might very properly be transferred to the Regent and placed under his controul. He thought those offices ought not to be allowed to be mere sinecures, but that the officers should be obliged to perform those services to the Regent, which at present they cannot perform to the King. These officers were the Lord Chamberlain, the Groom of the Stole, the Steward of the Household, the Master of the Horse, and the Master of the Stag-hounds. Any duty which they could have to perform about the person of the Sovereign might be discharged as well by deputies under the controul of her Majesty. He was not afraid of giving the Regent the power of removing them. If, without any regard to delicacy, it could be supposed that they would immediately be removed, it could not be doubted but they would be immediately replaced on his Majesty's return to health. His lordship concluded by moving a long Amendment, which embraced the various points mentioned in his speech.

This Amendment was negatived.

, without any preface, moved an Amendment similar to that which he had proposed in the Committee; (see p. 884) and this Amendment was also negatived. After a few Verbal observations, the Bill was ordered to be read a third time to morrow, if engrossed.

Hansard

Volume 18: debated on Monday 21 January 1811

House of Commons

Committee on Public Expenditure

Sinecure Offices

Regency Bill