presented a Petition from the burgesses and inhabitants of Lewes, in Sussex, against the restrictions on the Regent. The members for the place being prevented from attending by sickness; and lord Francis Osborne being absent, it had come into his hands. Although it spoke of the conduct of the King's ministers in strong terms of indignation and reprobation, yet, as there was nothing in it disrespectful to the House, he thought there could be no objection to receive it.

The Petition was then read, setting forth,

"That the Petitioners have watched, with the most anxious attention, the proceedings instituted in the House on the subject of providing for the exercise of the royal authority during the continuance of his Majesty's melancholy illness; and that, most deeply impressed with the general unanimity of opinion that prevails amongst all classes of his Majesty's loyal subjects on the expediency of the office of Regent being filled by his royal highness the Prince of Wales, the petitioners beg leave to state to the House their humble doubts of the wisdom which could bring under discussion the abstract right of the two Houses to act upon this occasion, nor can they avoid noticing, after the facts to be found recorded in the Journals of the House during the last session of Parliament, that the alledged right of the House in this respect can scarcely be said to arise from the House including the full and free representation of the Commons of the realm; and that, disclaiming however all manner of offence to the House in the present mention of this topic, and far from wishing to agitate any question of right, they beg leave humbly to represent to the House, that it is a fundamental principle of the Constitution, avowed and acted upon by his royal highness the Prince of Wales himself, that the prerogatives and powers of the crown are vested in the crown as a trust for the benefit and happiness of the people, nor do the petitioners believe that, amongst any other people in the world, could such a suspension of the powers and prerogatives of the crown, as has taken place in this country during the last ten weeks, and such an insidious attempt, by a corrupt and incapable administration, to limit and restrain them during a much longer period, have occurred, without disturbing the public tranquillity, and possibly not without bringing real ultimate danger on the crown itself; and that they humbly conceive, if the powers and prerogatives of the crown are necessary at all, they ought to be in existence at all times nor can much less danger on behalf of the people be thought to result from seeing those powers and prerogatives divided, restricted, or usurp- ed, by the factious combination of any class of persons in the state, than from seeing great public abuses passed over unredressed, or any glaring defects in the representation unreformed; and that whilst they estimate too highly the affection and sense of duty of his royal highness the Prince of Wales to his Majesty and the people, to think him capable of wishing for power or even praise to the injury of his royal father, still they cannot suffer the character of a prince, upon whose public virtue they found so many cheering hopes, to be insinuated away by a string of distrustful and unnecessary restrictions on his means of providing for the public good, without offering to the House their humble representations on such a baneful attempt, nor without marking with their decided disapprobation the conduct of men, who in the course of such an attempt, are constantly putting forward the private virtues of his Majesty as a shield for their own public crimes and ill-conceived schemes of ambition; and that the evils which have already ensued from leaving the government of the country during a period of such unusual difficulty in the hands of such men, and more particularly their late daring and unconstitutional attempt to draw money from his Majesty's exchequer without the consent of the two Houses, dangerous and irregular even as that mode of proceeding is, have excited in the bosoms of the petitioners the most well-grounded alarms, lest any further delay should arise in providing for the exercise of the royal power; and though it may be now too late to hope that the House will deviate from their intended mode of proceeding by Bill, and adopt at once the more natural, the more constitutional, and the more efficient mode of proceeding by Address to his royal highness the Prince of Wales, requesting him to take upon himself the government of this realm, during the continuance of his Majesty's illness, free from all restrictions and limitations of any kind; nevertheless, they submit to the House their earnest prayer, that the Bill now pending in the House may be proceeded in for the sake of avoiding further difficulties with all possible and proper dispatch, and that provision be made in the said Bill, that all clauses of restriction on his royal highness the Prince of Wales, from exercising all regal powers, jurisdictions, and prerogatives to the crown and government belonging, if now impossible to be consistently avoided altogether, may be at least confined by the House to the shortest possible period proposed for their enactment."—Ordered to lie upon the table.

took notice of some inconsistency between the title and provisions of the Bill. The object was, as the title stated, to provide for the administration of the royal authority, whereas the preamble of the bill expressed the intention to be to assist his Majesty in the administration, &c. He therefore wished to amend the preamble. He also objected to the word "portion" in the Household clause, and proposed to leave it out.

stated shortly the grounds upon which he objected to the several provisions of this bill. He objected most strongly to the limitations, and disapproved of the plan of vesting in trustees 40,000l. out of the privy purse. He also objected to the extent of patronage given to the Queen. Notwithstanding the long discussions that had taken place, and the ability which had been displayed in these discussions, it did not appear to be thoroughly known to many in the House, he was sure the public did not know, the amount of the patronage to be vested in her Majesty. In the other House there were 25 Peers belonging to the King's Household, and four belonging to her Majesty's establishment; and among the Commons there were seven members belonging to the King's, and one belonging to the Queen's Household; all to be under the influence of her Majesty. The amount of their salaries was 30,000l. per annum, as had been admitted in 1789; and besides this, other patronage in the Household, to the extent of 70,000l. per annum, would be placed in the uncontrouled gift of her Majesty. The places, too, were of great value, some yielding 1,200, others 1,400, others 1,800l. per annum; and the whole number of places was 150. He could not think it constitutional to take away such an amount of patronage from the executive government; and believing the whole to be necessary for the government, he did not think it safe to withdraw so much, and to place it in hands where it might be turned against the Regent's administration. But even this was not the whole of the patronage of the Household; there was an expenditure of 210,000l. in the de- partments of the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord Steward, and Master of the Horse. It had been assumed, in Mr. Burke's Bill, that this was under the controul of the Treasury; but the Treasury only interfered where there happened to be an excessive issue for any departments; and it was doubtful whether even this controul was not at present removed. Such a patronage might be turned to mischievous purposes, he did not think it would; but they must legislate against possibilities, It was to the last degree improbable that the placing such powers in the hands of the Queen would be necessary to secure the restoration of the royal authority to his Majesty, but they legislated against the possibility, and this was as necessary in the case of the Queen as in that of the Regent. He objected to this for another reason, it removed the splendour of the crown from its proper situation. That splendour was useless around a sick bed, and ought to accompany the executive authority in the same manner as the controul over the army and navy. Besides, the Regent must have some establishment to support the pomp of the regal authority, and an additional expence of 100,000l. would probably be incurred for that purpose, which might have been saved if the chief part of his father's Household were to be given to the Regent. There would be no want of duty to the Sovereign in this, as a proper care of the monarchy must be consistent with his interest, and gratifying to his feelings.

complimented the just and able argument of the last speaker, and stated that he did not mean to go into the subject at length; but he protested against the delay which had taken place, against the mode of filling up the vacancy of the royal authority, and against many of the provisions in the Bill. He was the more anxious to declare his opinion on the general measure, as having voted for some modifications of these provisions, such as reducing the duration of the Restrictions, and preserving a greater portion of the Household for the Regent. But he still adhered to the opinion given by him on a former occasion, that there ought to have been no Restrictions at all. It had been recommended to pass this Bill on the precedent of 1789; but that precedent was itself of a novel nature, and contrary to all former precedent. It was founded on reasons of expediency; and if Restrictions were then expedient, he was sure that it was much more expedient now that there should be none. It was an established doctrine of the constitution that the crown could not dispense with an act of parliament without the consent of both Houses, and it was equally clear that the two Houses could not dispense with, nor suspend, any of the royal prerogatives without the assent of the King.

called the attention of the House to the clause respecting the Privy Purse. What he wished particularly to state, was, that neither in the Resolution submitted to his royal highness—nor in any part of the proceedings—nor in the opening speech of the right hon. gent.—nor in the communication made to the Prince, had any notice been given of this Clause, relative to the Privy Purse. In the original communication of the right hon. gent. to the Prince, nothing had been said about it, and consequently no answer could have been given on that point. The right hon. gent.'s letter referred merely to the general subject, without touching upon the Privy Purse, or the nature of the enquiry which it was designed to institute.—Mr. Adam then read the following passage of Mr. Perceval's letter to the Prince, dated 19 Dec.:—

"That such personal property of his Majesty as may not now be vested in trustees for his Majesty's use, should be vested in trustees, to be appointed by the Bill. That her Majesty, the Prince and certain other persons, should be the trustees, and that the trust should be subject to his Majesty's disposition by deed or will; and in the event of the demise, without will, his property should be subject to be distributed according to law."

Mr. Adam then stated, that these expressions could not be considered as having any reference to the Privy Purse; if they had, his Royal Highness the Prince, who felt most anxiously upon the delicacy due to his Majesty on that subject, would certainly have expressed himself upon it in his Answer; but on the perusal of the Answer, dated 20th December, it would be seen that nothing was to be found concerning it. The Prince's Answer, he stated to be as follows:—

"The Prince acknowledges the receipt of Mr. Perceval's detailed statement of those measures which Mr. Perceval informs him, his Majesty's confidential servants have decided to submit to the Lords and Commons now assembled, as the means of providing for the exercise of the royal authority, should the King's indisposition be unhappily protracted.—The Prince, though fully sensible of this early communication, cannot but in some degree feel embarrassed by it, in as much as it rests with him to judge; nor does he deem himself entitled to assume, how far the wisdom of the two Houses of Parliament may think it adviseable for the public welfare, to adopt the plan communicated by Mr. Perceval; were it not for this difficulty, the Prince would refer Mr. Perceval to the Prince's Answer to Mr. Pitt's Letter, on the 30th of December, 1788, that Letter containing the outlines of the plan intended then to be acted upon by his Majesty's confidential servants: But the Prince thinks it essential to observe that that communication was not made by Mr. Pitt till after the two Houses of Parliament had come to certain Resolutions, as the ground work of that plan. That Answer remains on record, and as the sentiments contained in it were founded on a solemn contemplation of the principles of the British constitution, as well as in an earnest desire to be able conscientiously to discharge the functions of government in behalf of his beloved and revered father and sovereign, in such a manner as might best satisfy his Majesty's well known and constant anxiety for the advantage and honour of his people, the Prince has only to declare, that those principles admit of no change.—The Prince cannot conclude without expressing his deep affliction at the melancholy event which has rendered this communication from Mr. Perceval necessary, and without declaring, that it will be the happiest moment of the Prince's life, to be enabled, by the restoration of his Majesty's health, instantly to deposit at his feet, those powers, and he trusts unimpaired, which the constitution has pronounced to be inseparable from the exercise of the royal authority."

Mr. Adam concluded by declaring, that he would oppose the clause respecting the Privy Purse, as he had done in 1789.

, after stating his disapprobation of several clauses, such as that with regard to peerages; particularly objected to the Household clause. It purported to be founded on the Resolution, to give a certain part of the Household to the Queen. He was aware, that those who wished that the Queen should have the whole of the Household, might very consistently vote, that as large a portion of it as possible should go to her Majesty, as it had been determined, that she should not have the whole. But, how they could assent to this clause, who had contended throughout, that a portion of the Household should go to the Regent, he was at a loss to conceive; and he certainly expected to have heard some reasons from the hon. member for Yorkshire, for his support of this clause. He had voted, that a portion should go to the Regent; but surely, when he did so, he could not have meant that the Prince was only to have the Captain of the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners, and the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guards. Mr. Giles then adverted to the bungling manner in which the clause was drawn, and objected to the word "portion." Besides, he did not clearly understand, whether the exceptions in favour of the Regent were individual exceptions, or exceptions of establishments; for instance, whether the exception of a Lord Chamberlain was an individual exception, or that of an establishment. He supposed, however, it was an individual exception, and then what became of the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guards, and the Captain of the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners? They too, must, according to the construction of the clause, be individual exceptions; and yet he presumed it was intended that the Regent should have these latter establishments altogether. The Bill next went on to enact, that the Office of Chamberlain to his Majesty should not be filled up, but that the duties should be discharged by the Vice Chamberlain, who would remain with the Queen. The House then refused to the Queen and Regent, the power of nominating a Chamberlain, yet it took upon itself to appoint a Chamberlain in fact though not in name. The Vice-Chamberlain was in fact the Chamberlain, and it was mere mockery to assert that there was any difference, except in the salary. The Vice-Chamberlain had the appointments in the establishment, in the same manner as the Lord Chamberlain would have had, and could dispose of them for life. This was a proof that the comfort and splendour of the King was not the principal object of the right hon. gent., but that it was part of the tactics of himself, and his majority, to create a parliamentary influence.

concurred in what had been said by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Adam) on the subject of the Privy Purse, and hoped the gentlemen on the other side would allow that the subject had not been brought distinctly to the notice of the Prince. He could not help adverting to the impropriety of naming a person holding a situation in the Prince's Household, as a member of their Secret Committee for enquiring into the state of the Privy Purse. But in his capacity of a member of the House merely, he had no hesitation in saying, that this secret inquiry was the most indelicate and indecent part of the whole of this indelicate and indecent transaction. The right hon. gent. had said a great deal about the feelings of his Majesty, but what would be his feelings when he found that there had been an inquiry into the state of his Privy Purse? The House had the right, and it was its duty, to watch over the expenditure of money granted for public purposes; but it ought to be the last to examine into the disposal of that which had been given to the King for his private use. The right hon. gent. had the other night done him the honour to bring forward some of his verses, and he was glad to find that they had been so long remembered, and that they had had the advantage of being repeated with such good emphasis (a laugh). He was only at a loss to conceive what application they had to the subject; but, however, he was only the more obliged to the right hon. gent. for introducing the verses when no human ingenuity could discover how they applied (hear! hear! and a laugh). As to his Majesty's feelings, they would be much more wounded by this inquiry, than by any other part of their proceedings. Necessity had compelled them to do some strong acts; they had set the Great Seal to a commission, and committed a sort of parliamentary burglary upon the King's Exchequer; but to investigate the Privy Purse was most indelicate and indecent. The disposal of the bounties might have been left to the Duke of York. He was sure that all the royal dukes must have felt exceedingly mortified at such an investigation. He, however, disclaimed any disrespect to the Committee, but did not think it becoming in him to attend it.

staged to the House the considerations which had influenced his conduct. In the proceedings of 1788, much jealousy had been excited on Mr. Pitt's proposing that a provision should be made to enable her Majesty to make certain payments, amounting in the whole to 16,000l. out of 60,000l. Knowing that there then had existed great jealousies on this subject, and having, on inquiry, found that without taking some such step, many important services might be left unrewarded, and many payments unmade, which would not only hurt the feelings of his Majesty, but the feelings of every one—knowing that such payments from the Privy Purse had been doubled since the period to which he alluded, he did imagine that great jealousies would have arisen, had he required a provision to be made for 2 or 3 and 30,000l. He did the right hon. gentleman opposite the justice to believe, that he would not have met such a proposition with any feeling of jealousy; but he thought it would have been so received by the House. Under these circumstances, he felt it to be his duty to weigh the evils attending the appointment of a Secret Committee, against the mischief that might arise from the suspension of such necessary payments, and comparing the wound likely to be inflicted in the one instance with the inconveniences likely to be experienced in the other, he had thought it his duty to move the appointment of the Secret Committee. He in forming the Committee, had been desirous of including in it the right hon. gentleman most immediately opposed to him in that House (Mr. Ponsonby,) the right hon. gentleman who had last spoken (Mr. Sheridan,) and his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Adam.) He had thought he best consulted delicacy in introducing those names, from a conviction that they would carry on the inquiry with the greatest possible delicacy. As a Member of the Committee, he felt himself justified in saying, that the inquiry had been conducted with the utmost regard to delicacy. No information had been sought which was not absolutely necessary, and the witnesses had even been cautioned against stating that which could be done without, and against naming any one unless such name were indispensibly requisite for the information of the Committee. The inquiry had been of the most general nature, and the report had been made with the same regard to delicacy. Had the King himself been present at the Committee, his feelings would not have been hurt at their inquiries, nor had any thing transpired which could occasion him uneasiness. From what had been stated, it by no means followed, that the sums mentioned were the whole, or any thing like the Whole of his Majesty's bounties, and consequently on that subject nothing could be said to be disclosed to the House or to the country that could give any idea of them. In reply to the other observations which had been thrown out, he had to observe, that the communication made to the Prince was made with a view to prevent giving offence. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. bart. opposite, he contended that the title and the preamble of the Bill were proper and appropriate. To the Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "such portion of" he had no objection. His right hon. friend (Mr. Johnstone) had left an impression on the House that there were twenty-five Lords in Parliament, officers of the Household; What-ever the number might be, they were not under the Queen's political influence, and it could not be proved that there were more than seventeen. He admitted that the clause respecting the Chamberlain was open to criticism. He had not perceived it till that day, and on perceiving it he had immediately prepared a clause to meet the evil, as it was inconsistent to enact that the Regent should make no appointments to last beyond the period of the duration of his power, while they left to a subordinate officer the means of granting places for life. He had prepared a clause to enact—"That it shall not be lawful for the Vice-Chamberlain to make any appointment for a longer period than during his Majesty's pleasure." His having so prepared this clause he hoped would prove, that it was not his only object to preserve influence for himself when his present situation should expire. For this, however, He did not suppose the hon. gentlemen opposite would give him any credit.—He hoped it would not be thought that he expected credit from that hon. gentleman in this instance, any more than he did on other occasions, where he thought his motives were equally clear.

said that he rose to answer the question which had been put to him by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Giles,) how he could reconcile his acceding to the Resolutions relative to the Household, with the support which he had since given to the provision in the Bill on that subject. He had distinctly stated, during the discussion of the desolations, that his great objection to the placing of the Household under the controul of the Queen was of a constitutional nature. He was averse to placing any part of the power of the crown in the hands of any individuals who might employ it against the executive. In the next place, he had objected to the granting the whole of the Household to her Majesty; but he wished at the same time that in all the provisions to be made, care should be taken to avoid every thing by which his Majesty's feelings might be affected, for whom he had always professed the utmost tenderness. The part of the Bill of 1789 which was the most exposed to objection was that in which so great a sum was given to the Queen's disposal; and his right hon. friend, now no more, (Mr. Pitt) entertained doubts of the propriety of this measure; but he resorted to it because he said he could not do otherwise, without introducing confusion in the Bill. He repeated, that his great objection to the vesting of so much power in the Queen was of a constitutional nature; he was averse to the placing of any great share of influence in the hands of any other person than the head of the government; but when his right hon. friend proposed that all the great officers should be irremoveable, he could not conceive that any objection longer remained to the measure. With regard to influence, if men were to be influenced by unworthy motives, he could not but conceive that they were more likely to be influenced from a desire to gratify the Regent, whom they knew would hereafter be their Sovereign, than from any advantages they could derive elsewhere. He wished, indeed, as little as possible to be taken from, the power of the Regent, but, at the same time, he wished to keep in view the feelings of her Majesty; and when he came into particulars, he thought it was not proper to break in upon his Majesty's feelings, by giving a little more or a little less than what might be strictly necessary. He had therefore objected to the giving the Regent the disposal of the Master of the Buck-hounds, for he thought that it would have looked as if they were wishing to curtail and squeeze his Majesty; that it would have looked as if they were envious of his Majesty's comforts. There was no saying what impression might be made on the feelings of his Majesty by such a consideration. It might be said, "surely this or that measure can never have any such effect," but he thought that it was necessary to make a stand somewhere. He would now repeat what he had already stated, that the great objection of a constitutional nature he considered as obviated by the measures of his right hon. friend. The inquiry into the expenditure of the Privy Purse had been strongly blamed. He could not but think that the wakeful jealousy of an hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) if he would allow him the appellation, would have taken the alarm had so great a sum as 30,000l. been disposed of without any examination. The oath that was to be taken was the same as that which was prescribed on a former occasion—that no part of the sum was to be expended for political purposes. A right hon. gent. (Mr. Sheridan) had stated his reasons for not attending the Committee; but if he was not there, or his learned friend (Mr. Adam), other friends of his were there; and when he said that this inquiry was the most indecent and indelicate measure he had ever known, he was rather severe on some of his own friends, who were members of that Committee.—On a question of this importance, it was hardly possible not to form different opinions, but he thought it but fair to state, that in his opinion and he believed in the opinion of the country at large, his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, throughout the whole of these proceedings, done himself immortal honour; and that from the talents and abilities he had shewn, and the delicate regard for the interest of his Sovereign which he had displayed, he had proved himself not only worthy of the high situation which he had the honour to fill, but deserving of the affection and confidence of the public at large—which affection and confidence he believed him to possess. (Hear! hear!)—The measure of 1789 was one which did the greatest honour to the memory of his illustrious friend; and to that measure his right hon. friend had made great improvements. He had freed it from the greatest objection to which it was liable, the vesting a power in hands that might turn it against the government. His right hon. friend had well stated, that the measure was not intended to be permanent, but for a short time, and all that had been said about his Majesty's feelings had been said upon that ground.—Before he sat down he would remark, that it appeared to him that all the objections which had been urged originated in the idea that the Prince had a claim of right to the Re- gency; all that had been urged for the proceeding by Address rather than Bill, had its origin there. It was the duty of the House to express themselves in such a manner as to remove all ground for such ideas in future. Upon the whole, he had no doubt, that when the present measure should be candidly examined, and calmly reviewed, his right hon. friend would receive that to which he was justly entitled—disinterested praise, and universal applause.

The Bill was then read a third time. The clause of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was added to the Bill by way of rider. Sir T. Turton's Amendment, for omitting the words "such portion of" was put and agreed to. An Amendment, proposed by Mr. Giles, for omitting certain words respecting the Vice-Chamberlain, was rejected. The Bill was then passed, and ordered to the Lords.