the Lords, una voce, declared that he was a true and loyal fubject to the King: they feemed to have forgot that scarcely a year had elapfed fince he had appeared in arms, and had attempted to make himself mafter of the capital at the head of 10,000 men; and notwithstanding this declaration, their Lordships could not be ignorant of the Duke's defigns upon the crown, which at that time had begun to develope themfelves.--The Houfe of Commons was in a ftill more disgraceful fubjection to the Duke. When they affembled, they found themselves without a Speaker; for Thorpe, their Speaker, was at that time confined by an execu tion for debt, in a caufe in which the Duke of York was plaintiff; it was for the removal of fome goods from Durham Houfe. The Commons humbly petitioned the Lords for redrefs. The cafe was referred to the Judges, who were of opinion, that except for treafon, felony, breach of the peace, or a confinement in confequence of a Parliamentary profecution, a Member of Parliament was intitled, by his privilege, to a discharge from arreft.-Though this opinion was in favour of the Speaker, ftill Thorpe was not discharged; the Duke of York was too powerful in the House of Lords; and the Bishop of Ely commanded the Commons to chufe another Speaker. Some time after, the King being somewhat recovered, Somerfet was released from the Tower, the Protector was difmiffed from his office, and a new minitry appointed; at the head of which was placed the Duke of Somerset. The Duke of York, not liking this measure, flew to arms; but with no other view, as he faid, than that of changing the minifters; and he changed them with a vengeance; for at the battle of St Alban's, fought foon after, and won by the Duke of York, the minifters to a man were flain; and the Duke was again rer ftored to the Protectorship.-From fuch times, faid Sir Grey, was the precedent drawn upon which fo much trefs was laid! But had it been drawn from the best of times, fill it was not applicable to the prefent cafe; for fure no man would fay, that had Henry VI. had a fon of full age, when his lethargic complaint fell upon him, the Duke of York would ever have been named Protector. The claims of a Prince of Wales to reprefent his father were very strong; in deed, a learned gentleman (the Attorney General) had admitted them to be fo ftrong, that they ought not to be refifted except on grounds that would juftify a bill of exclufion. Mr Martin declared, that, after the greatest attention to the business before the Houfe, it was his idea, that according to law, to precedents, and the conftitution, the right of fupplying the deficiency of the executive power during the prefent fufpenfion of it, refted with the two Houses of Parliament. He then deviated from the queftion into personalities. The Attorney General juftified the precedents from turbulent times, and quoted Juftice Forfter in his fupport. He faid, that fuch precedents were good as to the power of the two Houses, though they might not be as to their measures. He defied any man to fhew a fingle law ftating the right of the Prince of Wales to exercife the royal functions on the incapacity of the Sovereign. If gentlemen, he faid, would not agree with precedents formed in turbulent times, their arguments would go to prove that Magna Charta was no law, that having been alfo eftablished in times of the utmost turbulence. The best acts upon the statutebooks were made in the deteftable reign of Richard III. As to the claims of a Prince of Wales to the Regency, they were undoubtedly very strong, and ought not to be lightly fet afide: he did not fay that the grounds upon which they might be fet afide ought to be the fame as would warrant a bill of exclufion; but certainly he was of opinion that they ought to be very like the fame. Still he maintained, that as a Regent was an officer unknown to the common law, the Prince could have no legal claim to the Regency which he did not derive from Parliament, by whom alone a Regent had ever been made, except perhaps in the cafe of the Earl of Pembroke, whơ affumed the office of Regent, without the knowledge or confent of Parliament, in the minority of Henry III. Mr Wyndham contended, that the Prince had a right to the Regency; and he defied any gentleman to produce any law, precedent, or usage, to the contrary. He reprobated the precedents that had been produced, as contrary to the fpirit of the constitution, which in no inftance had countenanced the departure from the common rights of nature in the ap pointment of a Prince of Wales. There was was not one reafon that could be advanced for an hereditary Monarchy, that did not hold good for an hereditary Regency, Mr Hardinge infifted, that there never was a Regent that had been self-appoint ed, nor one that had pretended a right to affume that dignity, nor one that had enjoyed it who had not been fettered one way or other. The precedent of the Revolution had been much infifted on, and it had been ftrongly urged on a former day-" To go strait forward to the point, and immediately declare a Regent as your ancestors did a King." The cafes were by no means parallel. It had been faid, the House at that time had declared the throne vacant, and the Prince of Orange King, without entering into theoretical questions. So far from it, that one of the moft fubtile and theoretical queftions was then difcuffed, and decided, that ever was framed- a declaration respecting the right of William and Mary to be King and Queen jointly, with a definition of the feparate powers of each. The right of the two Houses to legislate had been queftioned—that Convention did legislate. Mr Hardinge read the copy of a resolution of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, refpecting King William and Queen Mary. After marking ftrongly the difference between the Revolution and the present cafe, Mr Hare dinge faid, gentlemen feemed to confound hereditary and elective right. It may probably be asked, Was the crown hereditary or elective? He would fay hereditary and it undoubtedly is fo: bat if the King upon the throne conduct ed himself in fuch a manner as to forfeit bis crown, it then became elective. And there the advantage to the Heir Apparent came round again; for where there was a defect in the exercise of the executive power, that House had a right to make provision for it; but they must not violate the Hereditary Right of the Crown. more upon its own intrinsic merit than upon any act. He declared, that he ne ver would give his confent to any refolution which gave the lie to their own act; firft, by declaring the King incapable of bufinefs, and then putting his name to a commiffion as if in full health. He laughed at the idea of commiffioning any one to put the great feal, as in the name of the King, to a deed which the King had never feen: this he called for. ging the Great Seal, and confequently cri minal in the eye of the law. As well might the two Houses order a new feal to be made, and make their commissioners and themselves perpetual. It was a pity, he said, that the Convention at the time of the Revolution did not cause the river Thames to be dragged for the great feal which King James had caused to be thrown into it: had they done fo, and found it, they might have faved themfelves a world of trouble about forms; they might have made themselves a regular Parliament, and carried on the government in the name of a King, without having an efficient King. Mr Dempfter faid, he thought the House had been wrong from the beginning, and he would propofe an aniendment to the fecond refolution, which he hoped would set all right again. He had drawn up his motion without confulting with any man upon earth, and he did not yet know whether there was a man in the Houfe would fecond it. To render the amendment plainly intelligible, we ftate the refolution at length :-That it is the opinion of this committee, "That it is the right and duty of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons of Great Britain now affembled, and lawfully, fully, and freely reprefenting all the eftates of the people of this realm, to provide the means of supplying the defect of the perfonal exercife of the Royal authority, arifing from his Majesty's faid indisposition, in fuch manner as the exiMr Anftruther entered into a long le- gency of the cafe may feem to require." gal argument, to prove the superior rights The amendment was first to leave out of the Heir Apparent to the Regency o- the words right and; next, to leave out ver every other fubject. He warned the the words, in fuch manner as the exicommittee against the measure of mifap- gency of the cafe may seem to require," plying the great feal. If fuch a measure and infert in their ftead the following: were once allowed, it would juftify them" By addreffing his Royal Highness the for ever to exercise the executive power, and thereby conftitute themselves into a Republic. He reprobated the precedents formed from turbulent times; but that reprobation did not, he said, deftroy the validity of Magna Charta, for that refted Prince of Wales, the Heir Apparent to This amendment, he faid, would re- ftore the third Eftate, and then the House might proceed regularly to pass bills, and propofe what limitations it thought proper to the Regent, who would have a power of affenting or diffenting; and there would be no neceffity for reforting to that expedient which could not be called either Whig or Tory, which was a nondefcript, a monster in the conftitutionHe meant the measure of ordering the great feal to be put to a commiffion for empowering a person to give the King's affent to bills which he had never feen. Mr Courtenay feconded the amendment, which was negatived without a divifion. Mr Dempster then propofed the other part of the amendment, which caufed a tedious and unimportant debate upon the propriety of its being put on the fecond or the third refolution. The fpeakers were, Mr Dempster, Mr Powys, Mr Pitt, Mr Fox, and Mr Burke. It was ended by Mr Dempfter's withdrawing it, for the purpose of putting it on the third refolution. The fecond refolution was then put, and carried without a divifion. The third and laft refolution being put, "That for this purpose, and for the maintaining entire the conftitutional authority of the King, it is neceffary that the faid Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons of Great Britain, fhould determine on the means whereby the Royal affent may be given in parliament to fuch bill as may be paffed by the two Houfes of Parliament refpecting the exercife of the powers and authorities of the crown, in the name and on the behalf of the King, during the continuance of his Majefty's prefent indifpofition," Mr Dempster rofe to move to leave out the words after the word "Parliament," and to infert in their ftead the words of his motion by way of amendment. A fhort converfation took place on this, which was interrupted by the Hon. Mr Marfham, who fuggefted the improprie ty of the Houfe proceeding in the prefent important business at fo late an hour as ten o'clock, and hoped they would agree to adjourn the debate. Mr Pitt, Mr Fox, Mr Martin, and Sir Peter Burrel, spoke upon the adjournment, and Mr Pitt having declared, that he was fo hoarfe, that he was afraid he could not be heard, it was at length agreed to by both fides of the Houfe; they adjourned at a quarter after ten o'clock to Monday next. 22. The order of the day being read on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for refuming the confideration of the third refolution of the committee on the ftate of the nation, and of the amendment proposed by Mr Dempfter, Mr Burke rofe, and entered fully into the subject of the refolution. He contended, when the two Houses were deprived of the aid and co-operation of the third branch, they were incompetent to the exercife of any one act of legiflation. -Being at prefent in this ftate, they were by no means juftified, as he conceived, in ufing the King's name to a commiffion for giving the Royal affent to a propofed bill. In the vacancy now exifting, the rules of hereditary right ought to be reverted to; that hereditary right which had been found an effectual bulwark against the encroachments of ambition, and the intrigues of cabal. The perfon who stood next in fucceffion, provided he were of full age, was as much intitled to the regency during the Sovereign's incapacity, as he was to the crown in cafe of a demife. If the royal affent was wanted, who had a right to give it during the King's inability, but the Heir-Apparent? Inftead, therefore of nominating a phantom of fovereignty, with black brows and a large wig, as a commiffioner, to give the royal affent, the two Houfes ought to addrefs the Prince of Wales to take the regal power upon him, and give the affent that was required. To give affent in his Majefty's name, by a commiffion, as if he were still capable of governing, would be a mean fraud, a low forgery, inconfiftent with the true maxims of the conftitution. If any fuch puppet, any fuch idol fhould be fet up, he would disclaim all allegiance to it. It ought to be a man, a living man, that should ftand in the plice of the monarch, not an idol erected by a state carpenter.-After dwelling on the impropriety of using the fiction of the King's name to the commiffion above referred to, he took notice of the propofal for limiting the authority of the future regent; a propofal for which one reafon affigned was, to prevent the effects of the ill advice to which his Royal Highness would be exposed from the party to whom he seemed at prefent attached. This idea of limitation would, in his opinion, be unjuftifiable and unmanly-it would be taking an an advantage of his Majefty's unfortu nate ftate, to attack and abridge the rights of his son, and favoured of a proscription which the Sylla of the day had meditated against the adverse party. Lord North maintained, that the two Houses without the third eftate of the realm, had not the fmalleft right to the privilege of legislation; and were there. fore utterly incompetent to perform that which was now propofed as the fubject of the third refolution. He stated his objections to this fcheme in a ftrong point of view. If the Lords and Commons, he faid, fhould procure the Royal affent to any bill, by having the great feal to a commiffion, they would themfelves represent the regal office. The commiffioner or commiffioners appointed by them would be used by them in a minifterial capacity, without right of difcretion; and would, in confequence, be very far from forming the third eftate, which alone could co-operate with the two others in enacting laws. The fupplying of the vacancy of the third branch in this mode, would be wholly inadequate to the purpose, and repugnant to the fpirit of the conftitution. There ought neceffarily to be three substantial branches of the legiflature to make any law-if any one, therefore, was inade quate and unfubftantial, as would manifeftly be the cafe with the commiffioners appointed by the two Houfes them felves, the refult of fuch a conjunction would be invalid. What would pafs for the three eftates would, in that cafe, be the Lords, the Commons, and a third branch, or rather phantom of a branch, created by them for the special purpose of enacting a law. He ftated, that in the cafe of the bill of rights, the two Houfes had only declared and prepared fuch a bill, but had no power to enact it, nor did they enact it till the third eftate was added. The fame line of conduct ought to be now pursued. They ought not to think of enacting any thing like a law, till they had fupplied, not with a mere tool or creature of their own, but with a fubftantial body, the vacancy in the executive department. His Lord hip, after a fhort panegyric on the prefent conduct of the Prince, concluded by obferving on the ungra cious appearance the proceedings of the House must have to his Highnefs, and by declaring himself for the amendment. Mr Fox replied to the arguments of Sir John Scott. He was very ftrenu ously for the forms of the conftitution, as long as thofe forms operated as guards and as bulwarks to the conftitution; but when they operated as deftructive to that they were meant to protect-to the fubftance of the conftitution, they then loft all his refpect, all his regard. In alluding to the precedents, and particularly to that of the infancy of Henry VI. he faid, he would, for the fake of argument, though he did not, in his opinion, confider that to be fimilar to the prefent unfortunate circumstance; if it was fo, it proved that the proper mode would be a commiffion under the great feal, to appoint the Prince to hold the Parliament for the King, and to use his difcretion in all parliamentary proceedings the fame as King, and not to give a blind, an implicit attent, to whatever might be agreed upon by the two Houses. Whether, he said, the precedent of Henry VI. was brought or not, he was confident, that though it might not make fully in fupport of his opinion, that it was fundamentally contrary to the mode propofed by the other fide of the House. He contended for the right of a regent, to have the full parliamentary powers of prorogation, diffolution, convening, and diffenting; for without the power of diffent, no affent could be obtained, and without that power, the monarch or regent would be a mere cypher. The precedents that were on the table, and the history of the country, as far as he had confidered it, all tended to establish two material points; the first of which was, that no one had been appointed to be regent, when an heir-apparent of full age was in the country, but fuch heir; and, fecondly, that fuch regent had never been appointed without the full powers of a fovereign with refpect to his parliament. He next adverted to the period of the Revolution, little of which, he said, was applicable to the prefent moment; he difcriminated between the applicable and inapplicable parts, and fhewed that the two Hopfes then affembled had never ventured to legislate, but had first proceeded to render complete the legislature, and when it was complete, brought in bills to quiet the minds of the people. To follow the applicable parts of the Revolution, he faid the Houfe fhould immediately address his Royal Highness to af fume fume the government for his father, and that then the legislature being complete, a bill might be brought in to quiet the minds of the people. He allowed, that any measure they could adopt must be informal: if, however, the mode of addreffing the Prince fhould be adopted, it would be an informality juftified by the neceffity; but, if the mode which has been propofed, of putting the great feal to a commiffion, fhould be adopted, it would be an informality unjuftified by neceffity; the firft mode would enable the Prince to hold the parliament in the King's name, and give immediate pow er and vigour to the proceedings of that Houfe; the other would render them a parliament miferably deficient and ineffective; it was a mode contrary to the vital fpirit of the conftitution, it was ap. pointing an intermediate regent, for which no precedent could be adduced, and which, in fact, deftroyed the conftitution, by erecting the two Houfes into the legislature. He conjured the Houfe, if they conceived reftrictions to be necessary, to let them be in the addrefs, and not to adopt a mode which would thake the corner-tone, and fap the foundation of the conftitution. He lamented that his indifpofition prevented him from going fo far into the question as he wished. Mr Pitt next rofe, and after saying that the present debate lay in a very narrow compass, he took a general review of the arguments of Mr Fox, and ftating the precedents of Henry VI. and of the Revolution, drew conclufions in favour of the power of the two Houfes to intruft with whom they pleased, on the fufpenfion of Royal authority, what portion might by them be deemed neceffary for carrying on the executive power with vigour. He justified the King's name being made ufe of without his confent, when that use was directed by the collected wisdom of parliament. He ridiculed the idea that the King's name could not be made ufe of without his confent, for, fays he, in whofe name will the regent act? If in his own name he dethrones the King, and if in the name of the King, he must exercise it without his confent. The House, he said, had refolved on their right, it was therefore their duty to proceed to fill up their deficiency with what powers they judged neceffary-they had the power then, and ought not to give up that power or any part of it. If a regent was appointed, it might be put out of their power to reftrain; they might be diffolved, or a great number of peers might be created to prevent those reftrictions taking place; they ought therefore to difcufs while they had the power of difcuffing. As to limitations, it might at least be a doubtful question with the majority of that Houle, whether for the public fafety they were to give all or but a part. The Rt Hon. Gentleman (Mr Fox) fays you are to limit what you do by the neceffity; you then have a right to put what powers you think proper into the hands of the regent-but you are defired to give all the powers, before you know whether it is your duty to give any. He confidered the true queftion to be, whether granting the full powers now, might not hereafter, when God fhould favour the country with his Majefty's recovery, be the means of diminishing the powers of the rightful poffeffor? Noticing what had been faid of the improbability of the Prince's refufing his affent when regent to any restriction that might be offered, he said, the House were to confider who might be the advisers of his Royal High. nefs, and whether they might not perfuade him to give his diffent to any reftrictions propofed; it would then be too late, and the power of the House to exercise their duty would be loft. He concluded with fome fevere sarcasms on the verfatility of Mr Fox, in deferting the principles he had fo long maintained. Mr Powys was against the resolution, and being doubtful of the amendment anfwering the defired effect, withdrew, and gave no vote. Mr Drake was against the refolution, and had doubts of the propriety of the amendment. Mr Sheridan contended, that the prefent queftion was directly connected with that of limitations. The Rt Hon. Gentleman's (Mr Pitt's) arguments went to prove, that if the House adopted the prefent refolution, that they would then be enabled, without the poffibility of difappointment, to make what reftrictions might be thought proper; but if they did not, that then the reftrictions they might with to have made, might be impoffible for them to carry into execution. The Noble Lord (North), he faid, had not merely faid, that it was not probable that his Royal Highnefs would on his being made regent diffolve the parliament, but that |