Mr. Frankland objected to the bill generally, and moved that the report be received this day six months. The opposition which ensued turned entirely upon the ordinary objections against change in the laws, and therefore need not be reported. On a division, the numbers for the original motion were 60; against it, 73. The bill was therefore thrown out by a majority of 13. Sir Samuel Romilly declared his intention of bringing it forward at a future period. CHAPTER CHAPTER II. Sir Francis Burdett's Motion for a Regency Bill. Parliamentary Proceedings respecting the Princess of Wales. ON N February 23d, a motion was brought forward in the House of Commons, by sir Francis Burdett, which, if not of present political importance, touched upon a curious and interesting point of the constitution, and appears to have made a more serious impression on the House than might at first have been expected. The hon. baronet, in his introductory speech, after premising that he regarded it as an imperious duty to call the attention of parliament to a subject of the greatest magnitude, said, that it appeared to him that violent encroachments had been made on the true principles of the constitution, by those measures which had been adopted in consequence of the unfortunate malady under which his majesty is labouring. The first of these was in 1788, when it had been determined that the heir apparent to the crown had no more right to the government of the nation than any other subject. The steps taken at this period were justified on the plea of necessity; but in his opinion there were two principles which governed the whole of this question: 1st, That the powers and preroga. tives annexed by the common law to the crown descend by hereditary succession, and not by election: 2ndly. That its powers are never suspended; for if the func tions of royalty were, for any time, to cease, one of the three branches of the constitution would be abrogated, and a dissolution of legal government would ensue. Both these principles, he thought were unnecessarily and unwarrantably departed from at the period referred to. In 1810 this mischievous precedent was followed; the usurpation was renewed, and a fiction was resorted to, creating a phantom of royalty, in order to elect and appoint an executive magistrate. As a further usurpation of power, restrictions were placed upon the person selected to possess some of the prerogatives of the crown, all of which were bestowed by the law for the benefit of the people. His object was, to prevent on future occasions this lawless assumption of authority, and to destroy that pretence of necessity, which in fact never existed, because many legal remedies remained. He did not mean to tie down the House to any distinct proposition, but simply to provide against any interruption in the exercise of the royal authority in the event of the death of the Prince Regent during the continuance of his Majesty's malady; he, however, did not hesitate to state, that in his view, it would be right to give to the regent powers as uncontroled as those belonging to the king himself. Further, he should propose that the powers now exercised by the Prince Regent, should, in case of the death or disability of his royal highness, be exercised by the heir to the crown, the princess Charlotte of Wales. He then anticipated, some objections that might possibly be made against vesting such a power in the princess, and also replied to the plea that might be urged against the necessity of such a regulation at present; and he concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to provide against any interruption of the exercise of the royal authority, in the event of the death of his royal highness the Prince Regent, during the continuance of his Majesty's malady." The motion was seconded by lord Cochrane. Mr. Bathurst highly approved of the open and candid manner in which the hon. baronet had submitted his motion to the House; but he brought arguments to prove that the consideration of such a topic was at present unnecessary, and that it might safely be left to the two Houses of Parliament to provide for such cases when they should occur. As to the right in the heir of the crown to exercise the royal authority in the event of an interruption of the regal func tions, that was a question which might now be considered as at rest, since no doubts had been raised concerning it during the progress of the last regency bill. Another objection to the motion was, that in his opinion it could not be received by the House unless it came recommended by the crown. On the whole, he saw many solid reasons for avoiding all discussion on the subject. Mr. Brand, in supporting the motion, gave his reasons for not concurring with the last speaker in either of the grounds he took for opposing it; its not coming recommended by the crown, and its being unnecessary. He could not believe that it was essential to have the recommendation of the crown before the House entered upon the discussion of a question of such vital importance to the state; and he thought that it was a point of great magnitude, and of commanding necessity. There was only one life between us and the recurrence of the former difficulty; and under such circumstances the bill ought undoubtedly to be received, and the remedy proposed by the hon. baronet, or some other, to be adopted. Lord A. Hamilton and Mr. Wynn spoke to the same purpose. The latter, however, thought that the more eligible mode of attaining the object would be, to refer the consideration of the question to a committee of the House. Mr. Ponsonby allowed, that such measures as that now proposed should generally proceed from the government; but there might be cases in which, if parliament was moved to the consideration of them, it was fully competent to determine them, even though government might be unwilling to offer the subject to its attention. The contingency itself did not appear to him so improbable as to some gentlemen, considering the state of his Majesty's bodily health, which rendered it not unlikely that he might live many years, though incapable of the functions of royalty. Should the event take place, such a bill as that proposed would remove many of the difficulties experienced in the former instances, and enable the government to put itself into a state of activity in a much shorter time. He should therefore vote in favour of the motion. Lord Castlereagh admitting that parliament had a right to enter into such considerations without a message from the crown, thought however, that it would not be prudent for them to expose themselves to a conflict with the crown on such a remote contingency. It appeared to him, that the hon. baronet's object was, to destroy the discretionary power of parliament upon the subject, and that he preferred the determination of the question on the hereditary principle. Whichever way it was determined, there was a balance of inconveniences: but the reason why it was better that it should rest in the discretion of parliament was, that this body felt it to be its first duty to take care that the royal power should be returned undiminished into the hands of its legitimate possessor, as soon as the incapacity of exercising it was removed; whereas upon the hereditary principle, the royal power being immediately and fully transferred to the regent, there was not the same security for its resump of reviving the animosities to which former discussions had given birth. After a reply from sir Francis Burdett to the objections to his motion stated by the members of ministry; in which he avowed that he should at all times prefer hereditary power, to contingent and purely accidental power placed in the hands of a few ministers, supported by such majorities as he had seen in that House; and urged upon the House the great constitutional importance of the question; a division took place, for the motion, 73; against it, 238: Majority, 165. In the parliamentary history of the last year, notice was taken of an effort made by some of the members of opposition to engage the House of Commons in a discussion respecting the situation of the princess of Wales, and in particular, to elicit from Mr. Perceval some information on a subject with which his former relations to that princess, had rendered him well acquainted. The attempt then failed; but in the present year the circumstances in which her royal highness was placed became a prominent topic in the debates of parliament, and interested the whole nation for a considerable period to an uncommon degree. A general account of the transactions on this subject will properly come under our head of Domestic Occurrences; but that part of them in which parliament was concernMr. Whitbread spoke in favoured must necessarily occupy a place of the motion, as thinking it the in the narrative of the proceedmost proper time for a parliamen- ings of that body. tary arrangement on the subject, now that party heats were so much allayed, that there was no danger tion. As early as February 24, the hon. CochraneJohnstone had given notice of an intention to submit a motion to the House of Commons relative to the proceedings ordered by his majesty to be instituted on the subject of the princess of Wales. Nothing, however, had been done in this matter, when, on March 2nd, the Speaker rose, and stated to the house that he had received on the preceding day, when seated in the chair of that House, a letter purporting to come from her royal highness the princess of Wales, which she desired to have communicated to the House. He did not, however, think that it came in a sufficiently authenticated form for such communication; but having since received a letter from the princess, acknowledging that yesterday's let ter was sent by her, he would, with the permission of the House, now read it. In the paper then read, her royal highness informs the Speaker, that she has received from Lord Sidmouth a copy of a report made to the Prince Regent by certain members of the privy council, to whom his royal highness had referred the consideration of documents and evidence relative to her character and conduct-that the report is of a nature to convey aspersions upon her, under which, from a regard to the illustrious houses with which she is connected by blood and marriage, she cannot for a moment acquiesce-that not having been permitted to know upon what evidence these persons proceeded, or whether they acted as a body to whom she can appeal for redress, or only in their individual capacity, she is compelled to throw herself upon the wisdom and justice of parliament, and to desire that the fullest investigation may VOL. LV. be instituted of her whole conduct during her residence in this country. (See State Papers). Apause ensued after the Speaker had read the letter, when, at length, Mr. Whitbread rose, and said, that he apprehended it was impossible that such a communication from so high a quarter could be passed over in silence. He had therefore waited till the noble lord opposite, a cabinet minister (lord Castlereagh), had, by taking his place, given an intimation that it was not his intention to make any proposition on the subject. And seeing no other member disposed to proceed in the business, he wished to ask the noble lord whether it was his design to call the further attention of the House to her royal highness's letter. Lord Castlereagh replied, that no person was more sensible than himself of the importance and delicacy of the subject, but that observing a notice for a motion to be made two days hence relative to the princess of Wales, he did not think it necessary at present to enter on a consideration of the transaction alluded to. Mr. Whitbread then inquired if the hon. member who had given the notice was in the House; and finding that he was not, he observed, that it might be expedient when he came, to inquire of him whether his motion was founded on any understanding with her royal highness. If it were not, it would be for the house to decide on the propriety of taking her royal highness's communication into their most serious consideration. Here the conversation ended. On March 4th the avenues of the House of Commons were [C] |