tingency arriving. In that case, it apdiscussed without any irritation, and without any revival of those angry feelings which had been so much deprecated, but drily as a simple constitutional question. If the contingency should really happen, then there would be a tenfold acrimony in the discussion; whereas the question might be now settled with the utmost temperance. Concurring entirely in the principle of the hon. baronet, he thought however there was a more eligible method of attaining his object, than that which he had chosen, namely, the referring the consideration of the question to a committee of the House. other times. There was only one life between us and the recurrence of the dif-peared to him that the subject might be ficulty; and under such circumstances the Bill ought undoubtedly to be received, and the remedy proposed by the hon. baronet, or some other remedy, ought to be adopted. It might perhaps be urged, that this would lead to discussions in regard to some other unfortunate circumstances connected with the royal family; but legislation ought not to be impeded merely because such discussions might accidentally be introduced. He was convinced, however, that the House would have too much delicacy, and too strong a sense of propriety to introduce such discussions without the most unavoidable necessity. Upon the whole, the right hon. gentleman had stated no good reason against the proposed measure, which should have his most cordial support. Lord A. Hamilton could not conceive how those who had defended the Regency restrictions on the ground of necessity, could possibly oppose the present motion, the object of which was, to prevent the recurrence of such necessity; a necessity, of which he could not sufficiently deprecate the recurrence, when he called to mind, that at one period during the indisposition of his Majesty, ministers had actually exercised the functions of the executive in all their plenitude: for it ought never to be forgotten, that in 1804 circumstances did arise which made it more than suspicious, that publicity was not given to the real circumstances of his Majesty's indisposition, and that ministers did then contrive some way or other to exercise the royal authority, at a time when his Majesty's state of health rendered him quite incompetent to the discharge of the functions of royalty. Mr. Wynn agreed with an hon. gentleman, that if a message should come down from the crown, for the purpose of settling the question of Regency in future, it would be the most regular and graceful way for parliament to proceed upon the subject. At the same time, it must be recollected, that parliament had at different times proceeded to alter the succession of the crown, and sometimes without any meşsage. Those great men who passed the celebrated Exclusion Biil, did not wait for a message from the crown upon the subject. It was most clearly within the power of parliament, to originate the question themselves. It was said, that there was no great probability of the con Mr. Ponsonby said, that although the question might have come better from the ministers of the crown, yet as the bon. baronet had thought proper to bring it forward to the consideration of the House, he wished, before he gave his vote in favour of it, to explain, in a very few words, the reason of his so doing. He allowed that such measures as the one now proposed, should generally proceed from the government; but there might be cases, where, if parliament was moved to the consideration of them, it was fully competent to them to determine them, even although government might be unwilling to invite their attention to the subject. As to the contingency itself, it did not appear to him so improbable as it seemed to some gentlemen; for all knew, that although his Majesty was afflicted with a severe mental malady, which made him incapable of exercising the functions of royalty, yet that he enjoyed as sound health as any man of his age, and that there was a great probability of his living for many years. If that was the case, there only stood one life between us and all the difficulties which had been experienced on two former occasions. Supposing that event to take place, he thought that it would be too much for any member to expect, that his individual arguments would be able to induce parliament to act differently from the mode they had adopted on the two former occasions. He supposed, that in such a case, parliament would act according to the precedents then laid down. The proposition of the hon. baronet, which was now under their consideration, was not for determining the quantity of power to be given to a future Regent, nor for declaring who should be that Regent it was merely a motion for leave to bring in a Bill to provide against any interruption of the royal authority, in the case of the contingency taking place which was stated. Now it appeared to him, that if this motion was granted, and the Bill brought in, parliament would have it in its power, without departing from the principles established in the former instances, to make such provisions as would (should the case occur) remove a great deal of the difficulties which were experienced in the former instances, and enable the government to put itself into activity in a much shorter space of time. As he thought that this good might arise from allowing the hon. baronet to bring in his Bill, he should vote in favour of the motion. Lord Castlereagh trusted that he should be able to shew, that there was not a sufficient necessity to induce the prudence of the House to agree to the motion before them. He allowed that the hon. baronet had brought the subject forward with great candour and fairness. The hon. baronet, however, who had been induced by his constitutional view of the subject to bring forward the present motion, appeared to him to be more anxious to destroy the authority of the parliamentary proceedings in the two former instances, than to provide for the contingency he had stated. He appeared to think it of the greatest importance, to rebut and subvert all the principles which the House had laid down upon that subject; and to get rid of what he considered a pernicious precedent. For his part, he had a view of the subject directly opposite. He thought that it was a benefit, and a blessing to the country, that the great constitutional difficulties which attended this subject had been removed, and the point settled on the fullest discussion, which was afterwards revised upon the late occasion; and in which the greatest legal and constitutional learning had been displayed. He considered that those precedents would be a great protection to the country, hereafter, from similar difficulties. He allowed that parliament had a right to enter into such considerations without a message from the crown; but it was always for their prudence to consider, whether they should expose themselves to a conflict with the crown upon the point? In any thing respecting money, all conflict with the crown was prevented by the necessity of the crown proposing or previously consenting to the grant. In com(VOL. XXIV.) mon legislative measures this was not necessary; but it was obvious that there was no description of questions more likely to involve the House in a conflict with the crown, than a question which touched the crown so nearly. The contingency which was mentioned, appeared to him to be so very remote a one, that he thought the hon. baronet, upon his own principles, should rather have proposed a permanent Regency Bill, applicable to all cases, than have confined himself to this particular contingency. It appeared to him, however, that what the hon. baronet wanted, was to destroy the discretionary power of parliament upon the subject; and that he preferred the question being determined on the hereditary principle, than by the discretion of parliament. In determining upon which principle the question should be decided, there was certainly a balance of inconveniencies. But the reason why it was better that it should rest in the discretion of parliament, was, that parliament felt it its first duty, to take care that the royal power should be restored undiminished into the hands to which it legitimately belonged, as soon as the sovereign was again capable of exercising his royal functions: whereas, upon the hereditary principle, the royal power being fully and immediately transferred to the Regent, there was not the same security for the resumption of it by the sovereign, when the temporary cause which suspended his personal exercise of it was removed. The noble lord conceived, that the contingency was not sufficiently probable to justify parliament, in the exercise of its prudence and discretion, in adopting the proposition of the hon. baronet, for which reason he should certainly give it a decided negative. Mr. Whitbread declared, that he should be sorry to allow the question to go to a vote, without saying a few words upon it. On the former discussions relative to the Regency, a party in that House contended, that the proper mode of proceeding would be to address the heir apparent, to take the executive authority into his own hands. Parliament however decided, that the Regency should be constituted by Bill. Now, what was the proposition of the hon. baronet? Not that, in the event of the death of the Prince Regent, the Regency should devolve on the Princess Charlotte, but that a Bill should be introduced, to enable parliament to provide for an event, the contingency of which was (3 A) tary arrangement on the subject; for party heats were so allayed, that there would be no danger of reviving those animosities to which former discussions had given birth. Of this, the temperate tone of the debate of that evening afforded a practical proof. Unquestionably the death of the Prince Regent before that of his Majesty was not a very probable event. But that it was a very possible event every ample evidence. If such an event should occur, in what a situation would the country be placed! The Princess Charlotte was competently qualified both by age and by talents to assume the royal authority; and yet parliament must go through certain forms before they could confer on her that which unquestionably they would confer on her-the unrestricted Regency; for the restrictions originally in the contemplation of an event now hopeless-the recovery of his Majesty. On these grounds he felt the utmost satisfaction in supporting the motion of the hon. baronet, persuaded as he was that he could not better fulfil his duty than by doing so. not very great, although it was not so small as the noble lord, for the benefit of his argument, had represented it to be. What had been the state of the country since 1788, in consequence of what he conceived to be the dilatory and improper conduct of the legislature, in not providing against contingencies of this nature? And yet the hon. baronet's proposition tended not to bind the legislature to any particular measure, but to leave the sub-day's experience in common life gave ject freely open to discussion and deliberate arrangement. In 1788, his Majesty was afflicted with a malady which continued so long that a Regency Bill passed the House of Commons, and was in progress through the Upper House. Many were then of opinion that some distinct proceeding should be adopted; but the delicacy of the royal advisers restrained them from advising his Majesty to send a message down to parliament on the sub-imposed on the Regent were imposed only ject. In 1804, his Majesty had a relapse of his indisposition. On that occasion, ministers thought proper, the King being in a state in which private persons would not be permitted to manage their private affairs, to carry on (the noble lord, who spoke last, being one, and the Lord Chancellor another of those ministers) the business of government under the mask of the royal authority. In 1810, his Majesty became again afflicted. The House well recollected the angry discussions that had taken place in parliament. The House recollected that the Prince of Wales thought that the indignity with which he had been treated by the servants of the crown, equal to that which he had experienced in 1788. Hopes were, from time to time, held out of the recovery of his Majesty. In the mean time the executive authority remained in abeyance. And in the subsequent discussions the greatest inconvenience was sustained in consequence of no kind of provision having been made on the subject after the occurrences of 1788. In 1811 he had taken the liberty to bring these circumstances under the consideration of the House. He had stated what he conceived to have been remissness on the part of the servants of the crown, and had proposed the appoint-just. ment of a committee to provide against the recurrence of such serious inconveniences. The House had thought proper to negative that proposition. From that day no proceeding whatever had been adopted. This however appeared to be the precise moment for some parliamen Sir Francis Burdett rose to reply, amid a loud call for the question. He was glad to find, notwithstanding the opposition his motion had experienced, that it was met from the other side by a direct negative, a mode certainly more manly than by the previous question. One right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) seemed desirous to leave things to themselves; and whilst he avoided the consideration of the question in a constitutional way, he argued that sufficient unto the day was the evil thereof. The noble lord, on the other hand, justified his objections by the necessity of the case, which called for the interposition and discretion of parliament. If, indeed, the noble lord thought the great seal sufficient to fill up the void caused in the exercise of the kingly power, if he thought the majorities of the two Houses sufficient to supply the want of the monarch's rights and prerogative,-then he would readily admit that the noble lord's objections were For his own part, he wished to see the crown surrounded and strengthened with all legitimate properties and authority; and it was that wish, and that wish only, as connected in its necessary results with the benefit and happiness of the subject, that influenced him to submit to the House the present motion. He had tried Chaloner, R. every avenue, he had explored every ties as he had seen in that House. The introduced into the discussion. The House then divided, when there sir R. D. Lester, B. HOUSE OF COMMONS. PETITIONS RESPECTING THE CLAIMS OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS.] Petitions against the claims of the Roman Catholics were presented from the archdeacons of Durham, and Northumberland, the clergy, &c. of Wallingford, the Protestant noblemen, &c. of Roscommon, the Protestant dissenters of Exeter, the clergy of Whalley, the mayor, &c. of Stamford, the Protestant noblemen, &c. of Tipperary, the lord mayor and corporation of Dublin, the Protestant inhabitants of Lisburn, the Protestant noblemen, &c. of Kilkenny, the French Protestant Refugees, the inhabitants of St. Mary-le-bonne, the Protestant inhabitants of King's county, the Protestant noblemen, &c. of Limerick, the archdeacon and clergy of Coventry, the nobi lity, &c. of Kent, the freeholders and inhabitants of Dublin, the grand jury of Dublin, the clergy and archdeacon of Derby, and of Nottingham, and the gentlemen, &c. of Wilts. Petitions in favour of the Claims of the Roman Catholics were presented from Berwick upon Tweed, Chichester, Tippe, rary, and Flint. On presenting the Petition from the Protestant noblemen, &c. of Tipperary, 1 Colonel Bagwell said, that in doing so, he had to state, that although it was not so worded as to preclude any indulgences being granted to the Catholics, yet it prayed, in case of any concessions being granted, guards would be imposed effectually to protect the Protestant establish ment. General Mathew denied that the Petition presented by the hon. gentleman could with propriety be termed a petition from the Protestant freeholders of the county of Tipperary, there not having been any meeting convened for the purpose of taking the sense of the Protestant freeholders in a regular manner; that was, by the sheriff, or two or more magistrates, according to established custom. He objected to the Petition on the same grounds as those on which the Stafford Petition had been so properly objected to from the Chair, namely, that it had not been read, or bona fide signed, by a great number of the persons whose names were affixed to it. Of four noblemen whose signatures were affixed to it, one was now in the House; and it was for him to say, that his had been affixed by himself. Of the other three, namely, lord Doneraile, lord Carrick, and lord Desart, he could take upon him to state, that they had not signed, but had given their assent to the affixing their signatures by letter. He now held in his band a Petition of a very different nature -one which really spoke the sentiments of the Protestant freeholders of the county of Tipperary-not a smuggled Petition, like that presented by the hon. gentleman; and the prayer of which was, that his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland should be admitted to participate fully in the benefits of the constitution, without any restriction or condition whatsoever being imposed on them, on account of their religious tenets. Colonel Bagwell said, that he certainly was not in the county at the time the Petition was signed, whereas the hon. general was, and therefore, had a better opportunity than he had of knowing in what manner the proceedings with respect to the Petition had been conducted; but while he gave the hon. general the advantage over him, which his confession of ignorance would afford, he could never conceive that those proceedings were such as would justify the harsh language which had been applied to them. If the gallant general would but take the trouble of inspecting the list of names attached to the | Petition, among which were those of many persons of high respectability known to him, he would, he was satisfied, willingly acknowledge, that these would not bind themselves to any proceedings which could deserve to be termed smuggling: among them were no fewer than fifty magistrates. And of the whole number who had signed, that was to say, 3000, here was not one but was a Protestant freeholder, and not one marksman, that was, a man who had his name signed by another, and affixed his mark to it, among them. As to what the hon. general had said, with respect to signatures of but four peers being affixed to the Petition, he was obliged to avow, that such was the fact. With respect to the grounds upon which the Petition was preferred, he would now beg to say a few words. These were chiefly the alarm and disgust which had arisen from the tone of certain speeches that had, on recent occasions, been addressed to the Catholics, by persons calling themselves their advocates; and among them the speech of the hon. general himself, were particularly conspicuous. The hon. general had saved him the trouble of minutely describing them to the House, inasmuch as he had declared, that, as soon as an opportunity occurred, be would repeat them in the House, flinging them in the teeth of the minister. But some expressions, which he considered as of a most peculiarly dangerous tendency, he could not forbear repeating in anticipation of the hon. general's promise. He had, in presence of an immense concourse of people, desired the Catholics to discontinue their petitions to the throne for the recovery of their just rights, and, substituting requisition for petition, to go boldly and demand their rights, and insist upon their restitution, adding, "that if they wanted a leader, he would be that leader, and if necessary, cheerfully shed his blood in their cause." He lamented the intem-. perance of the advocates of the Roman Catholics, and of none among them, more than the hon. general, calculated as it was to injure rather than serve them. General Mathew admitted that he had gone too far in saying the Petition was smuggled; but stated, that he had, nevertheless, no doubt that the proceedings connected with it were altogether clandestine. He and his colleague, whom he did not now see in his place, had made the tour of the county, at the time the business was in agitation; but he was not able to |