power of making peers, they had shut the door of the House of Lords against the people. They had put it out of their own power ever to correct their error, and had made the House of Lords the great, independent, and omnipotent branch of the legislature.

The clause was agreed to.

February 10.

THE House went again into a committee on the regency bill. The clause relative to the queen's council being read, Mr. Pitt proposed, that it should consist of the four principal officers of the household, the lord chamberlain, the lord steward, the master of the horse, and the groom of the stole, for the time being, and in addition to these, of four other persons; in selecting of whom, he was naturally led to make choice of those whom his majesty himself had placed at the head of the church and the law; and therefore he should propose the names of John Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, Edward Lord Thurlow, William Lord Archbishop of York, Lloyd Lord Kenyon. He meant that these four should be appointed counsellors by name, and not as officers filling, for the time being, the stations which they now held but the four officers of the household he proposed not by their own names, but the names of their offices. Mr. Powys wished to know in what manner, and to what extent responsibility attached to the council. Mr. Pitt answered, that no trust could be created in any means affecting the public interest, without public responsibility. According to every principle of the constitution, every trust appointed under government had responsibility attached to it when called upon by the country. Whatever advice the council should give to her majesty, they would become responsible for such advice. Mr. Bouverie wished to know, whether the queen could not act contrary to the opinion of her council, and if so, he conceived there could be no responsibility.

:

Mr. BURKE said, that certainly in the character of a subject, and still more particularly as upon the present occasion she became invested with an important trust, the queen was responsible. He agreed that no trust could be

given without responsibility; in the present instance, however, the principle was recognized and violated; for, though a responsibility was avowed, there were no traces by which that responsibility was to be found. In the clauses appointing the prince to the office of regent, the greatest was by oath; but in the queen's trust there was no oath, nor any trace of a trust; and though meant to stand apparently and avowedly as a trust, it was not guarded as if it were really so. This therefore was like what Macbeth

said of the witches,

"They keep the word of promise to the ear,

And break it to the hope."

It had been urged, that the reason for not proposing the princes of the blood was out of respect to them; a respect which was a perpetual disqualification, like the respect of the Epicureans for their gods. That respect was to put the princes of the blood out of the commonwealth, because they were the first persons in it. In the regency bill of George the Second was to be found the Duke of Cumberland, and yet, had the modern doctrine then prevailed, instead of suffering the duke to go and obtain a glorious victory over the rebels, the language would have been,“ Do not let him go, because he may be tried by a court martial for absence from duty, or some other criminal neglect." Mr. Burke mentioned other instances of princes of the blood having been entrusted with situations of the greatest responsibility, and of the present princes holding offices of trust and responsibility; and ridiculed the idea of any disrespect being offered in putting them into such situations; on the contrary, he considered it as an additional insult to the royal family, and as a gross disrespect to the king, that it was attempted to prevent the princes of the blood from being of the queen's council. He contended, that the bill was not calculated to shew respect to his majesty, but to manifest an interested regard for the house

of a faction. The framers of it had first proceeded to a violation of precedents, next to a violation of law, then to a violation of the constitution, and now they had arrived at a climax of violence; a violation of the law of nature. He deprecated the clause, as calculated to break the bonds of domestic union, to raise the servants above their masters, who were shut out and excommunicated, and to sow dissentions in the bosom of the royal family.

As soon as Mr. Pitt had moved the eight names regularly, and the committee had decided that those eight names should be the members of the council, Lord North moved, “That His Royal Highness the Duke of York and Albany be a member of the said council." After the motion had been supported by Lord Beauchamp and Lord Maitland, and opposed by Mr. Addington,

Mr. BURKE observed, that the committee had now got two principles laid down, and those as opposite to each other as light to darkness. The honourable gentleman who spoke last but one (Mr. Addington) had said, that the Duke of York ought not to be of the council, lest his too great zeal and filial affection should prompt him to pronounce the king well, previously to the re-establishment of his health; and the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer had said, the presumption was, that from the princes of the blood being interested, his majesty might not be restored to his government at the time of his recovery. Mr. Burke reasoned upon these contrasted disqualifications, and denied that they could both be founded. He said that gentlemen were fond of resorting to the dark and barbarous time of Henry the Sixth; a period before our constitution was formed. He would refer them to more modern times, to the regency bill of the fifth of the present king; a bill brought into parliament at the instance of the king himself. In that bill, the king was enabled to nominate a regent, but disabled from naming any but his Mr. Burke laid great stress on the wording of

successor.

that statute, and asked whether it was right to exclude all the sons of a father from having any share in the custody of his person? He was himself a father, and the noble lord was likewise a father. He appealed to the noble lord, and to all fathers, how they would feel, on recovering from a dangerous and severe malady, if they found that their sons had been debarred all share of the custody of their persons. For his part, he should regard that man as a murderer, who had so excluded his son. He exclaimed against the times; they were, he said, ignorant times, not barbarous, because he really thought there was enough of urbanity and softness of manners; but ignorant, because mankind in general now drew all their information from newspapers and magazines. The learning of this day was bad learning, which was the worst sort of ignorance. The right honourable gentleman had said, "Let us have members of the church, and guardians of the laws, of the council, and officers of the household." He knew not one of the persons in office, but he knew that the queen might change the household the next day, and then new persons would be her advisers.

The question was put, and the committee divided: Yeas 128: Noes 176.

February 11.

THE House again resolved itself into a committee on the regency bill. The twenty-sixth clause, providing for the resumption of the government by his majesty, being read, Mr. Pitt premised, that though the right of resumption did not depend on the votes of either House of parliament, yet, as a king of this country was not capable of doing any act of state by himself, but was obliged to make use of the medium of persons who should be responsible to the laws for such an act; so, in the present case, the bare consciousness of his majesty, that his incapacity was removed, ought not to be admitted, as a proof

the country, to satisfy the people of so desirable an event. It would not be reasonable that his majesty should be obliged to resort to the political servants of the regency, to desire that they should take the proper steps for restoring him to power; and the reason which induced him to think so was, that the servies of a government which was to be destroyed by such measures were certainly not the most fit to carry them into execution. His proposal then was, that as soon as it should spear to five out of the eight counsellors appointed to advise the queen, that his majesty's health was restored, they should

ray it under their hands to the political servants of the regen, who should be bound to record the instrument in the evenci books, and farther to notify it to the lord mayor of London, and afterwards to the public in the London Gazette. The king should then summon the attendance of a number of members of the privy council, either such as had been members of it before his indisposition, or should have been added to it by the regent: the number that he should propose to be summoned on this oscasion would be nine. These nine, sitting in council with his majesty, would have an opportunity of judging whether his incapacity was really removed or not; and should six of them be of opinion that it was, then a proclamation, signed by his majesty, and countersigned by these six privy counsellors, certifying the king's capacity, should immediately be published, and instantly all the power of the regent should cease and determine. These six persons should be responsible to the public for the opinion which they should thus give under their hands; and that responsibility would be the people's security, that the trust reposed in these persons would not be abused. Having premised this, he moved, that the blank left for the number of privy counsellors whom the king should summon be filled up with the word "nine." The proposition was strongly opposed by Mr. Powys, and supported by Mr. Dundas.

Mr. BURKE took notice of Mr. Dundas's speech, declaring a part of it to have been ingenious, a part of it dull, and a part of it replete with invective. The right honourable gentleman had talked of the wisdom of the regulation for the return of the king to the exercise of his royal authority, and his triumphant entry into executive