Norris Bertie then spoke against the whole Bill, thinking penal laws dangerous in the hands of ten subjects equal to himself, and that he was serving his country while he delayed the Bill even by speaking. Sir John Barnard declared against appointing a Council, and affirmed that the consideration of the person intended for Regent ought to have weight in the Debate, though the contrary was asserted; that while she was controlled, we should have no kingly authority; the more preposterous, as he could foresee no inconveniences from the Princess’s enjoying it; that the nation might want some of its great officers, unless she should always name such persons as should be agreeable to the junto, who would have means of inducing the Parliament to pass Acts disagreeable to her, at the same time, that without them she would not have power to dissolve or prorogue it. He concluded with desiring it should be known that he was utterly against the Council. Harding, a sensible knowing man, but who having been many years clerk to the House, was not well received as a speaker, said, “that the mischiefs of former Regencies arose from a neglect of proper restrictions; and he quoted Chancellor Oxenstiern, who, on the death of Gustavus Adolphus, had given his advice to the senate of Sweden to compose a mixed Regency, but not to appoint a sole Regent, or a Council of Regency without a Regent. He added, that in his opinion even the Duke might be removed from the Council.” This frank delivery of his sentiments was the more honest, as he was actually the Duke’s Attorney.
Nugent made a bombast speech about an angel; and then Lord Cobham (the only one of the cousin-hood who could not be turned out, having no place; Lyttelton and George Grenville had both without doors, like him) declared against the Council. He said, “He could not figure a weaker government than what they were chalking out; and as if there were not factions enough in the legislative power, they were laying a foundation for as many in the executive, and were destroying a Bill, which, if the Council clause were omitted, would be the most popular that ever was passed; that he had come to the House resolving to acquiesce even in this, as he thought it would be happy if it were universally assented to; but when others had made objections, he could not suppress his, which was to the Council, not to the continuance of the Parliament; that the House of Commons might perhaps address the Regent to remove some of the Council, while the House of Lords might vote an approbation of the same persons; at the same time that the Parliament could not be dissolved but by an irremovable Council, the usual way of putting a stop to differences between the two Houses. He then turned absurdly to an apology for himself, as people do who are fearful or conscious, and hoped his behaviour was free from reproach; that he did not like cutting the Government out into sippets; but desired to be understood to have a good opinion of some, of many that were to compose the Council; and hoped that those (he approved) would never be removed from her Royal Highness’s ear; at the same time he believed that those who brought in the Bill did not foresee all the power of the Council; nor would he himself consent to the prolongation of the Parliament, if he thought it was calculated for bad purposes.”
Lord Cobham[119] was the absolute creature of Pitt; vehement in whatever faction he was engaged, and as mischievous as his understanding would let him be, which is not saying he was very bad. He had kept less measures with Mr. Pelham than any of his connexion, and had not spoke to him above once for the last six months. He was more a gentleman than his brother George[120], who was a pedant in politics, but less deceitful. James[121], the youngest of the three, had all the defects of his brothers, and had turned them to the best account. All of them were troubled with a redundancy of words peculiar to their family, though without the energy of Pitt’s language, or the hyperbole of Lyttelton’s.
Martin spoke for the clause, and said, “the King could not have a separate interest from his people, the Princess might; witness Queen Isabella and her[122] minion Mortimer: that if this precedent were established, it could not hereafter be set aside, if the young King’s mother should happen to be a bad woman; and that, if the conduct of the Princess were a foundation for entrusting her with the sole power, it was so amiable and estimable, that the argument would go to giving her absolute power.” Sir John Cotton disapproved of the latitude given to the King, of naming four persons to be of the Council by a testamentary disposition, and of whom the House could know nothing. Pitt declared he had no objection to the Council, as he could find no traces of a Regent without control; and then (as if all mankind had forgot his ingratitude to the Prince, as he had his obligations to him) he pronounced the present case doubly aggravated by the loss of the most patriot Prince that ever lived, to whom he had such infinite obligations, and such early attachments, which he was proud to transfer to his family. Then turning to the King, whom he regarded with wonder for exerting a fortitude which Edward the Third had not been master of, he blessed the Crown when it was the first to lessen the royal authority, as it had been in the present case, by pointing out these limitations, so expedient, as dangers were to be foreseen from abroad—from at home, if we considered the great person who might have become sole Regent. What a precedent would that have been for futurity, if hereafter any ambitious person should think less of protecting the Crown than of wearing it! With regard to the Princess, the limitations were of no consequence, for let her but hint to Parliament at any improper negative given by the Council to her recommendation, an address would immediately be offered to her to remove them. He desired, if that event should ever happen, to be put in mind of what he now said, and he would second the Motion.
Fox replied, “that it was an absurd notion not to give the Princess the whole power of royalty, because she was not called Queen; and he hoped that the nation was not only safe from the characters of the persons who were to compose the Council, but from the constitution; and if that, and the laws already in force, were not sufficient to circumscribe the Regent, our liberties would not be safe; that if those laws would not be efficient under a Regent, how are they so under a King? That as to the precedents that had been alleged, they were urged ridiculously; must this be assented to because it was so in the days of Harry the Third, when the constitution was totally unlike what it is now? Half of the Regency nominated by Henry the Eighth were Papists, half Protestants; was that disposition preferable to a single Regent? No; it was formed for dissension; nor is there one reason to be drawn from precedent, or from the nature of our constitution. Should we follow the example of the Barons? The only reason to imitate them would be, that the times are unlike. Oxenstiern’s advice too is totally unapplicable: not,” continued he, “that I believe the Council will obstruct the Regent’s measures; I believe they will assist her: but if they should not, whoever should advise her to make a speech to Parliament to accuse her Ministers, would be guilty of a præmunire.” Pitt answered, “That the tendency of such a speech would not be to alter the plan of Regency, but to check a faction; that what he had said regarded the clause of non-amotion; and that he was of Mr. Fox’s opinion, who must have mistaken all his speech, or he all Fox’s, though the latter had said that he would not be included as agreeing for his reasons. That in any case he should not be for lodging power where there may be a temptation to prolong it.” Fox replied again, “That a Regent could not be more dangerous than a King; and imagined that Pitt had meant that the Regent’s speech should be intended to prevail on the Parliament to address her to alter the whole tenour of the Bill.” The House grew tired of their altercations, and more of General Oglethorpe, who spoke after them; and divided between nine and ten at night, when the Council clause was voted by 278 to 90; and then they adjourned the further consideration of the Bill till next day.
17th.—The Committee on the Regency Bill was resumed. Lord Strange asked, if being nominated to the Council of Regency would vacate a seat in Parliament. T. Pitt proposed to leave out such words as precluded the Princess from disposing of offices. Old Horace Walpole ridiculed the Speaker, and was glad that with all his pomp and protestations he had no more influence. He was proceeding to preach up more regard to the King’s Message, but was called to order by T. Pitt and Lord Strange, who objected to making such use of the King’s name in a Debate. Prowse said, “he would appeal to that great treaty-maker, whether it was proper that fourteen persons should be entrusted with all the steps of a negotiation? That for the nomination of Bishops and Judges, he thought it a trifle; but disapproved extremely of the Council having any power to dispose of the Treasury, which with so great an army of revenue-men might be dangerous, if in the opposite scale to the Crown.” Horace Walpole replied, “That some had carried it so much beyond him, as to be willing to trust the secret of treaties to seven hundred persons.”
Horace Walpole[123] was still one of the busiest men in Parliament; generally bustling for the Ministry to get a Peerage, and even zealous for them when he could not get so much as their thanks. With the King he had long been in disgrace, on disputing a point of German genealogy with him (in which his Majesty’s chief strength lay) whose the succession of some Principality would be, if eleven or twelve persons then living should die without issue. He knew something of everything but how to hold his tongue, or how to apply his knowledge. As interest was in all his actions, treaties were in all his speeches. Whatever the subject was, he never lost sight of the peace of Utrecht, Lord Bolingbroke, and the Norwich manufactures; but his language and oratory were only adapted to manufacturers. He was a dead weight on his brother’s Ministry; the first to take off that load on his brother’s fall;[124] yet nobody so intemperately abusive on all who connected with his brother’s enemies; nobody so ready to connect with them for the least flattery,[125] which he loved next to money—indeed he never entirely forgave Lord Bath for being richer. His mind was a strange mixture of sense alloyed by absurdity, wit by mimicry, knowledge by buffoonery, bravery by meanness, honesty by selfishness, impertinence by nothing. * * * *
Sydenham, as an old Tory, spoke for the undiminished prerogative, quoted Greek, and said that subjects had never before attempted to make Peers; and that the commissions of Judges determine at the King’s death. Robinson urged that the House can only be adjourned by itself; but Sir William Yonge gave him precedents to the contrary; particularly, that the two first sessions of the late King’s first Parliament had been adjourned by the Crown; and that nobody is at liberty to speak after the Crown has sent a Message for adjournment. Sir John Cotton asked, if the Crown had the power of adjournment, seeing the method is to send to desire the House would adjourn itself? T. Pitt (who the last summer had held a tin Parliament in Cornwall, had been baffled by an opposition erected by the Boscawens, under the auspices of the Ministry) was obliged from his own case to argue for the prerogative, and said, “That during his holding that Parliament he had searched for precedents, and had found that the Crown could adjourn even by proclamation, or by a message from the Secretary of State.” Robinson acquiesced, but observed, “That there is no possibility of suspending the power of the legislature; that if the Regent can repeal this Act, she may repeal the three that by this she is excepted from the power of repealing.” The Solicitor-General answered, “That it is only a direction to her not to give her consent to the repeal of the three Acts, though, if she should, it would be valid.”
The clause for continuing the sitting Parliament to the end of the minority, was then read. Lord Limerick, with as much zeal as if he too had lately held a tin Parliament, made a panegyric on the two Georges, and on the blessings which the people had enjoyed under them without tasting them;[126] and hoped the nation would be in such profound tranquillity as not to need the prolongation of the Parliament; and that the Ministers then will not act by half measures, and by expedients from day to day; and in confidence that they will dissolve the Parliament as soon as they may with safety, he made a motion of amendment to the clause, that it may be the last dissolved Parliament that shall assemble on the King’s death, if another, though chosen, shall not have met and sat. Lord Strange approved the Motion, except that he liked just the reverse of it; and would have established the newly elected Parliament. Dr. Lee answered, “That the act of Queen Anne on a parallel case, prefers the old Parliament:” and Gybbon assigned the reason, because there may arise Debates on the new Speaker and double returns.
Mr. Fox asked, “If the prolonged Parliament is not to dissolve of course as soon as the minor King comes of age?” The Attorney-General replied, “The general law of the land will then operate for its dissolution.” But Henley said, “That, as the new elect might be composed of ignorant persons, he wished the prolonged Parliament were to last six months after the commencement of the majority, that the young King might have the same benefit from that act that an older Prince would have!” Sir William Yonge approved this opinion, and said, he remembered that on the late King’s accession, instead of attending the business of the House, every body ran out of town to secure their re-elections. The Solicitor-General replied, “That as the prolonging Parliaments was neither an eligible nor popular measure, he was glad the regulation extended no further; though it was more necessary now to continue their duration for some time after a King’s death than when Parliaments did not give the Revenue.” George Townshend spoke against the Parliament’s prolonging itself, and said, “There was nothing so dangerous as to inculcate into a young King, that he owes his safety to anything unconstitutional.”