20th—The Bill was reported, read a third time, and passed, with nothing material but a long bad speech of Mr. Beckford against it, and Mr. Pelham’s, who was now got free from the chair, for it. He said, “He would not observe on what any particular person had said, but must express his surprise at so much Debate, after the message had been sent by the King, who had recommended restrictions, which had been approved by both Houses, and his Majesty had received Addresses of Thanks from both upon it.” He said, that notwithstanding this, the Debates had not been upon any particular restrictions, but against any at all; yet he must ask, how appointing a Council for the Regent was a breach of the constitution? That as to precedents, for his part he had never heard one exactly stated and followed in observations; that in the present case, what was to be learnt from precedents, was, the danger of minorities; and that the remedy now to be applied, was not a breach, but a preservative of the constitution, against it could operate again. That his motive for approving the Council, was, that he would not lead the Princess into temptation; that he was willing to give her all the agreeable part of authority; and that the Council would be no check, where she was to exert grace and favour, but only where there should be weighty points that might introduce difficulties. That it was possible she might get favourites about her; that a Regent may be subject to them as well as a King; that it was for her security to have a Council responsible. That when the settlement of the Crown was made in favour of the House of Hanover, greater restrictions than those in question had been proposed, and somewhat stronger than temporary Regencies. That the Regent would only be limited in those great acts, where the Crown itself is limited, of peace and war.

Is there, continued he, any person here wise enough to tell me, who is answerable for the acts of the Regent? She herself is; and as this provision takes off that subjection from her, it is a respect to her. I hope I shall not be thought to want respect to her, if I, who have ventured to speak my mind under the King my master, am as freely spoken in what regards the Princess. He then mentioned the clause for prolonging the Parliament, and said, that ever since the Restoration, there has always been a dissolution or suspension of Government during general elections; that a contagion has constantly arisen, which has suspended all connexions of friendship, all notions of right and wrong; and that many a man has given his vote for one man, who would leave the care of his children to that very man’s antagonist. That our constitution gives sanctions to invasions, to that bad spirit of disaffection, which makes our enemies lie in wait till they see how elections turn out. He added, that he should say very little upon the clause of præmunire, which had been so fully explained and answered by the lawyers; though it was sufficient that Englishmen wanted no farther safety, who must be tried by juries, that are not likely to stretch constructions. One thing he would say, that the Bill cannot be too strictly observed. For the objections, they were not against the whole Bill; and the Committee had acquiesced in amending those parts that were most liable to exception. That indeed he could not but lament that the approbation of the House had not been more general, as he knew, when differences arise there, what constructions are made upon them without doors: but that he only lamented this, did not pretend to blame, as he spoke without prejudice, passion, or partiality, and that he was persuaded nobody would suspect him of any prospect to power for himself from this Bill, as he should be too great a wretch to build views of grandeur on what he must regard as the greatest misfortune, and what would shake the foundations of his country. It is observable, that of the two persons who had framed, and were to glut their own ambition the most by this Bill, the Chancellor and Mr. Pelham, the former pronounced any man a fool, the latter stamped him a villain, who expected or laid a plan of power from it. It passed without a division. The greater part of the late Prince’s Court voted for the Bill. Lord Egmont for nothing but prolonging the Parliament.

21st.—The amendments were explained to the Lords by the Duke of Newcastle and the Chancellor, and agreed to.

FOOTNOTES:

[110] Philip Yorke. He had married the granddaughter and heiress of the Duke of Kent.

[111] Eldest son of the Lord Barnard, was made Vice-Treasurer of Ireland by Lord Bath, on the change of the Ministry, in 1742, from which place he was removed on the coalition, but not long after placed in the Treasury; and was afterwards created Earl of Darlington. He died March 6th, 1758.

[112] William Pulteney, Earl of Bath, had been persuaded by Sir Robert Walpole to apply himself to politics, in which, soon making a figure, he was appointed Secretary at War, when the Whigs came into power in the late King’s reign; but towards the end of it he went into Opposition, at the head of which he continued till the fall of Sir Robert Walpole. That Minister persuaded the King, when he took leave of him, to comply with none of Mr. Pulteney’s demands, unless he would quit the House of Commons and accept a Peerage, which he imprudently promising to do, though not without great reluctance, before the patent was passed, and raising his creatures,—Sandys, Sir John Rushout, Gybbon, Harry Vane, and Harry Furnese,—who were men of the meanest capacities, to the chief places, in preference to all the rest of the Opposition who had acted with him, they refused to follow him in his politics, and persecuted him in Parliament, and with innumerable libels and satires. On the death of Lord Wilmington, he asked for the Treasury, to which Mr. Pelham was preferred, but to which he was named in the Ministry of three days. From that time he made no figure; he was immensely rich, from great parsimony and great successions, and had endeavoured to add another to them: the Duchess of Buckingham, natural daughter to King James II., designing to take a journey to Rome, to promote some Jacobite measures, and apprehending the consequence, made over her estate to Lord Bath, by a deed which he afterwards sunk, and pretended to have lost. On this, the Duchess, after forcing a release from him, struck him out of her will as one of her Executors; and many years afterwards, on marrying her grandson to Lord Hervey’s daughter, she appointed Sir Robert Walpole one of her Executors. This happening soon after that Minister’s fall, he said to Lord Oxford in the House of Lords, “So, my Lord, I find I have got my Lord Bath’s place before he has got mine.”

[113] After the revolution of three days, Lord Bath was going to print a Diary which he had kept, in order to show all the falsehoods, treacheries, and breaches of promise of the Duke of Newcastle and Mr. Pelham, he having minuted down their conversations with him on the fall of Sir Robert Walpole.

[114] William, Lord Talbot, was eldest son of Charles Talbot, Lord Chancellor.

[115] Sir Dudley Ryder.