had felt it his duty to call the attention of Proxy was to be considered, if as a privitheir lordships to this very important sub- lege, there was no reason why their lordject. It had been intimated to him by ships should relinquish it, and if as a duty, some whose opinions he highly respected, in being thus present in the House, it that it was unnecessary to discuss the ques- ought to continue to be exercised. In jution now that parliament had been opened, dicial business, it was determined, long and there could be no doubt that the Lords since, that Proxies should not be admitted; had a right to vote by proxy; but he was but that decision was taken by a constitu anxious, nevertheless, to call the attention tional majority of the House; including the of the House to the subject, fearing that lords present and those absent, but voting the proceedings to which he bad alluded, by Proxy. His objection in the late inmight be drawn into a precedent upon stance was, that the majority was not thus some future occasion; and anxious that constitutionally composed. The noble and the Peers of England might not, under the learned lord entered into some historical influence of such a proceeding, be divided detail, for the purpose of shewing the uni into two bodies, those present and those form usage of voting by Proxy, and parabsent, in contradiction to the uniform ticularly instanced the period of 1660, constitutional usage of that House, by when Proxies were entered, and even which, the Lords personally absent, had Bills carried on to a second stage, before the right of being present by their proxies. the causes of the meeting of parliament He conceived, that according to that con- had been declared, either by the King in. stant usage of parliament, it would be a person or by any commission. The great sufficient compliance with a writ of sum- uneasiness he felt respecting the late vote mons, or a call of the House, for a peer to relative to Proxies arose from the doctrine send his Proxy. They had not now to which had been held out, that it was not discuss any question respecting writs of parliament but the estates of the realm summons, where personal attendance was which had assembled. Against this docabsolutely required, their lordships not trine he most solemnly protested. Parlia being summoned by any such writs. The ment was prorogued by his Majesty's main question, therefore, rested upon the Commission on the 20th of September, to usage of parliament. It had lately be- the 1st of November, and assembled regucome a sort of fashion, to talk of it as an larly on the 1st of November, under that absurdity, that what had been agreed to prorogation. The Lords and Commons, by a majority in a Cominittee should be he contended, were thus assembled as reversed, on the House being resumed, by Houses of Parliament, and possessed all a majority the other way, through the the privileges which attached to them as means of Proxies. He should only say such. This being the case, he maintained in answer to this, that the right of the that the lords absent had an equal right to Lords to vote by Proxy, had been proved vote by Proxy, as those present had to by the constant usage of parliament, and vote personally. He did not mean to that it was no argument against a right or argue the question, as applying to the case a privilege, to urge that it might be of the two Houses assembling without the abused. It might happen, he was confi- | authority of the King's commission; but, dent it had not hitherto occurred, that having assembled by virtue of a prorogawhen a debate had been going on from tion under the authority of the King's five o'clock, a Peer might come in at two commission, he contended that the right or three o'clock in the morning and give of voting by Proxy, attached to that his vote, although knowing nothing of the House, in common with other privileges. subject in discussion. It might also occur -The noble and learned lord concluded at some future period, he was sure it had by moving four Motions, which were in never happened, that a Peer might come substancein at the end of a judicial business and give his vote, although he had not heard the arguments, and was ignorant of the point at issue. Was it, however, to be argued, that because these abuses might exist, that therefore any restrictions were to be placed on the votes of noble lords present? The same argument applied to Proxies. In whatever way the voting by VOL, XVII. "That upon any question finally put by the Speaker, upon any business depend ing in the House, Proxies shall be counted on a division, unless there shall be a standing order to the contrary, or unless it shall be otherwise determined by the House on a decision taken previous to the decision on the main question. "That upon any question for not ad 3 R mitting Proxies, moved previous to the decision upon any question before the House, Proxies shall be counted on a division, and that it shall be competent for any lord to move, that such questions for not admitting Proxies be not now put, and that upon such previous question, Proxies shall also be counted on a division. sure.. Was this then a fit time to introduce such topics of discussion? was it a proper time for instituting inquiries into the origin and history of their privileges? With respect to the abstract right of voting by proxy, it was a right in which he could discern many advantages; its general utility he was fully disposed to recognize, but he denied that any good end could be answered by obtruding on the public mind (for it was notorious that this would be the case) questions of this nature at such a period. It was most unwise, he con"That in the House of Lords, so assem-ceived, to pass any particular Resolutions bled upon any question for not admitting Proxies, &c. as in the third motion." "That when the House of Lords shall be duly assembled, although the causes of their meeting have not been declared upon any question finally put, &c. as in the first motion. The Earl of Moira said, that no doubt existed, that the power of voting by proxy, was a right legitimately appertaining to their lordships; it was perfectly needless to enter into any elaborate argument, to substantiate so evident a proposition; but it was likewise indisputable, that the House, exercising its functions as a deliberative body, could controul its own rules of proceeding, and possessed a discretionary power of regulating them by views of public interest and expediency. For what purpose, he would ask, was the House called on to accede to the Resolutions moved by the noble and learned lord? Was it desired to establish a new precedent for a particular occasion? None applicable to it existed already. But if no such precedent was in existence, it was, because it had been hitherto deemed an act of extreme impropriety and indelicacy, to make any provision for a future emergency, the extent and nature of which, it was impossible to anticipate, or foresee. It would not have been decent to have framed any prospective measures, with a view to a situation of things, which could never have been previously contemplated in all its different bearings and relations. The real meaning and object of the motion was, to attack the late proceeding of the House, by a side wind; the gauntlet had been thrown down by the noble and learned lord; but he should not forget, on entering the lists, that on the issue of the contest depended the most essential interests of the country. With this conviction, he could not be diverted by the gratulations of the noble and learned lord on the Woolsack, from a frank expression of his opinions. He must consider this as the measure not merely of the noble and learned lord, but of his colleagues; it was nothing else than a ministerial mea on such a subject under the circumstances in which they were then assembled, and the consequence of which would be to draw the attention of the people at large to considerations by no means familiar to their understandings. He would, however, looking at the question before the House, put it to any noble lord who heard him, whether it was not a principle in human nature that men might frequently be induced to do that by delegation and at a distance, which they would shrink from doing openly and in person? The noble and learned lord had appeared that night like the dramatic hero, "Well clothed in rusty armour;" but he would nevertheless not be deterred from viewing the question in its true bearing, and declaring his opinion that that dæmon alone which had led ministers into so many measures fatal to the best interests, and subversive of the constitution, of the country, could have inspired them with a sufficient degree of indiscretion to introduce the subject of that night's debate. Did the noble lords opposite to hin imagine that the people were to be so easily deluded, that Britons had lost so much of their ancient spirit? In 1788 the question stood on different grounds, but had they not now the Report of the Committee before them, and did not that Report contravene the doctrine of the framers of this Resolution? To that Report the noble and learned lord had forgotten to advert, because that Report, in fact, decided the question at issue. It put a complete negative on the proposition. The only part of the subject on which any doubt had ever existed was, whether, under the form in which the House was recently assembled proxies could be regularly admitted. What was the nature of the conduct of ministers throughout the whole of the present business? Their first attempt was to deprive the Regent of a part of the sovereign's prerogatives in re they were before a parliament also legally assembled, when proxies were on one occasion rejected. The reason stated for not trying the question before was the paucity of attendance, which he could not help considering as a decisive argu ment against the noble lord himself. Upon the full conviction that the House, by adopting the Resolutions before them, would appear to have formed a league against the most substantial and pressing interests of the country, he would move, That the House do now adjourn. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, attended by several members of the House of Commons, brought up the Regency Bill, which was immediately read a first time, ordered to be printed, and to be read a second time to-morrow. The Earl of Moira then renewed his motion. stricting him from conferring peerages, as if this power was a boon to the chief inagistrate, and not entrusted to him for the benefit of the people. Noble lords could not but remember that this was a prerogative vested in the head of the government for very important constitutional purposes. It was designed to give him a security in that House against any preponderating influence in the other scale, and against the machinations of any set of men who might form a confederacy against the true and legitimate interests of the crown. It was to preserve the just ba The Earl of Liverpool rose, simply to lance of the constitution, and to render suggest that as a Message from the Comregal authority co-ordinate with the inmons was at the door, he would amend the fluence of the democracy. The influence motion of the noble lord, in order that the of the Crown in that House he would Message might be received, and would assert to be a just and a constitutional in-therefore move, That the House do adjourn fluence, and the most injurious conse- during pleasure. quences he was convinced must arise from its division. If this fair and recognized influence was put into other hands; if this point were once carried; then he would say, that a step had been taken hostile to the whole spirit, and dangerous to the future security of the constitution. He charged the noble lords opposite with endeavouring to establish such a confederacy as he had described, an endeavour in which, if they succeeded, the House and the country must necessarily be brought into that state which, of all the forms of human policy and government which the history of the world could furnish, had been uniformily found the most odious and intole rable a state from which men had always fled, as infinitely worse than the most unrelenting tyranny exercised by a single despot. His caprices might be precarious, his passions transient and violent, but at intervals; but who could evade the stern rule and rigorous jealousy of an ambitious oligarchy? It was a nest of scorpions, never stirring but to sting. He did not wish to be understood as insinuating that the noble lord deliberately planned or foresaw all the mischief likely to result from the proceeding he proposed. In the zeal of the party he probably overlooked the deep and certain evils attendant on the measures which he recommended. Under all the circumstances to which he had referred, he could not believe it possible that the House would vote for the Resolutions that had been moved. It was unnecessary; the point which it declared was undoubted. They were a parliament now, it was urged: but it had been de clared by the noble and learned Jord, that The Earl of Ross reminded their lord→ ships that their privileges as peers were deeply involved in the present question. They were now sitting, and had been sitting since their first meeting as peers of parliament; they had been sitting as such in virtue of the last prorogation, and as such he conceived their right to vote by proxy as a right inherent in them as peers. If they had not been sitting as peers of parliament, by what right or authority had they adjourned from time to time? By what right did they frank letters? He regretted much the discussion that had taken place on a former evening respecting this right. That discussion turned on points very intricate and perplexed; indeed, he was sorry to add, it was hurried into something bordering on confusion. If they had been wrong on that occasion, it was magnanimous and wise to acknowledge and correct their error; if they were right, there was no necessity for the present discussion. must warn them, however, strenuously to assert and defend their right of voting by proxy, as one of their most ancient and valuable privileges; for if they neglected asserting and protecting it, on the present occasion, they might establish a precedent, of which advantage might be taken, to attack and invade them on some future occasion. He The Earl of Mansfield maintained that the right of voting by proxy had been acknowledged and established as a privilege of peers of parliament almost from time immemorial. It was a right which their lordships possessed in distinction from the House of Commons, and by the express permission of the sovereign who commanded the advice of the peers of the realm either in person, or as signified through other peers. Of this, the history of the country afforded abundant proofs, particularly in the reigns of Henry 8th, Charles 2nd, and James 2nd. It was a right which they possessed in virtue of their very writ of summons to attend in parliament, and it was a right of which he trusted they would not allow themselves to be divested. The Duke of Norfolk denied that the privilege of the members of that House voting by proxy, was an inherent right. It had been at various periods extended to a great length; but the House had, by its own standing orders, at different times limited and modified it. It was not allowed in the judicial proceedings of that House, nor when their lordships sat in committee. How, then, under such circumstances, could it be considered an inherent right? It was also not admitted in the periods of 1788-9, when the Regency question was before the subject; and it was extraordinary to see those noble lords who dwelt so much on the propriety of adhering to that precedent in other points, endeavour to deviate so widely from it in this ble and learned lord, if well founded, was the strongest censure on his Resolutions; whilst on the other, if his proposed Resolutions were correct, his late Protest was a mere mockery. Such of their lordships, as were versed in Parliamentary History, must be aware that the House itself had felt it its duty to interfere against the abuse to which this privilege led. When on an occasion a peer came down with no less than seventeen proxies in his pocket, had the noble and learned lord ever read the standing orders on that subject, he would certainly have learned to restrain his zeal and mitigate his anxiety on this point. I observe, (said earl Stanhope) that the noble and learned lord shakes his head whilst his elbow is shook by another noble and learned lord (Redesdale) near him; no doubt the whisper is, "Look you here, Jack, when next we sign a Protest, we must go down early to the House and read it over together."-"Yes," answers Jack," and with care and attention too; for if we do not, there is that logical fellow Stanhope in the House of Lords, who will read it publicly after us." The noble and learned lord, however, contended, that when the House met it was a constituent branch of the parliament. He used the word parliament just as it answered his object; and his application of the term, reminded him of the definition of what was called a pun. It was defined to be the taking of a word in two senses, when it was predicated of the one that which was meant of the other. A young woman, a neighbour of his in Kent, asked her Earl Stanhope expressed his determina- lover, when discoursing on this point, once tion to vote for the motion of adjourn to give her an example." Give me a subment; not that he shrunk from the dis-ject," said her lover. " His Majesty," cussion, but because it was one mode of said the young woman. "His Majesty rejecting the Resolutions of the noble and cannot be a subject," was the answer, and learned lord. That noble and learned the pun. Similar was the interpretation lord must excuse him, when he said that put upon the term parliament by the noout of his own mouth he would convict ble and learned lord. But be would ask him. He would shew that he had refuted if this privilege of voting by proxy was every argument that night advanced in an inherent right, why was it submitted favour of his Resolutions, by the very to a Committee to investigate the nature of doctrine inserted in his Protest. In his that right? The very appointment of that Resolutions he spoke of inherent rights, Committee proved at least that it was whilst his Protest admitted the power of doubtful, and when there was a doubt, who the House to limit, modify and controul but the House could decide upon it. It the privilege of voting by proxy. With had decided, and the decision of them respect to those protests ho must say, that had given the greatest satisfaction both in amongst all the Dissentients, that to which town and country. In some country vil the signature of Arden was affixed, was lage it was told him that soon after that by far the wisest, because it very properly decision, an honest Whig barber had put abstained from attempting to give any on his sign a placard, saying, "Whigs But the Protest of the no- shaved here for a penny, and Tories for case. reason at all. three half-pence." When asked why he made the distinction? his reply was-That since the late memorable triumph of the Whig Lords against Proxies, the Tories had such long black muzzles that the operation of shaving them was rendered much more difficult. (A laugh). To allow such a power on the late occasion, would have been attended with the most dangerous results to the constitution. It would establish the worst species of oligarchy, an oligarchy that neither listened or reasoned, an oligarchy of parchment and of paper. The Lord Chancellor had not heard much argument to which he thought it necessary to reply, He thought, however, that neither he himself, nor the subject before the House, nor even their lordships' House, had been treated very gravely. One noble lord had represented him as coming down to the House clad in rusty armour; and he must suppose that it was to shew contempt for such an adversary that the noble lord, though unarmed himself, should have so attacked him though thus clad in rusty armour. It had also been observed, that people out of doors could not have much respect for their proceedings, if noble lords were to vote not in person, but by proxy, not having heard the grave reasonings which might have been urged to impress conviction on their minds. He could only say, that after the speech which he had heard from the noble earl who had spoke last, it would be for their lordships to consider, whether it would not be better consulting the dignity of that House, and the decorum of their proceedings, to vote rather by Proxy than in person. The question was then put on earl Moira's Amendment, when the House divided, Contents present 68. Proxies 27. Non-Contents present 67. Proxies 26. Majority for the Adjournment HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, January 23. 95 93 2 [PETITION FROM Lewes respecting THE REGENCY.] Mr. Sheridan presented a Petition from the burgesses and inhabitants of Lewes, in Sussex, against the restrictions on the Regent. The members for the place being prevented from attending by sickness; and lord Francis Osborne being absent, it had come into his hands. Although it spoke of the conduct of the King's ministers in strong terms of indignation and reprobation, yet, as there was nothing in it disrespectful to the House, he thought there could be no objection to receive it. The Petition was then read, setting forth, "That the Petitioners have watched, with the most anxious attention, the proceedings instituted in the House on the subject of providing for the exercise of the royal authority during the continuance of his Majesty's melancholy illness; and that, most deeply impressed with the general unanimity of opinion that prevails amongst all classes of his Majesty's loyal subjects on the expediency of the office of Regent being filled by his royal highness the Prince of Wales, the petitioners beg leave to state to the House their humble doubts of the wisdom which could bring under discussion the abstract right of the two Houses to act upon this occa sion, nor can they avoid noticing, after the facts to be found recorded in the Journals of the House during the last session of Parliament, that the alledged right of the House in this respect can scarcely be said to arise from the House including the full and free representation of the Commons of the realm; and that, disclaiming however all manner of offence to the House in the present mention of this topic, and far from wishing to agitate any question of right, they beg leave humbly to represent to the House, that it is a fundamental principle of the Constitution, avowed and acted upon by his royal highness the Prince of Wales himself, that the prerogatives and powers of the crown are vested in the crown as a trust for the benefit and happiness of the people, nor do the petitioners believe that, amongst any other people in the world, could such a suspension of the powers and prerogatives of the crown, as has taken place in this country during the last ten weeks, and such an insidious attempt, by a corrupt and incapable administration, to limit and restrain them during a much longer period, have occurred, without disturbing the public tranquillity, and possibly not without bringing real ultimate danger on the crown itself; and that they humbly conceive, if the powers and prerogatives of the crown are necessary at all, they ought to be in existence at all times, nor can much less danger on behalf of the people be thought to result from seeing those powers and prerogatives divided, restricted, or usurp |