Lords Sitting of 3 July 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Received the Royal Assent:—Wills; Sugar Duties; Limitation of Actions; Dublin Police.—Read a third time:—Foreign Officers; Commissioners of Bankrupts (Ireland).—Read a second time:—Military Commissioners; Metropolis Police Offices.
Petitions presented. By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from Gloucester, that measures should be taken for the security of the Established Church.—By the Earl of CHICHESTER, and the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, from various places, for the abolition of Church-rates.—By Lord BELHAVEN, from Kinross, and other places, for the better Observance of the Sabbath.

CHURCH ACCOMMODATION, (SCOTLAND).
Lord Belhavenhad to present a petition from the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, praying for the extension of Church accommodation in Scotland. In the prayer of this petition he cordially concurred; and he was exceedingly gratified to learn that means would soon be taken of disposing of this subject in a manner that would afford general satisfaction.
Viscount Melbournehad been glad to observe, that the discussion at the meeting of the General Assembly from which the petition proceeded was characterised by good temper, great candour, and abstinence from the topics which at former meetings had been urged with great hostility of feeling. He was glad to find that it was no longer said that his Majesty's Government had taken an erroneous course on the subject. He was glad to find that there was no longer any condemnation of

1747
the manner in which the Commissioners had executed their duties. Undoubtedly many observations had been made on what was supposed to have fallen from him in that House in discussions on the subject. It had been supposed that he had made a severe attack on the clergy of Scotland; that he bad charged them with using their pulpits for the purpose of attacking his Majesty's Government, and for political objects. Now, he did not know whether any thing had actually fallen from him which warranted the statement that he had made so general an accusation. If it had, it certainly was not justified. The fact had been distinctly denied; and one individual particularly, of high character, Dr. M'Leod, had challenged him to show a single instance in which such practices as he had imputed to the clergy of Scotland had obtained among them. All he could say was, that he hoped Dr. M'Leod was borne out in his statement by the fact. The assertion certainly differed from the information which he had received, but he should be much more happy to find that he had been in the wrong, and that the charge was wholly unfounded, than that it should prove that the charge was true. He would not, however, pursue that point further; he accepted with pleasure the entire disavowal of the practice by the clergy of Scotland, and their condemnation of it. He undoubtedly thought that the subject of extending Church accommodation in Scotland was one which Government ought to take into speedy and serious consideration. At the same time, it was undeniable that the question was not a single one, or a question which could be considered abstractedly. Care must be taken that the measures adopted were measures calculated to remedy the evil. They must be certain that the neglect of public worship and of pastoral instruction in Scotland arose from a want of church room before they proceeded to the extension of church room as a remedy. He could scarcely help thinking that if a man in Scotland were really desirous to go to Church, he would not find any difficulty in finding a church to go to. But he was ready to consider the subject. He was ready to go further. He would promise the assistance to the object of the petitioners which had before been promised, if the property which was the property of the church was now at the disposal of the down and Parliament—the hereditary
1748
revenues. He would be ready to consider whether these funds were not available for the purposes in view, and whether these could be effected in the manner in which it was now supposed they could. If these funds were found insufficient, and it was reported to be wise and expedient, then he for one would go farther upon the subject, and say that the subject ought to be immediately taken up and receive serious consideration.
The Earl of Aberdeenwas very sorry that the noble Viscount had not said a little more upon so important a matter. He had now only repeated, nearly word for word, what he had said three years ago. For when he was pressed upon the subject at that time, the noble Viscount had declared that it should receive the immediate and serious consideration of his Majesty's Government. What the noble Baron who presented the petition could mean by speaking of the great gratification which he felt at what was going to be done, he was at a loss to conjecture. All that the noble Viscount now said was, that if the measure should be found wise and expedient (on which the noble Viscount gave no opinion himself), he would be disposed to look at the funds derived from the bishops' rents and teinds for the purpose of carrying the desired object into effect. He wished, however, to press upon the noble Viscount's attention, that in the recent discussions at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it was held that those funds were inviolable. He could assure the noble Viscount that there was no political feeling on this subject. It was a question on which all parties in Scotland were unanimous. The General Assembly, it must be recollected, was not composed entirely of clergy. A great part of the body consisted of laymen, and of laymen whose constituents were favourable to the political opinions of the noble Viscount, for they were the reformed town-councils of boroughs. When the General Assembly, therefore, unanimously pressed this subject upon the attention of Parliament, the noble Viscount must admit that the opinion was an impartial one. He begged to remind the noble Viscount, that by her oath her Majesty was bound to preserve and protect the Established Church of Scotland. He had had the honour to see her Majesty take and subscribe to that oath. It depended upon the noble Viscount whether that oath

1749
should be kept in spirit and sincerity. For that, as well as for other matters of great importance, the noble Viscount was responsible. Under those circumstances, and when it was evident that the people of Scotland were unanimous in their opinion on the subject, he trusted that the noble Viscount would do something more than declare that the matter should be taken into serious consideration; and that, if it were found wise and expedient, the people of Scotland should enjoy the great favour of having their wishes attended to. He believed that the noble Viscount would find the extension of Church accommodation in Scotland desirable even as a question of economy. There was no doubt in that country that there had been a great increase of crime of late years, in consequence of a deficiency of spiritual instruction. Five-and-twenty years ago, the whole annual expense of criminal prosecutions in Scotland was 5,000 l.; it was now 30,000 l. He trusted the noble Viscount would be induced to take a more favourable view of the question, for he must say that the statements which the noble Viscount had just made, did not satisfy him.
The Earl of Camperdownsaid, the question was one which required their best consideration, not only from the weight of a petition coming from such a body as the General Assembly, but also from the great importance of the subject. He agreed with the noble Earl opposite, that the people of Scotland took great interest in it. He knew that the question occupied the attention of all classes in that country, but he was chiefly anxious to express his opinion respecting it generally, because his opinion differed from that of the noble Earl opposite. Attached as he was to the Church of Scotland, in which he had been born and bred up, he would say, if her Majesty's Ministers had shown any negligence or remissness with regard to its interest, he would have been the first to come forward and reprobate such conduct. But he did not think the Government was chargeable with either remissness or negligence. The question was one of a local nature. It related entirely to the Church of Scotland, which was an establishment altogether different from the Church of England and Ireland, and he could not see the expediency of taking a sum out of the Consolidated Fund for the support of that Church, because they would thereby lay a burthen on the
1750
whole country. He could not, therefore, see how his noble Friend would be justified in calling on the other House to grant money for that purpose. But, besides, in his opinion, it had not been made out that a grant for the endowment of churches would do away with the evils complained of, and Government would not be justified in doing any such thing. If the question were to be taken up, it must be taken up as a general question. Having read the Report with attention, he was sorry to say, (and it was impossible to deny the fact) that great numbers of the inhabitants were not in the habit of attending the Church, and therefore great doubts arose as to the necessity for additional Church accommodation. It was a fact stated in the Report, that at present there were 25,000 seats unappropriated. Denying the propriety of going down to the other House for a grant, he thought the noble Viscount had pursued the only course open to him, by recommending the Commissioners to investigate other sources for supplying the deficiency in Church accommodation. From a memorial laid on the table three years ago, it appeared that there was an annual income from bishops' rents of 2,717 l., and it was therefore right to call the attention of the Commissioners to that subject. It had been stated, that politics were mixed up with the question; and he was sorry to find that such was the fact. Such was not in general the character of the Scotch clergy. The Scotch clergy had formerly abstained from politics, and devoted themselves to the sacred duties of their office, thereby setting an example worthy of imitation by the clergy of other parts of the country; and though some had come forward in support of episcopacy, which in that country had passed away, yet there were others who conducted themselves better as clergymen, who did not mix themselves up with politics, and thereby secured the love and affection of the people.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, that his noble Friend had done the clergy of Scotland much injustice in his remarks upon their conduct, which he felt bound to justify. He denied that they had pursued a political course. They had felt it their duty to come forward, perhaps in consequence of the impolicy of supporting an establishment by heavy blows and great discouragements. The clergy of the Church

1751
of Scotland had not sought for the franchise, before it had been conferred on them, and had distinctly abstained from all interferences in political matters. The Legislature, however, having granted them the franchise, thereby imposed upon them a duty, in the discharge of which they should necessarily vote at elections for boroughs and counties; and this they had done in order to maintain an establishment which they conceived to be essential to the peace and well-being of the country. He thought, therefore, that the attack which had been made on them had come rather ungraciously from one who professed himself to be a zealous and sincere member of the Church of Scotland. As to the want of Church accommodation in Scotland, he thought there could be no doubt, Two years and a-half ago this subject had been laid before the two Houses of Parliament in the speech from the Throne, and strongly recommended to their consideration. A Commission had been appointed, who had made their first Report to Parliament in the following Session, and the sum of 50,000 l. had been voted for the Church of Scotland, which was a new admission of the want of accommodation. Another sum of 50,000 l. had been voted by the House of Commons for churches in other parts of Scotland. The people of Scotland themselves, who were not very fond of unnecessary subscriptions, had subscribed 150,000 l. for the same purpose, and they had done so upon the representation of the clergy that this destitution existed. He held in his hand a copy of the memorial which had been presented on this subject in 1834, so that it was now three years since there had been laid before her Majesty's Ministers the most conclusive evidence of the want of Church accommodation, and as yet nothing had been done. He, however, was ready to take as an earnest what was proposed by his noble Friend, and he hoped it would be the beginning of great and important benefits to the people of Scotland.
Petition laid on the table.

CROWN SOLICITORS, (IRELAND).
The Earl of Wicklowrose to move, in conformity with the notice he had given on a former evening, for certain documents connected with the administration of justice in the courts of quarter sessions in Ireland, It was very well known, that
1752
there were few institutions in Ireland which had been productive of more good, and subject to less evil, than the courts of quarter session. They had been conducted upon a system which had given universal satisfaction; in fact, amongst all the complaints that had been made against various institutions in Ireland, he had not heard one against the court of petty sessions. Notwithstanding this, her Majesty's present Ministers had thought it necessary, so great was their passion for reform, to interfere with the manner of conducting business in these courts; and accordingly, in the course of the year before last, had introduced a new system, to which was appended a considerable share of fresh patronage. Under the pretence of assimilating these courts to the courts of assize, they created a new class of officers, in number altogether thirty-four, called quarter session Crown solicitors, for the purpose of conducting the criminal business in these courts. He should not now consider whether that was an improvement or not. In his opinion it was not; and to be so would mainly depend on the qualification of the persons appointed to the office. He had no hesitation in saying that those who had been appointed by her Majesty's Ministers were not persons that ought to have been appointed. He did not say that, on the ground that they were all, or nearly all, of the Roman Catholic persuasion, because he was one of those who considered it the duty of Government to follow up the act of emancipation by carefully avoiding to make religion a cause of exclusion. Neither did he say so on the ground that they entertained the same political opinions as the present Ministers, who had every right to choose persons of their own principles; but he did object to them as being notoriously opposed to the institutions of this country, as well-known public agitators in their respective counties, and members of that party in Ireland whose object was the separation of the two countries, and who were the instigators of a great portion of the crime committed in that part of the kingdom. The paper for which he was about to move was a copy of a circular addressed from the Attorney-General for Ireland to the Crown solicitors in each county, requiring them to forward to him all the informations taken by the magistrates, which were to be brought before the quarter sessions, in order that he might

1753
judge if they were fit cases for trial. He believed it had been found that the system did not work efficiently, and it therefore became necessary to establish this check. Another question upon which he wished to be informed was, in what manner was the Attorney-General to be remunerated for this new duty imposed on him. During the assizes the Attorney-General was paid a fee of fifteen guineas, being thirty guineas a-year for the whole batch of cases in each county. If that were to be the scale of payment, their Lordships would see that it would give an immense revenue to that officer; inasmuch as the assizes were held but twice, while the quarter sessions were held eight times a-year. There were four quarter sessions, and two places at which they were held in each county, so that the Attorney-General would be furnished with eight batches of cases. If he were not to be paid the same sum for these, he should like to know why; for, on looking at the Parliamentary Returns, he found the number of cases tried at the assizes in 1835, to be 6,000, while those at the quarter sessions amounted to 21,000. Last year the number tried at the assizes was upwards of 6,000, and at the quarter sessions 24,000. The Government had taken great credit to itself for having created so much tranquillity during that year, and for having established order and regularity under the benign reign of the noble Earl, and for having cleared all the gaols, as the noble Earl was well aware of, notwithstanding that the number of cases tried at the quarter sessions exceeded that of the preceding year by nearly 4,000. If, then, the same scale of payment to the Attorney-General was not adopted in reference to the business of the quarter sessions, he should he glad to be informed why? If it were not to cost the nation any thing, he protested against such a course, for no Government had aright to expect its officers to perform very onerous duties without being fairly remunerated. The fees which were paid to those thirty-four Crown solicitors came out of the Consolidated Fund; so that in proportion as this country contributed to the Consolidated Fund, in the same proportion did it contribute towards the expenses of this Irish job. Thus jobs of the kind were matters of no difficulty in that country, and if it were the object of the Government to increase the fees of the Attorney-General or any other public officer, nothing
1754
was more easy, because no application was necessary to Parliament on the subject. It might be said that they appeared in the miscellaneous estimates, but it was well known that many of them, from the late period of the Session at which they were brought forward, and the smallness of their amount, often escaped the vigilance of Parliament. The noble Earl concluded by moving for a copy of the letter addressed by the Attorney-General, dated the 5th of May last, to the several Crown solicitors in Ireland.
The Earl of Mulgraveagreed with the noble Earl that it was more convenient that he should have sought for information on this subject by making a motion, than by putting a question; and he was the more convinced of it since the noble Earl, by having done so, enabled him to bring before their Lordships, proofs of how completely mistaken the noble Earl was in his remarks and inferences upon the subject. The noble Earl had moved for a letter of the Attorney-General's, and in reference to it, stated, that the management of the quarter sessions had either answered or failed. If it had answered, he said, what was the necessity for this circular letter? Now, perhaps their Lordships would be surprised to hear, that there was no novelty whatever in this document. It was precisely and technically the common form of a circular which had been addressed to those counties in which public prosecutions had taken place, to the clerks of the assizes, and clerks of the peace, ever since the alteration had been made. It was, in fact, coeval with the alteration. That he thought met at once the question of the noble Earl. The letter to which the noble Earl alluded, might appear more stringent in its terms to some clerks of the peace than others. The general form was this:—The first Crown solicitor wrote for those informations to the clerk of the peace, and if he did not receive them, a small cogent letter was despatched, in which the Attorney-General's name was brought in. Indeed, he believed the name of the Lord-lieutenant was sometimes mentioned, when the informations were not forwarded on the first application. The Attorney-General had thought with him, that by establishing a more efficient mode of prosecuting at the quarter sessions, they would be enabled to put down those brutal and ferocious crimes which arose principally from faction fights, and which

1755
tended so much to demoralise the lower classes of that country. He was happy to have by him a letter of the assistant-barrister of Tipperary, where these faction fights existed perhaps to the greatest extent, which he thought would show at once what had been the result of this alteration, and more efficient mode of prosecution. The noble Earl read the letter, which was dated April, 1837, and stated, that within the last twelve months, crime had undergone great diminution in that county; and after enumerating several offences, such as faction fights at fairs and markets, taking forcible possession of lands, &c., added, that not a single occurrence of that kind had taken place in the county during the previous year, although before that there was scarcely a fair or market held at which some of them were not perpetrated. On coming down to the House, he had met a noble Lord, not a Member of that House (Lord Bloomfield), who said that he could never sufficiently thank him for the boon he had conferred upon the county of Tipperary, in having appointed Mr. Hanley as assistant-barrister, so that the House might safely rely upon any statement that gentleman put forward. With regard to what the noble Earl had said about patronage, he had only to observe, that before the appointments had been regularly made, the fee to the solicitor was two guineas; it had since been reduced to one; and he could further state, that the utmost extent of fees received by any of these officers in the year, was 50 l., which went down to so low a sum as 10 l. He was perfectly ready to take upon himself the full and undivided responsibility of the general distribution of patronage in Ireland. It had been made a matter of complaint against the Irish Government, that they had appointed to the office of Crown solicitor, none but attornies of inferior practice. To this charge, the obvious answer was, that from the very necessity of the case, they were compelled to choose from amongst professional gentlemen practising in the court; that what were called bar attornies were the class of lawyers who chiefly attended at the sessions courts, and if they did not form the most eminent members of the profession, he was unable to see how the Government could be held responsible for a circumstance of that nature. It had also been made a matter of accusation against his
1756
learned Friend, who then was Attorney-General for Ireland, that he had recommended for Crown solicitors, hardly any, except Roman Catholics. To that the reply was equally simple and conclusive, as in the preceding case—namely, that in a great number of places, none but Roman Catholics were to be found. A third subject of complaint was, that these appointments were bestowed upon persons who had rendered themselves remarkable as political agents and agitators. Now, that was a grave and serious charge, which, if made at all, ought to be seriously preferred at a time and under circumstances when it could be fully and fairly met. It should not be incidentally introduced amongst a variety of other matters. He begged to know, why it had not been brought forward that time last year. If there had been any real unfitness in the persons appointed, any substantial abuse of the powers of the Crown, why had not the subject been separately and substantively brought under the notice of Parliament? He was in London at that period of the year, and so was his learned Friend by whom those appointments had principally been advised; then would have been the fitting time to have brought them openly and manfully forward, and not thus in an indirect way use them, as it were, for the purpose of hinting away men's characters. In the course of the observations made at different times upon the state of Ireland, there had been frequent reference to the state of the county of Tipperary; but from the communications which he had received from the assistant-barrister of that county, as well as from various returns to which it was not possible for him on so short a notice to have access, he was enabled to say, that there was a great deal of exaggeration upon that subject, that the condition of the county was very much improved, and that it enjoyed, not only comparative, but a great deal of positive tranquillity. He conceived that there existed the most conclusive and satisfactory evidence, that the system now in use at the quarter sessions was one which had worked well, and which if continued would produce the best effects—such as all persons interested in Irish affairs could not but admit to be beneficial. As to the emolument derivable from it to the Attorney-General, he had only to observe that he had declined to accept any remuneration,

1757
and even if he had agreed to accept it the amount would be very little. On the authority of the Crown solicitor for the Munster circuit, he could state that the fees to the Attorney-General from that division of the island, would not amount to more than from 30 l. to 40 l. Some allusion had been made to an act of clemency exercised in the case of prisoners who had been discharged from confinement in Ireland. He had since then obtained some returns on that subject, and he was therefore in a condition to state, that not above two or three of those prisoners had been recommitted under any serious charge. It might be said, that that had happened fortuitously, but he might be allowed to reply, that it was a very remarkable coincidence. It was, he conceived, a most extraordinary circumstance, that out of the number discharged only nineteen in all should have been recommitted, every one of whom, with the exception of two or three, was for offences of the most trifling description. From the time that he had been concerned in the government of Ireland to the present moment, he had endeavoured to discharge the duties of his office with strict fairness, and in the spirit of the Emancipation Act, which was intended to put an end to all religious distinctions.
The motion was withdrawn.

SUCCESSION TO THE THRONE.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the second reading of the Succession Bill. It was the duty of Parliament to provide for every event, however remote, which might affect the administration of the Government of the country. The object of this Bill was, to provide in case of the demise of the Crown, and in case the heir presumptive to the Crown should at that time be out of the country, for the carrying on the business of the Executive Government, as without such provision it would be difficult, indeed impossible, to carry on the Executive Government, until the next heir to the Throne arrived in this country. The precedent followed, on this occasion, was that of the Act of Queen Anne. There was, at that time, a disputed succession, which was not the case at present, but nevertheless, the possible and very remote contingency of having the machinery of Government stopped, if the demise of the Crown should take place while the heir presumptive was in a foreign kingdom,
1758
should be provided for, and in this provision, the Act of the 6th of Queen Anne was followed. The Bill provided that certain great officers of state—namely, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord High Chancellor, or Lord Keeper of the Great Seal, the Lord High Treasurer, the Lord President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord High Admiral, and the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, at the time being respectively, should act as Lords Justices to exercise all the powers and authorities of the successor to the Crown as he or she would exercise them if present, until his or her arrival in this kingdom, or until he or she should otherwise order. The Bill also provided, that the heir or heiress presumptive to the Throne might at any time deposit a list (which list was revocable at pleasure) of such persons as he or she might appoint to act with such justices, and to be considered as part of them, with the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord High Chancellor or Keeper of the Great Seal, or the representative of such heir or heiress presumptive at the Court of Great Britain, and the persons named in that list were to exercise in common with the Lords already named the functions of royalty, until the successor of the Throne should otherwise determine. There was, however, a provision in the Bill which restricted the powers of the Lords Justices to the exercise of all the functions of royalty, save only those which were necessary to carry on the Government of the country. For example, they were not to have the power of dissolving Parliament, nor giving the Royal Assent to any Bill for altering the succession to the Throne, nor to any Bill for changing the established religion of England, Scotland, or Ireland. They were also restricted in their power so as not to be able to grant peerages, or in any way to interfere with the privileges of the Sovereign, save and except such Acts as were necessary for carrying on the Government. In the second section of the Act, he should propose, when the Bill was in Committee, so to alter it as that the heir presumptive should have the power of nominating, not seven persons, to which by the Bill, as it now stood, he was restricted, but any such numbers, to act with the Lords Justices already named, as he might think proper.
Lord Broughamadmitted, that the pre-

1759
cedent of the Act of Anne was followed in this instance; but in the Act of Anne, it was stated that any appointment of such additional Lords Justices which had been already made would be valid, which was not the case in the present Bill. But there was another circumstance connected with the Bill to which he was anxious to call the attention of their Lordships, and though he was aware that the present was not the proper time for bringing it forward, he felt it necessary to mention it as a sort of caveat against one of the principles of the Bill. When the Act of Anne was passed, the royal family of England were very differently circumstanced from what they were at present. At that time, the succession was confined to the Electress Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants. But there were other members of the royal family, to assert or recognise whose title would then have been high treason. He had no wish to follow the precedent established by the Act of Anne out of respect to those great and eminent men by whom the Act had been framed—he more particularly alluded to Lord Godolphin and Lord Somers; yet he was greatly disposed to think that those eminent statesmen would not in the present day, and under the present circumstances, take the course of which they at that time established the precedent. Whether they wished to establish Lords Justices or a custos regni, or a regent, he was sure they would not pass over the members of the royal family who were of full age and resident within the realm at the time. He thought, therefore, that some portion of the royal family, he meant, of course, those who were of full age and resident in the kingdom, should be named as amongst the Lords Justices. He felt it necessary to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to this, which he wished to be taken as a sort of caveat against the Bill, for unless he saw very good reason for altering his opinion on the subject, he would, at a future stage of the Bill, embody his objection as a substantive motion.
Lord Wynfordthought, that if any portion of the royal family were to be included in the Bill, all of them ought to be. He, however, thought it would be the much better and more simple course to follow the precedent of the Act of Anne, which appointed certain great
1760
officers of state for the time being, to whom were to be added certain other individuals appointed by the heir presumptive. The precedent of Anne had been since that period twice followed in the appointment of Lords Justices, but in neither case had members of the royal family been included. He, therefore, thought it would be much better to leave the Bill as it now stood, following as it did the precedents already established.
Lord Broughamthought, that the Bill should recognise the right of the heir presumptive, or heir apparent, as much as the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Lord Chancellor, or any other of the Lords Justices. There was a great difference between Lords Justices appointed by an Act of Parliament, as in this case, and Lords Justices appointed by the Crown. In the latter case, the power of the Lords Justices was limited by such rules and regulations as the King might please to fix until his return to the country. In the reign of Geo. 1st he appointed the Prince, who was afterwards George 2nd, as custos regni; George 2nd, during his absence, appointed Queen Caroline Regent, and after the death of Frederick, Prince of Wales, he appointed Lords Justices. As to Queen Anne not being named in the Commission of Lords Justices in the absence of King William, the reason was obvious; she was then Princess of Denmark, a married woman, and being under the influence of her husband, who was a foreigner, it would not have been proper or constitutional to have named her in it.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it appeared to him that the object of the Bill was to secure the succession in the absence of the Sovereign, and to carry on the Government between the demise of one Sovereign and the arrival here of the other, that other being then in a foreign country. It appeared to him that the Sovereign, before his arrival in this country, might appoint members of the royal family or others to carry on the Government until his return. They should not be imposed upon him, for it was clear that on his accession to the Throne, he might appoint whom he pleased to carry on the Government of the country in his absence. It should, therefore, be left to him to give instructions to the Lords Justices to exercise such functions in his absence, and with such limitations as he should direct.
Lord Broughamcontended, that

1761
there was no instance in which Parliament had left out members of the royal family in a case of this kind, where they were of full age, and resident within the realm. The great officers of state were not more known in the country than the members of the royal family of full age. The Bill, however, only provided for a bare possibility, for the exercise of the royal authority in case of a demise of the Crown, and should that event take place in the lifetime of the King of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland in England, and before her Majesty had an heir apparent to the Throne. It was, in fact, for the exercise of the royal authority for some ten or twelve days before the arrival of the new Sovereign, but even in providing for this barely possible contingency it behoved Parliament not to depart from principle. In all such cases, Parliament should take into consideration and include in the commission members of the royal family of full age, resident within the realm.
Bill read a second time.