rose and addressed the Speaker to the following effect;—"Sir—The House of Commons having again assembled without any formal notification of his Majesty's pleasure that they should do so, I feel it a duty incumbent on me to offer myself to their notice; conceiving that the House must necessarily be anxious to hear what his Majesty's servants have to state on the subject which has occasioned our peculiar situation, and conceiving also that they must be desirous to understand what is the view which his Majesty's servants take of that situation, and what are the measures which they mean to propose in consequence. After having stated, therefore, the ground for such a proposition, I shall humbly submit to the House the propriety at their rising, of adjourning to the 29th instant. In the first place, Sir, I must observe, that when I had last the honour of addressing you, I should have been very much disposed to propose the adjournment to the 29th, instead of to the present day, had I thought we had assembled in such numbers and under such circumstances as would have justified us in taking into consideration at that time a question of such magnitude and importance; but, with the assemblage that then took place, I thought it incumbent on me to propose no other step than that by which the fullest attendance of members might be insured at the earliest possible day. No man can doubt, that the indisposition of his Majesty having prevented him from giving to his servants his royal consent for the further prorogation of parliament, it became our constitutional duty, and that of the other House of Parliament, to consider what ought to be done. But not only was it our duty to consider what ought to be done, but also at what period that which was to be done was to commence, and on what ground or information we would proceed to do any thing. The House having assembled on the 1st inst. not only without notification, but contrary to notification, by proclamation in the gazette, I did not conceive that we were placed in a situation in which it would be proper for us to enter into a consideration of any public question of importance, and I therefore with their unanimous concurrence, proposed an adjournment to the present day. It is not necessary for me, Sir, to go at any length into the circumstances which at that period induced me at one time to contemplate the propriety of proposing a longer adjournment. There were many advantages which the House might have derived from the occurrence of events, that might have occurred between the 1st and the 29th instant. There was also this strong fact, that except as the circumstances of the government were altered by his Majesty's indisposition, there was no public reason for requiring the meeting of parliament earlier than that period. But, Sir, if that was the view, which the House might have then taken of the subject, I have the satisfaction to address you now, under circumstances, in which, if doubt ever had existed before, no doubt can possibly be entertained. From the particular situation in which I felt myself placed, I thought it my duty to proceed personally this morning to Windsor for the purpose of procuring at the latest possible period before the meeting of this House, a clear and explicit explanation as to the actual state of his Majesty's health. I have now therefore the satisfaction to inform the House, that, I have seen his Majesty's physicians, and that they are unanimously of opinion, that his Majesty is in a state of progressive amendment; and that a very considerable amendment has actually taken place.—(Loud cries of hear, hear!)—On this statement, Sir, so truly cheering to the feelings and so consonant to the wishes and to the prayers of his Majesty's subjects, (hear, hear, hear,) I ground the motion with which I shall conclude, for further adjourning this House to the day originally described in the royal proclamation. That the statement which I have been so happy as to be enabled to make, will be most grateful to the House and to the country, I cannot possibly doubt; and unless peculiar difficulties and embarrassments existed, which actually do not exist, I am persuaded that the House will not hesitate in adopting the delay which I recommend, in preference to the institution of any measure of a public nature under the present circumstances. Reserving to myself the right of making any further observations, that may be necessary should a discussion arise on the question. I move you, Sir, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn for a fortnight."

then rose and said, that in the few observations he was about to make upon what had fallen from the right hon. gent. opposite to him, he would have it understood that there was no man who participated more than he did in those sentiments of satisfaction which the prospect of his Majesty's speedy recovery must so generally inspire — a prospect happily to be collected from the right hon. gent.'s statement, "That his Majesty was in a state of progressive amendment." While, however, he was, with all others, most anxious for the complete restoration of his Majesty's health, and while he felt as much as any man on account of the serious attack under which he laboured—he was not to forget that there were at the same time other duties and considerations which were not to be wholly overlooked. The right hon. gent. had acknowledged that he had felt himself much disposed upon the last day of their meeting, to have proposed an adjournment to the full extent of what he now asked; it was, perhaps, as well that the right hon. gent. had not acted up to that inclination, for had he done so, had he ventured to have submitted such a proposition to the House, he (Mr. Whitbread) felt persuaded that the House would have rejected it. As to the attendance upon that occasion, he not having been present, could not speak, but as to the question of sufficient notice, whether there was time or not to order letters to be written to every member, he could only say, that if there was time to summons, the summons ought to have been general, and if there had been an opportunity to give due notice to one, why not to all? (Hear!) This it was clear, there had been sufficient time for doing, and he thought that ministers, in omitting to do so, had not done their duty by the public. With respect, however, to the proceedings on that day, he acknowledged, that under the same circumstances he would, had he been present, have voted for the adjournment for a fortnight, in order to afford that time for ensuring an adequate attendance. That object had been fully accomplished, and they were now met, for the first time, during the sessions. This was virtually the first day of the sessions, for their former meeting was avowedly for the purpose of adjourning over. And upon this, the opening of the sessions, they met under the alarming circumstances of his Majesty being no longer in a state to transact or attend to public business. And yet they were now asked, not to proceed to provide against so serious a deficiency in the functions of the executive government, but to adjourn over for another fortnight! Where there was an actual physical necessity, no doubt it must be yielded to; but what was the urgency of the necessity then requiring them to suspend the adoption of measures for supplying the defect of the executive government for another fortnight? The constitution was confessedly suspended; it existed not separable from the executive power of the King; and yet they were now called upon to continue the suspension of the constitution for another fortnight; and upon what ground, upon what authentic testimony, upon what recorded evidence, was it that they were now asked to do this? Upon no such ground, in short, upon nothing but the bare, unrecorded statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer! (Hear! hear!) Was it upon such matter, upon such loose and un-authenticated communication as that they were required to ground a parliamentary proceeding, in a crisis of such importance? Why had not the privy council been generally and indiscriminately assembled, and the physicians examined before them? or, if that had been done, why was not the evidence of those physicians laid before the House, to enable it to form its own judgment instead of being obliged to hazard conjectures upon the mere assertions of a member of Parliament? (Hear! hear!) In their ordinary course, that House was not in the habit of grounding their proceedings upon mere vague assertions coming from any individual, however respectable. He would ask, if it would not seem strange, in a business of the utmost moment, to depart from that rule which governed their conduct uniformly on other less important occasions, and to be content with less satisfactory grounds of proceeding, In a case where the most authentic and conclusive evidence ought alone to be admitted? They were now after one adjournment, going to adjourn again, without any necessity for either appearing recorded on their Journals. This was not consulting the importance of the crisis, nor the dignity of their own proceedings.

He felt as much as any man the delicacy of the question. The people of this country, he had no doubt, were unanimous in one common sentiment of personal re- spect towards the King; but they also felt, as indeed indispensibly connected with that sentiment (if not in a great degree giving birth to it) a due respect for the Kingly office itself. Were it possible for his Majesty to have had in contemplation that a calamity so heavy would have fallen on him, who could for a moment entertain a doubt that he would not have enjoined his ministers to take, without delay, the most summary method of supplying the defect, occasioned by his melancholy illness: and was it acting up to what might so fairly be supposed to be the wishes of his Majesty, again to defer the prosecution of the public business. They were now proceeding to adjourn for a fortnight; to do without the Kingly office for that period; and all this, with their eyes open to the present alarming state of things, and their too probable consequences. This was so wrong in itself, that precedent could not justify it. But there was, in fact, no precedent: for the times when the executive government was allowed to be before temporarily suspended, were so essentially different in every respect from the present, that the proceedings of that day could not be produced now as a precedent applicable to the present period: then we were at peace, now we were at war: then was a time of confidence, the present times were pregnant with perils, alarm, and despondency; they knew not what even a week, a day, might produce.

There was another consideration also which he would willingly pass over, anxious as he was upon such a topic to avoid every allusion that could be thought invidious. He could not, however, help reminding them, that at that day Mr. Pitt was the minister; and they all knew who were now the ministers. They who, like him (Mr. Whitbread), had generally opposed their conduct as ministers, even when acting under the controul of the Kingly office, could not be thought willing to allow such ministers to continue in power after that salutary controul had been removed. He asked the House, therefore, if, in such circumstances, they would come to pass an order for further suspending the executive government? Was that the duty of the House of Commons? He certainly thought it was not; that such a proceeding would be a violation of their duty. He thought that under such circumstances, it did not become them to adjourn for more than from day to day. The two Houses of Parliament (he prayed God that he might soon have it in his power to say, the Parliament itself) assembled, ought to take the speediest and most effectual method to provide a remedy against the recurrence of that calamity which was now to be so generally deplored. It ought to have been provided before. He could not conceal from himself that the present alarming state of things—he could not conceal from himself that the misfortunes of 1788, great as they unquestionably were, were yet both as to themselves and their consequences, but minor calamities compared with those of the present times; but still there was another point in which the precedent then furnished, had been in the present instance departed from; then the Lord Chancellor, Thurlow, (if he was in error he was open to correction) had announced to the other House of Parliament, that he had on that day seen his Majesty; but the right hon. gent. had only seen his Majesty's physicians. He had stated what, no doubt, gave them all cordial pleasure, the opinions of those physicians as to the King's appearing to be in a state of progressive amendment; but there the right hon. gent. stopped. He did not state nor hold out any hope of the period at which we might reasonably expect his Majesty's complete restoration to the discharge of the royal functions: would it not have been but consulting the decency of the House of Commons to have laid before them a report of the examination of the physicians before the council? ought not such an examination to have taken place? might not means be resorted to for putting the House in possession of that information, so as they may record the necessity that influenced their measures? He thought they might, and that too without any infraction of delicacy. In that case they would have sufficient grounds to go upon, but in the present there were not sufficient. No parliamentary proceeding, in a case of such importance, ought to be grounded upon the mere assertion of one of their own members; they were to consider not only the King but the people; and both in reference to the other; the people had a Sovereign whom they loved, and the King had a people whom he loved; that House should look equally to the interests of each, in order best to discharge their duty to both. He need scarcely repeat the regret he felt for the severe afflictions of the King; his sense of them was such, that he could not conscientiously agree to the House adjourning for a longer period than from day to day. In case of any unfortunate event, which God forbid, the House ought not to extend their adjournment to a longer interval at such a crisis. He did not wish to distract or to divide; to create either jealousy or anger; but at a period when the country was deprived of the executive part of the government, he must enter his solemn protest against any measure that would for another fortnight continue to deprive them of the aid and councils of the remaining two branches of the legislature, though he would not divide the House upon the question.

said, that agreeing as he did in most of the observations which had fallen from the hon. gent. who had just sat down, he was determined not to let the question go to a decision without dividing the House upon it. The motion now submitted to them he conceived to be one of the most irrational and unconstitutional propositions ever made in that House. He would never consent to compromise the constitution. Had he been present on the last day of meeting, he would have opposed every motion for adjournment. The constitution was suspended, and he would not have agreed to a moment's delay, till that constitution was restored; but now, after that delay—after deferring so long their duty to the people, were, they now still further to postpone it for another fortnight? But the time was not of such importance as the principle. What principle was this mode of proceeding calculated to establish? Could the public business go on without the executive government? If it could not, why at such a period, was it to be deferred? and if it could, were ministers anxious to convince the people that the executive branch of the constitution was a mere nothing? Was there any proceeding more likely to bring that part of the constitution into contempt? Was it not holding it forth to the country as a mere farce? Were the people to be told, that in the votes of both Houses only consisted the constitution—that the crown might be placed on a cushion, whilst all its powers and prerogatives were to be left to the discretion of ministers? If the present predicament was an awkward one, it was so because the House had not, in the first instance, done its duty, and not because the line of their duty was doubtful or dif- ficult to discover. As to the mode of proceeding which they ought now to adopt, there could be no doubt or difficulty about it. He felt for the personal sufferings of the King, as every man must feel, but they need not, nor ought they to interfere with the discharge of their duty both to the King and to the people. He felt for the King, but he felt equally for the perilous state of the country. Was it treating the House of Commons with common decency to call on them to postpone their duty to the people at a period of such emergency, upon the mere ipse dixit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? As to the distinction of seeing the King's physicians, and not the King himself, it did not weigh with him, because in either case it would have been but the mere assertion of an individual, and therefore no ground for parliamentary proceedings. Let the individual assertion have been what it might, he would have voted the same way. He would never agree to compromise the duties of that House to the constitution, nor willingly to submit to any power extended beyond it. The act passed by a very prevalent and powerful faction against his royal highness the Prince of Wales, never should have had his sanction; an act that put him into leading strings, that threw him back into the stage of infancy, and made him a sort of constructive lunatic, enacting him incapable of acting or of judging without the co-operation and controul of certain of the legislators; as it were stultifying him this moment, when the next, by the laws of the land, might have raised him to the crown of these kingdoms, and lifted him out of a cradle to have placed him on a throne. The same course was, he supposed, by a part of the same faction, which had heaped indignity after indignity upon his royal highness the Prince of Wales, now about to be adopted, as far as in them lay. He would resist it, and if he stood alone, he was determined to divide the House. If the ministers were resolved at the risk of the country's safety and at all hazards to prolong to the utmost limit, the tenure by which they held their places and their power, they and others might do so; but he would not go back to the people to tell them, that after the constitution had been suspended for a fortnight, he had voted that it should be suspended for a fortnight longer. A state of anarchy had existed sufficiently long. He would do what he could to restore to the people the government of the constitution.

had not intended, nor would it have been necessary for him to deliver his sentiments on this occasion, but as the hon. baronet had declared his intention of dividing the House upon this question, and he would feel himself bound to vote with him, it became requisite to say a few words in order to explain his reasons for so voting. He was extremely at a loss to know why, under all the circumstances of the case, the right hon. chancellor of the exchequer should have adopted the measure he now recommended to the House. He could not see what the right hon. gent. could gain by it, nor what could be his object in thus creating a difficulty for himself, and for the House. Why would he not follow the only precedent they had of a similar occasion, and adjourn the House till Monday? Had he made a proposition of this kind, he would have been happy in giving his support—no injury or inconvenience could arise from so doing. If his Majesty's malady unhappily continued or increased, the House of Commons would be ready to take such steps as were advisable to remedy the deficiency in the exercise of the executive functions of the government. If, on the contrary, his Majesty should be restored to health, his ministers might obtain his royal signature to the commission, and prorogue parliament to the period they might think most advisable. Why, therefore, would the right hon. gent. pursue this other course, and thereby expose the House to the appearance of difficulty and division? But there were no grounds whatever of a parliamentary nature laid for the adoption of this proposition. As a member of parliament, he could not take the word of any man breathing as the ground for a parliamentary proceeding. If the right hon. gent. had offered himself to be examined by the House, and in that situation informed them what questions he had put to the physicians, and what were their answers; even that would not have been sufficient, though it was much more than to hear him merely state a matter in the course of debate. The one would be put upon their journals, and appear as some reason for their adjourning for a fortnight at so momentous a period; but the other could no where be seen or referred to, and their proceeding would consequently seem to be without motive or sufficient cause.—When they knew that there was no executive power, would they take from the people the advantage they possessed of having the two other estates efficient in whatever manner assembled? He again repeated that such a course could be of no benefit to the country; and that it was directly in the teeth of the only precedent that could be referred to. Upon all these considerations, which were very obvious, and from a variety of topics which pressed on his mind (and he dared to say on the minds of every gentleman who heard him) and from which he carefully abstained; for one reason alone he would vote against the adjournment—this reason was, that there was no parliamentary ground laid for the proposition.

said, that the question was simply, whether, in consequence of the calamity which had befallen the executive branch, they should suspend the proceedings of the other two branches of the legislature for a fortnight? He did not mean to say, that there was any great danger to the state from an adjournment for a fortnight; but he thought there would be still less danger from adjourning from day to day. It had also been stated, that it was the original intention of the executive to have prorogued Parliament to the day to which it was now proposed to adjourn. He could not, however, believe that his Majesty would have formed such an intention, or that his ministers would have advised him to it, if either of them could have foreseen that such a calamity would, in the mean time, have fallen upon the executive power. For these reasons he felt himself imperiously called upon to vote against the adjournment proposed.

was disposed to agree with the hon. gent. opposite as to the necessity of avoiding delay, under certain circumstances; but on so melancholy an occasion as that to which the right hon. gent. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), had alluded, and when so many reasons were urged for that delay, he could not avoid supporting the motion. On a subject which even in private life would affect any man strongly he could not refuse his assent; but how much more so did it become every man not to wound the feelings of the principal branch of the executive government? The delay was only for one fortnight; would any danger arise to the country from it; certainly not; it might be permitted without danger, for the enemy could not get a ship to sea, nor could their troops beat lord Wellington.

observed, that having been one of those members who had not had an opportunity of being present in the House on their last meeting, this must be considered as the first opportunity he had of delivering his sentiments on this momentous question. But indeed every member in the House might fairly be deemed to be in a similar situation, for the shortness of the notice previous to their former meeting, and the high importance of the subject before them, was such, that they could have no alternative but to adjourn in the first instance, as they had done, till a fuller attendance could be procured, and a more mature deliberation given. On that occasion, and under such circumstances, ministers, he thought, might well be excused for not offering any reasons to induce them to take the step they had taken; but at the present day, after the I delay of a fortnight, they ought to have been prepared to come forward with some substantial grounds for the resolution they proposed for the acceptance of the House—grounds much more substantial than those which had been adduced by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer. That right hon. gent. well knew that they were now acting not as, a parliament, but as a convention. As the third estate was absent, they were not—they could not be a legal parliament, nor could they act as such without being brought together by the King, unless an absolute and imperative necessity were shewn for their meeting without that sanction. Under these circumstances, the right hon. gent. proposed an adjournment for fourteen days on his own allegation, that he had seen and examined the physicians attendant upon his Majesty, who had assured him that his Majesty had improved in health, and was in a state of progressive amendment. Much as he was gratified by this report (and no man could feel more delight than himself in the expectations of a speedy recovery to which it gave birth), yet he felt a strong indisposition to take the word of any member of parliament, or of any minister of the crown, as the ground for his proceeding; and for this reason, because all the principles of the constitution were against it—because, if parliament acted as a convention, they ought, by proof and evidence before them, to establish the absolute and imperative necessity which compelled them so to act, which was not done by the information given them by a mi- nister. In speaking of a minister, he begged to be understood not to allude invidiously to the right hon. gentlemen opposite, or to any minister in particular; he spoke of ministers generally, and meant that the House could not receive the word of any minister as a ground for their proceedings. It appeared to him that other grounds might have been laid without infringing on that delicacy of conduct which the peculiar nature of their situation demanded, and which it was his most earnest wish, and he was sure the most earnest desire of them all, strictly and guardedly to preserve. He thought a single physician might have been examined at their bar, whose report would have established the nature of the King's malady; and being placed on their journals, would have become a parliamentary foundation of their proceedings. He was convinced the delicacy he had already alluded to would have induced them to rest satisfied with this one evidence, without inquiring further, and have prompted them to accede to the motion of the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, which, under such circumstances, it would have afforded him the highest gratification to have seconded. But his (the chancellor of the exchequer's) conduct placed him in a difficulty, and the principles of the constitution rendered him reluctant to consent to the proposition for an adjournment.

From the bulletins regularly published and promulgated by the physicians, they saw that the King's health was in a state of amendment, and this added still more to the delicacy of the situation in which the House was now placed. This was a strong inducement for them to adjourn, in order to ascertain, more clearly and decidedly, what turn the disorder would take, and when and how it might be expected to terminate. For if they refused to adjourn, many in the country might think that their refusal proceeded from a want of respect and affection to his Majesty.—In respect and affection for the King, however, though he yielded to none, yet by his sense of duty warring with the proposal of the right hon. gent. he was placed in one of the situations most painful to his feelings that ever he had experienced. The right hon. gent. proposed to adjourn to the 29th of the month, because that was the original intention of the King and his confidential advisers. But the House had no evidence of this.—(Here the chancellor of the exchequer across the table mentioned the proclamation in the gazette.)—Mr. Ponsonby continued: It was needless to enter into a controversy upon a point not at all material to the subject of their present deliberation. The intention of the Sovereign, when his understanding was in such a state as to enable him to exercise the functions of the executive government, and to decide on the propriety of public measures, ought not to govern the conduct of the House of Commons—when, from the unfortunate circumstances that had since arisen, he was no longer capable of giving his attention to business, or of sanctioning any act of the legislature. On these considerations, and in their present situation, it would much relieve his embarrassment; and, he conceived also the difficulty in which the House was placed, if the right hon. gent. would consent so to shape his motion, as to make the period of adjournment a week instead of a fortnight, as he now proposed. No disadvantage could arise to him from this alteration. If his Majesty continued to recover, which he trusted would be the case, they might then adjourn again till the 29th, or till a commission could be made out for their legal and regular prorogation. If, on the contrary, his Majesty's malady should unfortunately take an unhappy turn, so as to render their proceeding advisable, then every one, even the right hon. gent. himself, must wish that their adjournment had only been for a week.—But after all, if the right hon. gent. was determined to press his motion on the House, strongly as the sound principles of the constitution pressed on his (Mr. Ponsonby's) mind, he would rather sacrifice his opinion, and give up his judgment, than by dividing against or negativing the proposition, give the semblance of reality to the idea that the House of Commons could act without due respect, regard, and affection to the King, or adopt a measure which could bring the delicacy of their conduct towards him into question.

admitted that this was a question on which it was possible to entertain different opinions and views without impeachment of motives in any quarter. The hon. gent. opposite seemed to think that, as the House had met, it was his duty to proceed to some act of business. This, however, was purely a matter of discretion. It had the alternative of ad- journing, and this alternative they were now called upon to adopt. If they were to proceed to do any other act, then indeed, he should be of opinion, that a much more particular, correct, and authentic statement ought to be laid before them. But to proceed now to examine the physicians before the adjournment, was directly contrary to the principle for which the gentlemen on the other side contended. The precedent of 1788 was not the only one in the memory of them all which applied to the present circumstances. They all knew that at one period, when parliament was actually sitting, his Majesty had been indisposed, and bulletins had been regularly and daily issued respecting the state of his health, and yet the legislature had proceeded with the business off the nation, notwithstanding that indisposition. If the House, however, were now to institute any proceeding, he thonght that a much more accurate and authentic information ought to be produced, as the ground of such proceeding. But a doubt having been brought home to their minds, and a most satisfactory doubt, whether any act would be necessary at present to supply a deficiency in the functions of the executive government, it became a question whether at this moment the House would take any step whatever further than to adjourn. They were now required to refrain, upon hopes, held out that they would be most probably relieved from the task of adopting any measures at present, with respect to the executive authority. It was no dereliction of duty in the House, therefore, to wait for a short time, to see whether its interference would be necessary. Nothing was asked but a short interval to determine that point—Nothing but a short space to ascertain what turn the malady would take—Spatium requiemque dolori. This under the circumstances, he thought it advisable to grant, and would, therefore, support the motion for adjournment.

, in explanation, disclaimed having thrown out any idea of an examination of the physicians by parliament. All that he and his friends contended for was, that they should have a regular and authentic assurance that there was a reasonable prospect of the speedy termination of the King's malady. The examination might have taken place before the Privy Council, and nothing more need have been given to the House than the general result, He implored the House therefore not to think that they had contended for an examination of the physicians at the bar. They had required nothing more than that a proper ground should have been laid for the step which they were called upon to take.

said, that he had so understood the right hon. gent. and had given his observations their fair meaning, and with that the explanation occurred. The right hon. gent. opposite thought the House ought to do no act in the present circumstances, merely upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer however proposed to do nothing more than to adjourn, and this under all the circumstances, he thought the House might do, even upon such information as they possessed. But if the House had been called upon to adopt any other proceeding, his (Mr. C.'s) argument was, that much more authentic and regular information ought to have been produced.

thought it a compulsory duty on the House to see what was its real situation, whether it was to be considered as a parliament or a convention. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) had adverted to the precedent of 1804, but that did not apply to the present circumstances. Parliament had then been regularly convened by the King. It was generally known at that time that his Majesty laboured under some indisposition, and it was believed that the malady was of the same nature with that under which the King suffered in 1788. But his indisposition did not then appear by an acknowledged inability to perform any of the necessary acts of the executive power, and when an hon. baronet^*, referring to the bulletins, required an explanation from the ministers, it was stated that there was no want of capacity to perform the duties of government: that it was not thought advisable to press much business on his Majesty; but that, in case of necessity, he was perfectly competent to act. But now they were met, he knew not in what capacity; nothing but a paramount necessity could justify them in doing any one act. Their first object ought to be to establish that necessity if it existed, and to ascertain why they were met there in that way—and then the question of expediency would arise, whether they should proceed to business, or adjourn. If it should appear upon investigation, that there were strong hopes of a speedy recovery, the latter alternative might then he adopted. He should feel great pain, however, in voting upon this subject. He would have been much better pleased with the mode of protesting which had been resorted to by his hon. friend below (Mr. Whitbread), but he could not refrain from declaring his opinion.

^* Sir Robert Lawley, see vol. i. p. 507.

said, he did not rise to protract this debate, but could not omit stating that when the original adjournment till this day had been moved, it was understood that a second adjournment might be necessary, unless a more unfavourable turn in his Majesty's malady than was then contemplated should in the mean time take place. The motion for that adjournment he had seconded; and before he could so far depart from the pledge then given by him, it must be made clear to his mind that the state of his Majesty's health was not amended. So far, however, was this from being the case, that the whole House must be satisfied, from the reports of the physicians, as well as from the statement of the right hon. gent. opposite, which came down to the latest moment, that the state of his Majesty's disorder was greatly amended. He should not be inclined to object to the proposition of his right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby), that the adjournment should only take place for a week, if agreeing to that modification of the proposition could produce what was so highly desirable on the present occasion—unanimity. The hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett), however, was against any adjournment whatever; and he would wish therefore to know what that hon. baronet would propose that the House should do? The hon. baronet indeed had said that the House should not adjourn for a single day, or consent to remain in the state in which they were for a moment. Would the hon. bart. then wish them now to proceed in providing for the suspension of the executive functions? If the abstract proposition was to be taken in its full extent, any common disorder, any ordinary fever which a king might have, and which might render him incapable even for a day or an hour to exercise his royal functions, would be a ground for proposing the filling up the vacancy in the executive. If this was evidently absurd, it followed that parliament had to exercise its discretion on the nature of the malady with which the Sovereign was afflicted, and as to the propriety of proceeding to take any measures upon it. Although it was a most unpleasant subject to speak of, he must say that the hon. baronet was wrong in point of fact when he said that this was the second time his Majesty had been visited with this affliction. It was extremely unpleasant to refer to this, as a matter of calculation, but the House must be aware that this was the fourth recurrence of a similar malady. Be it so, but still the remembrance of four instances of affliction must bring along with it the consoling recollection of four instances of recovery. His right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) had referred to the year 1801, and not to the year 1804. That case, however, it was said, did not apply to the present. This he could not agree to. If parliament was legally opened and it was afterwards found that his Majesty was incapacitated for the discharge of his functions, parliament was equally bound to proceed in providing the remedy as if the incapacity had manifested itself previous to their meeting, and had been the occasion of their assembling prematurely. It was the duty of parliament to proceed on the notoriety of the fact, as much as on the manifestation of the incapability displayed in the want or omission of an essential public act. On the occasion of his Majesty's affliction in 1801, one of his Majesty's ministers (the late Mr. Pitt) had continued in office, declaring as a reason that his Majesty could not receive the seals of office from him. At that period his Majesty continued in this state for a longer period than on the present occasion. A gentleman (Mr. Nichol) not now a member of that House, did at the time give notice of a motion for an inquiry into the subject; but, on the day on which the motion was to have come on, he (Mr. Sheridan) anticipated it, by moving the question of adjournment, which was seconded by Mr. Pitt, who came into the House whilst he was speaking, and consequently carried. In a few days it was clear and manifest that there was no occasion for such a motion, and no such motion was ever made. He knew from the highest authority that one of his Majesty's first inquiries, after his recovery, was whether any parliamentary inquiry had been made into his situation, and that it proved the most gratifying thing to his feelings that no such inquiry had taken place. (Cries of order! order! order!) He was sorry to be out of order, but after what he had already said the House would readily surmise what he wished to say. But this he presumed he might be allowed to say, without any breach of order, that by an adjournment for the time proposed, there was reason to think that all further discussion on this calamitous subject would be rendered unnecessary—a circumstance which he knew must be highly gratifying to the feelings of the House and of the country. If any examination of the physicians in attendance on his Majesty had taken place, he doubted not it would have been laid before the House. But if they had been examined at this period of the disorder, there was reason to believe that they might have been unwilling to pledge themselves to any specific opinion, and might have desired longer time to consider and to judge of the various symptoms.

did not rise for the purpose of protracting the debate, nor with a view by any thing he should say to provoke his Majesty's ministers to disturb the systematic silence which they had observed on this occasion; his only object in rising was, that he might explain what he was very anxious to explain, the reason why he should feel himself compelled to vote against the motion for an adjournment for a fortnight. The question then before the House was, not whether they should proceed to take any particular step, but whether it was more proper and desirable for them to adjourn for a fortnight, or for a shorter period? That was the question upon which he understood it to be the intention of the hon. baronet to take the sense of the House, and, consequently, he took it for granted, that if the motion for the adjournment for a fortnight should be negatived, the hon. baronet meant to follow up that decision by a motion of adjournment till to-morrow. No hon. member that he had heard had given an opinion that the House should in the present instance proceed to take any step for supplying the deficiency in the exercise of the royal functions.—The only point to which the argument of those who preceded him in the discussion applied, was, whether it would be more eligible to adjourn over for a fortnight, or from day to day? And here he must observe, that the right hon. gent. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not stated any satisfactory reason, why that House should, by the adoption of his motion, put it out of its power to assemble during a fortnight, in case any emergency should occur to require the interference of parliament.—The only question, therefore, was, whether they, the representatives of the people, the servants of the public, should, called together as they had been, adjourn from day to day, or deprive themselves of the opportunity of discharging their duty to their constituents; and at a period when they might momentarily expect to hear of great national calamities abroad, or of some heavy public afflictions at home? Deprived, as they were at this moment, of the parental care of his Majesty, he did not think it right in them, as public servants, to put it out of their power to take any step during fourteen days to meet any emergency which might possibly arise. It would certainly not be the wish of any hon. member, if the adjournment from day to day should be agreed to, that any parliamentary proceedings should be proposed, unless such a change should take place in the state of his Majesty's health as would render such a measure indispensible.

The case in 1788 afforded no precedent for the course proposed by the right hon. gent. At that period, unquestionably the parliament had met in the same manner as in the late instance. In that case the parliament, as on the late occasion, adjourned over for a fortnight. But at the expiration of that adjournment the House had not re-assembled under the same circumstances as at present; they had then no reason whatever to entertain such hopes of his Majesty's speedy re-establishment, as the statement of the right hon. gent. opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was calculated to excite. The parliament consequently proceeded to take those steps which the necessity of the case imperiously called for. In that instance, too, the House had full information upon the real state of the case, derived from the examinations of the physicians, whilst at present they had no official or authentic knowledge of the fact, and would therefore be by no means justified in taking any steps founded only upon the communication of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or of any other individual. But it had been argued, that, as they were not to take any steps in the mean time—as they were to do nothing, they ought to adjourn over for the fortnight. Yet he would ask those gentlemen who reasoned in that way, was it nothing to consent to an adjournment for a fortnight, to put it out of their power during fourteen days to resort to any measures, which a possible, not to say a probable, contingency might render necessary? Was it to do nothing, to deprive themselves by such a proceeding of all opportunity during that interval of faithfully discharging those important duties which their constituents sent them there to perform? It was upon this ground that he felt himself bound to oppose the adjournment for a fortnight, with a view if that should be negatived to support an adjournment for twenty-four hours. In doing this, he was persuaded, he was taking the most effectual mode of shewing his loyalty, his affection, and attachment to his Majesty; because nothing could so directly tend to support and strengthen the best interests of the crown, than that, during a period when there was a possibility of the occurrence of great national dangers and disasters, that House should be ready to resort to such measures as the exigency of the case might require.

lamented that any difference of opinion should arise on a subject of so delicate a nature. Supposing, as was desired by some gentlemen, that the House was to meet day after day (for which he saw no necessity,) all they could do was to proceed in a more summary way to supply the existing deficiency; but that deficiency now complained of could not be supplied in any way so soon as a fortnight. He perfectly agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. gent. (Mr. Sheridan) whose speech as well on this as on other critical occasions, had done him so much credit, but who was stopped in the most interesting part of it. That the House had a paramount duty to perform, and that duty was, to take care that the people's interests were protected, he admitted; but next to that was to be the consideration that nothing was done by the House which could affect the feelings of his Majesty—(Hear, hear!) The right hon. gent. had made observations, which though called to order for, were not in his opinion improper. He could not see any necessity for meeting earlier than the time proposed by the right hon. mover. The question was, as stated by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning,) a question of discretion, not so much as to what the House ought to do, as what they should forbear to do.

said, the question, as it appeared to him, was, whether they should assume and exercise powers approaching to those exercised by the convention, without any other statement than the verbal communication made by the right hon. gent. He did not mean to express any doubt of the word of that right hon. gent., or of the very respectable gentlemen in attendance upon his Majesty; but that House ought to have some more authentic information as the ground of its proceeding. Under this impression, he should vote against the longer adjournment if pressed to such a vote.

agreed that the House had then no alternative but to enter at once into the examination of the physicians, or to adjourn. He could not but entertain a decided preference for the latter alternative. In this impression he was strengthened by what had fallen from his right hon. friend at the conclusion of his speech, which afforded reason to hope for his Majesty's speedy recovery. He concurred also in the adjournment, because no hon. member, with the exception of the hon. baronet, had stated that any step should now be taken to supply the deficiency in the functions of the executive. Those gentlemen who supported the adjournment from day to day, did it on the ground that parliament might be ready to provide for any emergency which might possibly arise. He had particularly an objection to that mode of proceeding. Was it a proper situation for that House to be placed in, to have to consider from day to day the reports of his Majesty's physicians, and to decide from the more or the less favourable complexion of them, whether a recovery was to be expected, or his Majesty was in such a state as to require parliament to take steps, and make provisions for supplying the deficiency of the executive? Not willing to see the House placed in such a situation, he should vote for the adjournment for a fortnight, especially as during that period it was impossible for the House to complete the measures for supplying the executive. As to what had been said of the necessity of having more authentic information than that of the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would remind the House that they often took his and other ministers assertions as the foundation of their proceedings. On the whole, therefore, he should vote for the motion of his right hon. friend.

A division then took place—For the question of adjournment 343; Against it 58;—Majority 285.

The House then adjourned to the 29th instant.