House of Commons
Thursday, November 29, 1810.
The House met again this day. Three members took the oaths and their seats; and on the motion of Mr. Leicester and Mr. Kenrick, new writs were issued for Milbourne Port, in the room of lord Lewisham, called to the House of Peers, as earl of Dartmouth; and for Yarmouth, in the room of lord Valentia, who had accepted the Chiltern hundreds.
King's Illness—Examination of His Majesty's Physicians Before the Privy Council
rose and addressed the House. They were now, he said, re-assembled under the same unhappy circumstances which prevailed at their last separation. The continuation of his Majesty's malady had rendered it impossible to take measures for opening the session, proroguing the parliament, or for transacting any other public business. In this state of things, his Majesty's ministers had assembled the privy council, and called the physicians in attendance upon his Majesty before that body to examine them with respect to the actual state of his Majesty's health—a copy of which Examination he now held in his hand. Having no means of communicating in any other way information equally authentic and accurate to the House, he begged leave, having the permission of the council for that purpose, to present this Report at the table, with a view to its being read by the clerk.
apprehended, that if any member required that the question should be put, the report could not be received without this preliminary, though in many cases the silence of the House was taken as a presumption that there was no objection.
did not mean to oppose the reception of the report, though he thought it right that the question should be put upon it before it should be laid upon the table. It was not the custom of the House to receive any papers without the question being put, unless such as were moved for and ordered by the House, or such as were commanded to be laid before them by his Majesty; and however important this document might be, it was contrary to the dignity of the House to receive it without question, and he therefore proposed that the question should be put.
admitted that the observations of the right hon. gent. were perfectly correct. He had been disposed to admit the present paper without a question, because, on consulting the journals of 1788, he could find no objection made to a similar proceeding.
The motion, "That this paper be now delivered in," was then put, and agreed nem. con. as was also a subsequent mo- tion, That it be now read. It was then read by the clerk as follows;—
Copy of the EXAMINATION of the PHYSICIANS attending his MAJESTY; taken upon Oath, before the Lords of his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, on the 28th and 29th November 1810.
At the Council Chamber, Whitehall, the 28th of November, 1810; present, the Lords of his Majesty's most honourable Privy Council.
Their lordships being met; and the physicians who have attended his Majesty during his present illness, attending the board,
Was called in, and sworn; and examined as follows:
Question.—You are desired to acquaint this board, whether the state of his Majesty's health is such, as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—A. His Majesty is certainly incapable at present of attending his parliament, or transacting public business.
What are the hopes, you entertain, of his Majesty's recovery?—I have very confident hopes of his Majesty's ultimate recovery.
Do you found the opinion, given in your answer to the previous question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder; or upon general experience in other cases of the same nature; or upon both?—Upon both.
Whether in that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, it has been found from experience, that the greater number of persons so affected, have been cured?—Undoubtedly.
Can you form any judgment, or probable conjecture, of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—No; I cannot form any decisive opinion upon this subject: It varies in different persons; and the time has varied in his Majesty's former indispositions.
Whether, so far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, you think it more probable that his Majesty will, or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—I think it much more probable that his Majesty will recover. My ex- pectations at present, are very confident of his Majesty's recovery. I speak this, however, with reference to the uncertainty that always attends medical predictions: With this reference, I should say, from what I see in his Majesty, that I have no doubt of it.
What degree of experience have you had yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—In above forty years practice as a physician, I have seen many instances of it.
Whether any amendment has already taken place in the course of his Majesty's disorder; and whether the appearance of such amendment continues at present?—His Majesty is certainly better; and I am not sure, that he was not full as well, if not better yesterday, and continues so this morning, than he has been since I had the honour to attend his Majesty in this illness.
called in and sworn; and examined as follows:
You are desired to acquaint this Board, whether the state of his Majesty's health is such, as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—I think it is such as to prevent his coming to parliament, or attending to public business.
What are the hopes you entertain of his Majesty's recovery?—I think it is in the highest degree probable, that his Majesty will recover.
Do you found the opinion given in your answer to the previous question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder; or upon general experience in other cases of the same nature; or upon both?—Upon both.
Whether, in that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, it has been found from experience, that the greater number of persons so affected, have been cured?— I believe so.
Can you form any judgment, or probable conjecture, of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—I cannot form a satisfactory conjecture.
Whether, so far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, you think it more probable that his Majesty will or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—Much more probable, that his Majesty will recover.
What degree of experience have you had yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—In the course of nineteen years, a good number of cases must have fallen under my cognizance.
Whether any amendment has already taken place, in the course of his Majesty's disorder; and whether the appearance of such amendment continues at present?—A very considerable amendment has taken place in his Majesty's symptoms. In the course of the last twenty four hours, his Majesty's mental health has improved; but in the same space, his Majesty has been more indisposed bodily; but I have just reason to believe, that I shall find that indisposition much mitigated on my return this evening.
called, in and sworn; and examined as follows:
You are desired to acquaint this Board, whether the state of his Majesty's health is such, as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—I consider the state of his Majesty's health to be such, as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or attending to public business.
what are the hopes you entertain of his Majesty's recovery?—The greatest expectation of his Majesty's recovery.
Do you found the opinion, given in your answer to the previous question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder; or upon general experience in other cases of the same nature; or upon both?—I found my opinion, upon the improvement that has already taken place in his indisposition; and the present integrity of his faculties; and the analogy this disorder bears to his former illness.
Whether, in that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, it has been found, from experience, that the greater number of persons, so affected, have been cured?—I firmly believe, that it does appear, that the greater number of persons have been cured; but my own experience has not been great in that disorder.
Can you form any judgment, or probable conjecture, of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—I can form no judgment of the precise duration. In general, I should judge that the duration cannot be long.
Whether, so far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, you think it more probable that his Majesty will or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—I feel in my own mind no doubt that his Majesty will recover, and be capable of attending to public business.
What degree of experience have you had yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—Very little experience.
Whether any amendment has already taken place in the course of his Majesty's disorder; and whether the appearance of such amendment continues at present?—Considerable amendment has taken place in his Majesty's disorder, and the amendment still continues.
called in, and sworn; and examined as follows:
You are desired to acquaint this board, whether the state of his Majesty's health is such, as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—His Majesty is incapable at present, of coming to parliament, or attending to any public business.
What are the hopes you entertain of his Majesty's recovery?—I entertain very confident hopes of his Majesty's recovery.
Do you found the opinion, given in your answer to the previous question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder; or upon general experience in other cases of the same nature; or upon both?—Upon both.
Whether, in that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, it has been found from experience, that the greater number of persons so affected, have been cured?—I believe the greater number are cured.
Can you form any judgment, or probable conjecture, of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—I cannot.
Whether, so far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, you think it more probable that his Majesty will, or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—I think it more probable that his Majesty will be capable of attending to public business.
What degree of experience have you had yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—From my earliest infancy, I had opportunities of observing complaints of this nature, as long as I remained under my father's roof: During the last two and twenty years, I have seen a great variety of cases of this nature, in private practice.
Whether any amendment has already taken place in the course of his Majesty's disorder; and whether the appearance of such amendment continues?—A very considerable amendment has taken place in his Majesty's disorder, which continued when I left Windsor this morning.
A true copy, W. FAWKENER.
At the Council Chamber Whitehall, the 29th of November 1810; Present, the Lords of his MAJESTY'S most honourable Privy Council.
Their lordships being again met, and
Attending the Board, was called in and sworn; and examined as follows:
You are desired to acquaint this Board, whether the state of his Majesty's health is such, as to render him incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to any kind of public business?—I think his Majesty is, at present, incapable of coming to parliament, or of attending to any public business.
What are the hopes you entertain of his Majesty's recovery?—I think it highly probable that his Majesty will recover.
Do you found the opinion, given in your answer to the previous question, upon the particular symptoms of his Majesty's disorder; or upon general experience in other cases of the same nature; or upon both?—I found the opinion which I delivered as an answer to the second question, upon the consideration of the symptoms of his Majesty; upon perceiving no failure in the faculties of his Majesty; upon the soundness of his Majesty's constitution; and upon the resemblance which his present illness has, to what I have heard of his Majesty's former illnesses of the same character.
Whether, in that particular species of the disorder his Majesty has fallen into, it has been found from experience, that the greater number of persons so affected have been cured?—I believe, that the greater number have recovered.
Can you form any judgment or probable conjecture, of the duration of his Majesty's illness?—I can form no idea of the duration of his Majesty's present indisposition. If one considers what has taken place in his Majesty's former illnesses, of the same kind, it is probable that it may not continue very long.
Whether, so far as experience enables you to judge of his Majesty's disorder, you think it more probable that his Ma- jesty will, or will not recover, so as to render him capable of attending to public business?—I can perceive no failure of his Majesty's faculties; and therefore I presume, if his Majesty should recover, that he will recover with the same capacity for business, as before his present illness.
What degree of experience have you had yourself, in this particular species of disorder?—My experience has not been extensive. I have been in business for twenty years, an have occasionally seen patients affected with complaints of the same general character as that of his Majesty.
Whether any amendment has already taken place in the course of his Majesty's disorder; and whether the appearance of such amendment continues at present?—His Majesty is considerably better than he was ten days ago. He is certainly somewhat better than he was yesterday evening, and perhaps a shade better than yesterday morning.
A true copy, W. FAWKENER.
The report was then laid on the table.
, the House having just heard the depositions of his Majesty's physicians read, felt it his duty to rise, for the purpose of suggesting to the consideration of the House the course of proceeding which he trusted they would agree with him in adopting. He was persuaded, that while the House must have received a melancholy impression from the unanimous concurrence of his Majesty's physicians, in answer to the first question that had been put to them, relative to the capacity of his Majesty "to come in person to his parliament, or to attend to public business," they must also have desired considerable consolation and satisfaction from the replies which had been made to the other questions proposed to those gentlemen. He was persuaded that it had afforded a high gratification to those who heard him, and that it would afford a high gratification to all his Majesty's loyal and affectionate subjects, to find that his Majesty's physicians concurred unanimously in opinion with respect to the great probability of his Majesty's recovery. However varied the language of these gentlemen appeared to be, their sentiments were nearly the same, With some Shades of difference in point of strength in their expressions, they had all uniformly declared their confident ex- pectation of his Majesty's recovery, some carrying that expectation to as great a degree of certainty as could be supposed to attach to any thing human and necessarily contingent.
The next point to the expectation thus joyfully held out of the recovery of his Majesty, a point of not less importance to the feelings and happiness of his Majesty's subjects, was the opinion of the physicians that there was a fair prospect of his Majesty's recovery in such a manner as would enable him safely to resume the direction of public business. On this part of the subject the House must have heard with peculiar pleasure the particular details of Dr. Heberden and Dr. Baillie. Dr. Heberden declared that he founded his expectations of his Majesty's recovery on "the present integrity of his Majesty's faculties;" and Dr. Baillie, "on a consideration of the symptoms of his Majesty's disorder, and perceiving no failure in the faculties of his Majesty, and on the soundness of his Majesty's constitution." The House and the country, therefore, had not only reason to indulge the pleasing expectation of his Majesty's recovery, but to be assured that notwithstanding the advanced period of his Majesty's life, and notwithstanding the circumstance of the present indisposition of his Majesty being the recurrence of a former one, his Majesty's physicians expressed in their statements an earnest confidence that his Majesty would recover in sufficient energy to discharge the high duties of his station, and that he would regain a sound constitution, and an unimpaired state of mind.
The next interesting point in the examination of the physicians to which the House would direct their attention, was the probable duration of his Majesty's illness. On this point the physicians had given their opinion with a caution and a reserve which might have been expected from persons of their high character upon such a subject, and which did credit to their testimony. They had stated themselves generally to be incapable of exactly determining. One said that he "could not form a satisfactory conjecture;" but however uncertain the period, it would be found by referring to the examinations of Drs. Heberden and Baillie, that those gentlemen were of opinion that from a consideration of what has taken place in his Majesty's former illness of the same kind it is probable that the duration of his Majesty's illness would not be long. There was only another point which it was material to consider, namely, the progress which the House had a right to indulge in believing, and which indeed they were assured, his Majesty had already made towards amendment; a circumstance which must surely afford great consolation to the House, as the course they were to pursue may probably turn on that point—namely the present state of his Majesty's disorder, and what degree of amendment is to be expected.
To the questions which had been proposed to his Majesty's physicians on a former occasion, a new question had been added. It was some consolation to reflect, that it was a new question. It was some consolation to find that there was a present propriety in such a question. Unfortunately, at the period of the examination of his Majesty's physicians in 1788, no symptoms of abatement in his disorder justified the introduction of such a question, as that which had now been proposed. The manner in which it had been answered evinced its propriety and necessity. Dr. Reynolds declared "That his Majesty was certainly better, and that he was full as well, if not better, on the day before, and continued so that morning, than he had been since he had had the honour of attending him." Sir H. Halford was of opinion, "That a considerable amendment had taken place in his Majesty's health, in the course of the last twenty-four hours; that his Majesty's mental health had very much improved, although his bodily indisposition had somewhat increased, an indisposition, however, which he had reason to suppose, would be soon abated." Dr. Heberden declared, "That he thought his Majesty considerably amended." Dr. Willis the same. Dr. Baillie, examined the day after the other physicians, expressed his conviction "That his Majesty was considerably better than he was ten days ago; that he was somewhat better than yesterday evening, and a shade better than yesterday morning." Let this statement of Dr. Baillie's be compared with that made on the preceding day by Dr. Reynolds, "That up to the time of his examination his Majesty was as well if not better, than he had been since he had had the honour of attending him:" and from that comparison the House would derive the most pleasing assurance of his Majesty's actual and progressive amendment. With this information before them—with the moral certainty of his Majesty's recovery from his present indisposition—with the confident belief that that recovery would be attended by a complete restoration of the vigour of his Majesty's, mind, and the soundness of his constitution—with the assurance that a considerable amendment had already taken place in his Majesty's health, although with an uncertainty as to the period when his complete convalescence might be expected—with all these feelings and impressions, the House had now to determine on the course which it would be most expedient for them to pursue. They had to determine whether it would be proper for them to take immediate steps to supply the existing deficiency in the exercise of the royal authority, or whether it would not be more expedient under the present circumstances, with a view also to give a facility to the speedy recovery of his Majesty, to pause and to allow a further interval, while an expectation, a hope, or even a chance appeared of the accomplishment within that interval Of an event so desirable.
In proposing to the House these two questions for their serious consideration, he might be allowed to say, that their present situation was one of extreme calamity, and the more anxiously and deeply to be lamented, because they must all be aware that the House had only a choice of difficulties.—They had only an alternative of evil. It was for them however to alleviate as much as possible that evil by their discretion and wisdom. Under such circumstances, he did not presume to suppose that he could offer any proposition for their adoption that would be free from criticism or objection, but he did think, that on a view of the whole case, and with reference to those answers of the physicians to which he had begged leave to direct the attention of gentlemen, the House could not act in a way more consonant to their own feelings, and to the feelings of the country, than in the temperate exercise of their discretion, to allow a further interval, during which the expectation which had been fondly cherished might be happily realised. With this hope, and under these impressions, he should recommend another adjournment for fourteen days; feeling, that that might be a very important period, and that, during that period the accomplishment of the object for which the House and the country so ardently prayed, required that the subject should be agitated as little as possible in parliament. In stating to the House that it was desirable to afford as much time for the recovery of his Majesty as could be consistent with the public interest and the regularity of their proceedings, he was free to declare, however, that at the expiration of the period to which he recommended the House to adjourn, unless such an amendment should take place in his Majesty's health as to afford a reasonable hope of his speedy recovery, he should not consider it consistent with the public interest farther to delay taking parliamentary steps to supply the deficiency in the executive government.
Before he sat down, he must beg leave to advert to some objections which it was probable would be made to his proposition. He had been given to understand that it would be urged, that by adopting that proposition, the House would act in opposition to the precedent of 1788, and in dereliction of their duty. With respect to that part of the objection which related to precedent, he could not conceive that any man could so misapply or so misconstrue the precedent of 1788, as to suppose that it would be contradicted by the adoption of the present proposition. In 1788, the House proceeded to an investigation of their own, conceiving justly that they had no right to take any steps but on information which they had themselves obtained. Far would it be from him to propose a departure from such a precedent. Were he standing there to propose the commencement of a proceeding, the effect of which would be no less than for an interval (however he might hope to God short) to dethrone the Monarch, he should hold it impossible that the House could commence such a proceeding without an inquiry into the facts solemnly had and instituted by themselves. In the former case he thought the House had adopted the proper course: but then, it would be recollected, that the prospect of recovery was at that time comparatively faint in the extreme, and as to amendment, there was absolutely none. Now, however, there was a prospect even of a speedy recovery, and the amendment had commenced. Were the cases then, he should wish to ask, at all analogous? From an examination of that precedent, if it were properly looked at, it would appear that it afforded no ground for the House in the present circumstances to proceed immediately to an inquiry of its own. It was indeed in direct opposition to any such proceeding immediately; for though an inquiry by a Committee had been instituted—though the suspension of the royal functions had existed for three months, and though a Regency bill had actually passed the House of Commons, and reached a Committee in the House of Lords, yet when the Lord Chancellor, without any such authoritative document as that now on the table, stated on the 19th of February that an improvement had taken place in his Majesty's health, an adjournment was agreed to for five or six days: then a second adjournment was carried, and so the proceeding was suspended by successive adjournments up to the 9th of the succeeding month, when his Majesty was happily in a state to attend to public business. He did not mean to say—he wished to God he could—that the amendment which had taken place in this instance was equal to that which had been announced by lord Thurlow in 1789; but what he had said sufficiently proved according to his conception, that they could not be justly charged with having in this instance violated the principle of that precedent. When an adjournment then had been agreed to upon a mere informal statement, after a suspension of the royal functions for three or four months, it was in vain to say that the House was bound by that precedent or by the constitution to adopt any particular proceeding on this occasion. It was left completely at liberty to act according to its discretion, with a view to the interests of the public and the benefit of the sovereign. In the exercise then of the little discretion that belonged to himself, he felt it his duty to propose the course most likely in his humble apprehension to conduce to both, and concluded by moving, That the House do at its rising adjourn for fourteen days.
, adverting to the anticipation of objections to his motion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, observed, that he had heard before he came down to the House, that the right hon. gent. meant to propose an adjournment for a week, being only one-half the time which he now actually announced. But having learnt what steps had been taken by the privy council, and what information had been there given, he could hardly persuade himself to believe that the right hon. gent. really intended to move an adjournment for a week, far less for fourteen days, after the two adjournments which had already taken place. The report of the examination of the physicians had been delivered in; and, notwithstanding the precedent of 1788, he was glad that his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) had not suffered it to be laid on the table without the question being put upon it: for if there were some things in that precedent to be kept in view in order to be followed, there were others to be remembered for the purpose of being avoided. In the report he found it stated by the physicians that, after an interval of some weeks, his Majesty was incapable of meeting his parliament, or of transacting public business; and no period was fixed at which his recovery might with confidence be expected. In what situation then was the country, when, to use the memorable words of lord Camden, president of the council in 1788, "the whole functions of the executive power were suspended?" Twice had he (the Speaker) taken the chair without the ordinary authority? Why did the ministers give notice only to their friends that it was necessary to attend the House, though not called together in the usual manner for the dispatch of public business, whilst no notice, that he was aware of, was given to those who had generally been their political adversaries? The meeting of the House under such circumstances, could only be justified by the necessity resulting from the suspension of the royal functions. In 14 days from that period, the House being again assembled in considerable numbers, the right hon. gent. proposed to adjourn for another fortnight without taking any steps to supply the deficiency of the executive power. Against that delay he had protested, and the House having divided, against that delay he voted. The right hon. gent. had then just returned from Windsor, where he had seen the King's physicians, and reported, as had been also reported to the public, that his Majesty was in a state of progressive amendment; and upon this information he founded his motion. The right hon. gent. to his infinite surprise in that instance had used the same language; but he (Mr. Whitbread) having been then disappointed could not again be deceived. Happy as he was at that time in the hopes of his Majesty's speedy recovery, still he was of opinion that the House ought to have adjourned only from day to day. If his proposition had then been acted upon, he asked whether the House would now, at the end of 14 days, have been engaged in agitating the question, whether or not it should take the first step for the supply of an executive government? On that evening, at the very moment the right hon. gent. was speaking, and representing his Majesty as in a state of progressive amendment, it afterwards appeared that the King was actually worse! Were the bulletins true or false? If false, it was a base and unprincipled delusion on the public, if true, they were in direct contradiction to what had been stated in the House; for on Thursday when the right hon. gent. had given so favourable a report, and on the Friday following, the bulletins informed the public that his Majesty had had an increase of fever. The report now given in and laid on the table, contained questions, that ought not to have been asked; it stated however that his Majesty was better than he had been 10 days ago, which excluded the day on which the right hon. gent. had said that his Majesty was in a state of progressive amendment, so that his Majesty was worse, both before the time when the right hon. gent. had made this statement and after. His Majesty was better when the right hon. gent. was at Windsor, but worse both before and after that period.
In a time like the present, when the exercise of the royal functions was so essential to the interests of the country, he could not allow any farther adjournment to be carried without using his endeavours to have the physicians examined by a committee of the House. If the House had before adjourned only to the next day, as he had proposed, and had found that his Majesty became worse, that he had fallen into a state of greater mental derangement, could it then have resisted a motion for the examination of the physicians, by a committee of its own? He thought it impossible. He had a proper feeling of delicacy for the King, but he entertained also a just sense of delicacy towards the people and the constitution. As to personal delicacy for the Sovereign, that was a point very much misunderstood. His Majesty himself, he had no doubt, would be the first to scorn and reprobate any personal delicacy, if shewn to him at the expence of bringing the kingly office which he had held with so much advantage and satisfaction to his subjects, into disrepute and contempt. What he must ask, was the meaning of the words of lord Camden, "That the whole functions of the executive government were suspended?" What could be done in the actual situation of affairs? What sentence could be executed? Was there now any fountain of mercy? Could a miserable culprit be pardoned? Could a general be appointed? Could reinforcements be sent to lord Wellington if that should be requisite? Who was to perform these functions? Could they (the ministers) do all this: they, who possessed a power to which they had no more right than any other individuals? If they could, then they were regents. You, (said Mr. Whitbread) talk of dethroning the King, a most improper and absurd expression—but you, yourselves, do worse, for you take the crown from the constitution. Had the right hon. gent. a greater right to call the privy council together than any other member of that body? The necessity justified that measure, but if the period of the existence of such a necessity was improperly prolonged, the justification was gone. Let the House consider the time at which the whole executive functions were suspended, a time when a week had to carry a load of events before borne by centuries! If a military commander abroad should be wanted—if it should be requisite to appoint one at home, how was the deficiency to be supplied? If they (the ministers) were to abuse the authority which they now assumed, so as to call for the animadversion of the House, to whom could the Commons go with their address? Did they (the ministers) propose any remedy for all this? No, the House was misled by false impressions as to the state of the King's health, and even since the examination of the physicians it appeared that his Majesty had had but an indifferent night. Yet another fortnight was to elapse before any steps were to be taken to find a substitute! Were they to be frightened from performing their duty to the public, by being told that by taking measures to supply the executive they would be dethroning the King? Who ever proposed to dethrone the King? When in the reigns of George the first and George the second, regencies were appointed to administer the government in their name in their absence—when in the year 1788, a regent was to be chosen during the King's incapacity, the power being to be delivered back again to his Majesty, the moment he became capable of managing it—were these proceedings considered as a dethronement of the King? And were they now to be told, that they were dethroning his Majesty; and threatened with words and imputations like these, in order to prevent their taking that course which the occa- sion demanded. No, Sir, (continued Mr. Mr. Whitbread), we do not propose to dethrone the Monarch; but they are endeavouring to divide the crown from the constitution, and whoever votes with them in such an attempt, will do that which tends directly to the destruction of the constitution. Was this then our constitution which formed the wonder and admiration of the world? Was it now to be proved, that when the Sovereign was incapacitated by any malady, as long as he was likely to get well, so long the government could go on without any King at all? Let the House mark the progress of this doctrine.
In the year 1788, the novelty of the case formed an apology for some things, which in looking back to the history of that period, it might appear better not to have done. But did any unnecessary delay take place in taking the proper steps? No, though much time was protracted in debate, the whole bent of both Houses was for the supply of the deficiency up to the time when lord Thurlow reported to the House of Lords, not that the King was better, but that he was in a state of convalescence. Up to that time measures were in progress to constitute a substitute for the incapacitated Monarch. Now, however, they were called upon to lie on their oars and do nothing; and that, too, out of delicacy to the King! Why, if the King deserved, as he was convinced he did, the respect and affection which his subjects entertained for him, he would be more hurt at the neglect and contempt of the Kingly office and of the constitution, than pleased at any delicacy shewn to his own personal feelings. The right hon. gent. even deprecated the agitation of the question, for fear of increasing his Majesty's malady; but the subject was long debated in 1788, during a period of three months, and yet amidst all that discussion the King had got well. At the period of 1788–9, the person who filled the situation now held by the right hon. gent.—a person to whom he was politically opposed, but whom he wished to speak of with respect, whatever he thought of many of his doctrines, had the confidence of the nation; and the country thought, that the powers of the government (he spoke historically), could not, under the circumstances, be lodged in better hands. Did he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and his colleagues then flatter themselves that they could occupy such a large space in the public mind? Could they be permitted to go on as Mr. Pitt had done? In 1789, when the King recovered, it was most unfortunate that some remedy had not been provided against the recurrence of a similar calamity; a calamity to which all mankind were subject, and from which even kings were not exempt. Provision ought then to have been made for such an exigency as this. In 1801 and 1805, he had to answer for his share of negligence in this respect, and for this he blamed himself, though at the former period not an old member of parliament. But out of delicacy to the King personally, instead of feeling for the Kingly office, he had suffered that occasion to pass.
In 1788–9, the measure for supplying the deficiency was only abandoned when his Majesty was accessible to all his subjects, and in full vigour of mind and body immediately after his illness; when he went about, shewing himself to his loyal and affectionate people, and when the anxiety of the public mind was quieted by the solemn offering up of thanks in the metropolitan cathedral of this kingdom for his recovery, on which occasion his Majesty in person attended. In 1801 and 1805, he was more or less accessible, though during the latter period the defect in his Majesty's eye-sight ought to have directed the attention of ministers to the proper measures of preparation for a state of things like the present. Now, however, his Majesty was inaccessible, and it was only from other persons that ministers had their information on the subject of the King's malady. Even though his Majesty should recover, it ought to be considered that it was the recovery of a man very far advanced in years; and of a man (speaking of hint as a man) who must be much more in the power of others than before. The defect in his Majesty's sight, too, had been stated by his Majesty's ministers themselves as a reason for refusing access to him on many important occasions. Let the House then only duly consider the present situation of affairs, and afterwards let him, who could do it, vote for the adjournment—no steps being taken to supply the deficiency of an executive government. For his part he was not able to conceive, that the right hon. gent. could succeed in his motion. After what they had before seen, after they had ascertained that, on the very day when the right hon. gent. had in so extraordinary a way told them of the progressive amendment of the King, his Majesty had in reality become worse, he trusted they would not now vote for this adjournment upon a similar statement. He at least would vote against it. He thought the House ought to lose no time in examining the physicians by a committee of its own, and then, if it should be necessary, and God grant, he said, that it may not, proceed to take the proper measures to supply the country with an executive government. Even though it should not be necessary to put the measure in execution at present, still they ought to be prepared for the worst; they ought to have a remedy ready in case of any future suspension of the royal functions. Even if his Majesty should be restored, and be able to encounter all the accumulated business which perhaps might occasion a relapse, still they ought to be provided with some mode of supplying an executive authority, to which they themselves and posterity might refer on the occurrence of a similar calamity. Thus, (concluded Mr. Whitbread), I have taken the liberty to submit, with the utmost sincerity, my views to the House, on this most important subject, feeling with all proper delicacy for the King personally, but feeling more strongly for the kingly office, the country and the constitution.
was convinced, that every member of that House was equally actuated by a strong feeling of loyalty to the King, and a firm regard to the principles and integrity of the constitution. Whatever difference of opinion might exist respecting the course, which it would be proper for the House to pursue, on these points he was certain they were all agreed. For his own part, he must observe, that, according to his view of the question, however the House may decide as to what it was fit to do, under the present circumstances, they were bound to regulate themselves by a consideration of what was due to his Majesty personally, as well as what was due to the safety and welfare of the country. In fact, these considerations were one and the same, inasmuch as the same duty that enjoined them to attend to the feelings and interests of his Majesty was equally binding on them with regard to the security of the country. They could not violate or neglect the duty they owed their Sovereign, without at the same time violating or neglecting their duty to their country; nor, on the other hand, violate or neglect the duty they owed their country, without being guilty of a breach or neglect of their duty to their Sovereign. He was perfectly ready to admit, that the situation in which the House was unfortunately placed was, no doubt, difficult and embarrassing; and he was confident that in such a situation every man would feel a just consideration for those who may differ from him in opinion, and look without suspicion or prejudice to the line of conduct they may feel themselves bound to pursue. One great principle of action with the House on this occasion should be, that, as their assembling was altogether anomalous, they should not proceed to any act which the necessity of the case did not call for. They were in duty bound to do whatever was necessary; but farther than that, they could not proceed with propriety. The hon. gent. who had just sat down, had, for the purpose of supporting his general argument, strongly stated the great public inconveniencies under which the country at present laboured. That the country unfortunately laboured under these inconveniencies there could be no doubt; but the question to be considered in that instance really was, whether the inconveniencies to which the country would be exposed, if that hon. gent. could persuade the House to adopt the course he recommended, would not be much greater? His right hon. friend had truly stated, that the House had but a balance of difficulties. But the hon. gent. in his statement of the course that should be adopted appeared to have gone rather further than the precedent of 1788 would warrant. If the inconveniencies were such as to leave the House no option, but to proceed without any delay to take measures for supplying the deficiency in the executive, how, he would ask, could the parliament have been justified in 1788, in suffering three or four months to elapse, without completing such measures at the conclusion of even such a long period? It was perfectly true, that the year 1788 was a time of peace; and that the country was not then pressed by such momentous difficulties as at present, if unfortunately the King's illness should continue for the same length of time. But if the argument by reference to the precedent of 1788 were good at all, it would preclude that House from resorting to the course proposed by the hon. gentleman.
Without wishing at all to go at any length into a review of the inconveniencies on the other side, he might, he supposed be permitted to advert shortly to some of them. There was certainly no reason to apprehend that the illustrious person who would most likely be appointed Regent, would adopt any measures that would not be for the interest of the country; or that any rash or ill advised steps would be taken under his government: still that was possible. He could certainly conceive it possible that a Regent might be advised to take measures to overset the whole system of foreign and domestic policy, by which the present Sovereign had governed these realms. In such a case, he would ask any man whether such a change of system would not be an inconvenience? Would it, he would ask, be no inconvenience if the Regent were to be advised to change the whole system of foreign policy by which the affairs of this nation had been administered—to withdraw our army from the peninsula, and refuse all further support to Spain and Portugal? He had stated this possible case, only to shew, that the other side of the question had also its inconveniencies. But the hon. gent. appeared to him to have animadverted in stronger terms than they merited upon the situation in which his Majesty's servants were placed. That situation was such that they had nothing to consider but how they should best perform their painful duty; a situation from which they could not be relieved, until a sufficient authority should happily be reestablished to continue, or dispense with their further services. Under such circumstances, then, it was absurd to suppose that any man in their situation would advise the House to do any thing but what the necessity of the case might require. As to what had been said by the hon. gent. respecting the change which took place subsequent to the statement of his right hon. friend previously to the last adjournment, which statement the hon. member seemed to insinuate had been made with a view to practise a deception on that House, his observations might have some weight, if his right hon. friend had in this instance grounded his motion of adjournment on his own personal examination of the King's physicians. But his right hon. friend proposed no such proceeding, his motion being founded upon a more authentic document; the report, upon oath, of the physicians made to the privy council. This report, he was confident, whatever opinion gentlemen might entertain as to what should be done by the House must have been heard with general satisfaction. It stated, no doubt, that this Majesty was at present incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attending to business; but also stated, that his restoration was confidently expected, as well as that a considerable amendment had already taken place. Upon the whole he was convinced that the report fully justified the proposition of his right hon. friend for an adjournment for a fortnight, though he was ready to admit, that, if his Majesty's health should not be considerably improved at the end of a fortnight, it would then be necessary to resort to measures for supplying the deficiency. He could not be persuaded, that the feelings of the House and of the country would not be inclined to allow some further time to relieve his Majesty in a state of recovery, from the anxiety which would result from the agitation of this question. He was certain that this short interval, that this fair play would be allowed to his Majesty, and that no measures would be taken which were not actually necessary.
contended that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in the arguments he urged in support of the question of adjournment, steered completely clear of the actual question he proposed. That right hon. gent. had moved the House to adjourn for a fortnight, because his Majesty's physicians had reported that his Majesty's malady had undergone an amendment, and that they entertained a confident expectation of his Majesty's ultimate recovery. For his own part, he was rejoiced to say that there was a very high probability of his Majesty's ultimate recovery. But that was not the question. The question really was, whether that House was, in that instance, as fully informed on the subject of his Majesty's disease, as according to the principles of the constitution it ought; or whether they should take that sort of certificate which the report of the physicians amounted to, from false notions of delicacy, as the ground of adjourning for a fortnight. Upon this subject he should not hesitate to assert, in the presence of many eminent lawyers, that this document constituted no constitutional ground for adjourning. The privy council was a body unquestionably of great weight, of considerable dignity, and of high importance and authority upon several particular subjects. But there was, he should contend, no law, written or unwritten, which gave that body power to supply any defect in the third estate. The only authority the privy council possessed or could constitutionally exercise in such a case, was to inquire into the capacity or incapacity of the Sovereign, the wearer of the crown, to meet his parliament and to attend to the public business of his kingdom. If unfortunately upon such inquiry, it should appear that there existed not sufficient grounds of conviction as to the capacity, the privy council was then bound to present in an authentic document to the two other estates of the realm, the grounds upon which they ascertained the actual incapacity. There their duty ceased—no further were they authorised to proceed. Who, he would ask, had ever read in any book of authority upon the law or constitution of this country, that it was the duty of—that it was competent to the privy council to proceed to supply any deficiency in the third estate? If any gentleman thought so, he challenged him to name the work; or to shew that the privy council had any other powers than to inquire, and present the result of that inquiry in an authentic form to the two other estates, whose duty it would then become to satisfy themselves as to the fact, and to take such measures as the existing circumstances might demand. Now, upon what kind of evidence was it that, on the present occasion, they were required to rest satisfied as to the propriety of an adjournment for a fortnight? Certain questions had it appeared been submitted to his Majesty's physicians, some of which were improper to be asked at all; and some others, such as a proper feeling of delicacy should have prevented from having been inquired or examined into, in any detailed way before the privy council; and upon the answers given to these interrogatories that House was required to agree to the proposed adjournment.
But the right hon. gent. had argued, that the House was not called upon by his motion to institute any proceeding upon this ground. Did the right hon. gent. then call it no proceeding, that when one of the estates was known to be incapable of exercising its constitutional functions, the others, instead of discharging, their duty by taking steps to provide for the deficiency, should consent to adjourn over for another fortnight? The duty the two remaining estates had to perform was, in his mind, of the highest consequence, and of paramount importance. The right hon. gent. who spoke last had alluded to the inconveniencies that might result from the immediate appointment of a Regent. That argument, however, was inapplicable with reference to the question under consideration. It was by no means his wish to recommend the immediate appointment of a Regent. But that he must observe was no part of the present question. What the House had upon this occasion to decide upon was, whether it would hand over to the privy council those functions which constitutionally belonged solely to itself. And upon this point he would contend, that if the House should now refuse to inquire, merely because the privy council had enquired, it would establish this principle, that the privy council had the right to supply any deficiency in the third estate, it would make that body the depository of its own legitimate authority—it would establish a tribunal unknown to the constitution and law of this country, by delegating in such a way to the privy Council those powers which could alone belong to the two other branches of the legislature. Was that House then prepared to consent to such a surrender of its constitutional functions? Was it ready upon such a ground, and from false and absurd notions of delicacy towards his Majesty, to defer having recourse to those preliminary steps necessary to be taken before they could adopt those ulterior measures, which might be indispensable? And was the House to concur in this doctrine, and form a groundless apprehension that it might retard his Majesty's recovery or be indelicate towards, the sovereign, to abstain from inquiry, when it could not be certain that, at the end of the proposed adjournment, from the continued indisposition of his Majesty, and the pressing emergency of affairs, it might not be compelled to precipitate these very preliminary steps which could now be taken deliberately, and that in a manner too of which they might hereafter find reason to repent? Could the right hon. gent. say, that his Majesty was any more apprised of the examination which had already taken place before the privy council than the remote inhabitant of the north pole? Would he say that he had thought it his duty to communicate that examination to the Sovereign? And how, he would ask, could the right hon. gent. consider it his duty to communicate any inquiry which might take place before a Committee of that House, any more than he had felt it necessary to communicate the inquiry be fore the privy council?
But the right hon. gent. had said, that on this occasion the House had only a choice of difficulties. Undoubtedly, the fact was so. Yet, under such circumstances, it must be obvious, that the greater evil ought to be avoided; and the lesser, if no other alternative could be resorted to, preferred. Did the right hon. gent. then suppose that the majority of the people of this country would think that that House had adopted the lesser evil, by an abandonment of its duty in agreeing to the adjournment, and avoided the greater, by declining to proceed with the examination, as a preliminary step towards ulterior proceedings? No person could feel greater or deeper regret and sorrow than he did for the domestic calamity with which his Majesty was afflicted, but still he could not be persuaded from any false idea of delicacy to agree to what he felt to be wrong. As to what the other right hon. gent. had said, as to the inconvenience that might result from the appointment of a Regent, in overturning the existing system, he did not mean to meddle with that question. He could not presume that the Regent could entertain such a design; neither could he presume, that, if his ministers should be so inclined, or so advise the Regent, the two Houses of parliament would allow him or his ministers to do what was wrong, or to adopt any measures calculated to injure the essential interests of the country. Yet the argument of the right hon. secretary proceeded upon an assumption that the Regent, that his ministers, and the two Houses of parliament, would be all equally ready to resort to such measures. The right hon. gent. had also spoken of the painful feelings resulting from the situation in which his Majesty's servants were unfortunately at present placed, and from which they could not be relieved till the functions of the executive were restored, and their resignations could be received. But was not their situation of their own choosing? Had they not shewn themselves extremely anxious to obtain these situations, and to retain them too? He really should have imagined, that the continuing in office for many years would have been the last thing to give these gentlemen pain, and that it was from their removal from office alone that they could have been capable of experiencing such a sensation. As however, they were so unpleasantly situated, he trusted the speedy recovery of his Majesty, or the adoption of measures for supplying of the executive power, would at no distant period relieve them from this distress. He could have wished that all allusion to such topics had been omitted, as their attention ought on this occasion to have been confined to the constitutional principle alone by which their conduct should be regulated: and in his opinion, all conveniences or inconveniences should give way to the constitutional course of proceeding, by which it was the duty of that House to provide for the deficiency of the royal functions.
It had been said, indeed, that because there was a probability of his Majesty's recovery, it did not become that House to take any measures for supplying the existing deficiency. He rejoiced to find by the report that there was a high probability of his Majesty's ultimate recovery: but he could not forbear to observe, that all the physicians who had expressed the most confident expectation of that recovery had also stated, that they could not form any definitive opinion, from the uncertainty of all medical prognostics, as to the probable time at which such recovery should take place. One of the physicians even had said, that he could not form a conjecture that would be satisfactory to his own mind upon the subject. With this certainty, then, of his Majesty's illness—with the uncertainty of the period of recovery—and with the knowledge of the very critical and alarming situation of the country, would the House abstain from making the preliminary inquiries, from false notions of delicacy towards his Majesty? The right hon. gent. had certainly admitted, that, if no considerable amendment should have taken place after the lapse of a fortnight, the urgency of public affairs would render it necessary to take measures for supplying the deficiency. But why this delay in taking by an immediate inquiry the necessary preliminary step with a view to such measures? It would certainly be disrespectful to the Sovereign and unconstitutional in that House to attempt to supply the executive without a previous inquiry into the state of his Majesty's health; and why therefore not proceed at once to make that enquiry when it could be made deliberately and fully? As to what had fallen from the right hon. gent. in a sort of menace respecting the dethronement of his Majesty by the appointment of a Regent to govern in his name, if there were any force in it, then all the measures which may have at any time been resorted to by parliament to supply the deficiencies occasioned by time or accident in the executive, must have amounted to a dethronement of the reigning Sovereign. Could the doctrine be endured for a moment, that in every instance, when, during the absence of a Sovereign of this country, its affairs were administered in his name by a regency, such Sovereign was thereby dethroned? Could any man suppose, that, in the case of an infant ascending the throne of these realms, the appointment of a regency to govern in his name, and in no other way could his government be administered, would be the dethronement of such infant Sovereign? The proposition was too monstrous and too frequently contradicted by the practice of this constitution to require any serious refutation. The right hon. gent. therefore, in threatening that House with an imputation of compassing the dethronement of the King, if it should proceed to take measures to supply the deficiency, which they all equally deplored, had only exposed his own ignorance of the history and practice of the British constitution. If, as the right hon. gent. had admitted, measures for establishing a Regency should be necessary, in case no amendment should take place in his Majesty's health in the next fortnight, why should he object to make those previous enquiries indispensably necessary to expedite such measures, especially as in the existing state of Europe no man could tell what pressing emergencies may arise within that period? He should avoid, on that occasion, all question as to who should be regent, though he did not think any doubt could be entertained as to the person; but he would state it as his opinion, that by the principles of the constitution the duty of supplying the defect of the executive, whilst it may please Providence to afflict his Majesty with his present malady, devolved upon the two Houses of Parliament, and upon them only. It would therefore be to desert their duty to their country and their King, not to take, by previous inquiry into the state of his Majesty's health, the proper course for providing for the lamentable deficiency in the royal functions. He could not have conceived it possible for the right hon. gent. to propose, under all the circum- stances of the case, a longer adjournment than for a week, and that too not till a committee should be appointed to sit, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House for the purpose of making the necessary inquiries into the state of his Majesty's health, preparatory to those measures which it might be necessary to resort to on the meeting of the House. It was to his infinite surprise, however, that he found an interval of a fortnight proposed and without any idea of a committee. He was determined therefore to oppose the question of adjournment; but if he should fail, and the House should, contrary to what he conceived their duty to their Sovereign, and their country, resolve to adjourn for the fortnight, he should still propose the appointment of a committee, as the only regular mode that House could adopt for satisfying itself on the state of his Majesty's health, to inquire into the state thereof, and to report thereon to the House. He should likewise feel it his duty to divide the House on both these questions.
, agreeing as he did in most of the sentiments expressed by the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, but differing as he did from that right hon. gent. as to the right or the power of the two Houses of parliament to supply any deficiency in the executive, should not think that he had discharged his duty to his constituents, if he omitted to state the grounds of his concurrence in the former and of his disagreeing from the latter. He felt fully all the delicacy of the question; but from a sense of public duty, he must discuss the subject with impartiality towards the people. Whatever he might feel for the sufferings of the King, he could not be insensible to the perils of the country, which had now been for a month without an efficient executive, and was now proposed to be continued for a fortnight longer in the same state. It was to him a strange and embarrassing question, who were to supply any deficiency which might take place in the exercise of the functions of the crown. By the constitution of this country, a King was essential to its existence, but whilst impressed with that conviction he was at a loss how to make one. He knew of no precedent for such a case as the present but the great precedent of 1688: when James 2 by his arbitrary tyrannical measures had grossly violated the original contract with the people; when upon his abdica- tion the throne became vacant; and when the right of filling that vacancy devolved upon the people. He could never allow that any House of Commons, still less a House of Commons collected together by such means as it was notorious that assembly was, could have any right to supply the deficiency in the functions of the crown. The right hon gent. (Mr. Ponsonby) had in his mind successfully shewn that the privy council had no right to the power it had assumed; and that what had been offered by the privy council to that House in the shape of a report was no ground for a parliamentary proceeding, and still less for a proposition to continue the country in the state of anarchy in which it had been for the last month. The evidence laid before the House upon which it was now called upon to act was not such as would be received in a court of law upon the most unimportant question. Without imputing blame to any of the parties to this examination, he must observe that a list of interrogatories might easily be so framed as to extract such answers as the inquirers desired. He did not mean to impeach the characters of the right hon. gentlemen as men: but he must observe that, as ministers and consequently interested persons, they or any others in their places were the last persons whose opinions should have weight with that House upon such subjects. Yet it was upon the flimsy document laid upon the table that these ministers called upon that House to grant the sovereignty of the country to them. (Hear, hear!) Now, if this were to be the case, he should be at a loss what reply to make to his constituents, if they should ask him, why that House after having repeatedly assembled had suffered these right hon. gentlemen to send them so often about their business. He, for his part, would never consent to grant them the sovereignty of the country; nor agree to any adjournment of that House except from day to day, without taking those measures to supply the deficiency, which ought to have been taken in the first instance.
The hon. gent. below him (Mr. Whitbread) had clearly shewn, from the practice of former times, that they were bound without further delay to take the necessary measures for supplying the existing deficiency of the royal functions. He had shewn too, that the country had a right to expect, that this deficiency should be speedily supplied, because, independent of the present calamitous illness of his Majesty, it had unfortunately so happened, that, from other causes, the people had been, for a very considerable time, deprived of all access to him—that they had not been allowed to approach the Sovereign with their petitions; that the right of petition had been rendered quite a farce; and that no man could in talking of that as a right in modern times preserve a grave or serious countenance. Besides, when he adverted to the advance of the King's age since the period of the precedent of 1788, so much relied upon, he should have been much surprised if the gentlemen below him could have agreed to the adjournment proposed.
But when it was broadly stated, that, according to the principles of the constitution, that and the other House of Parliament had the power to supply deficiencies in the executive, he felt considerable difficulty. He was at a loss as to the particular mode of supplying such deficiency. Yet whatever difficulty might be felt in this respect, he had no hesitation in saying, that they could not continue in their present alarming and perilous state for any time. All that had been said respecting delicacy, had to his mind been introduced most irregularly and unfairly, in order to influence the feelings and votes of members on the question in discussion. It was absurd to talk of delicacy upon great public occasions. Delicacy might well suit the conversation of a tea table; it might be very fit to be entertained towards the other sex: but in private life, when in ordinary transactions delicacy was talked of, it was only another name for roguery; and in state matters the law and the constitution of this country had broken in upon it. Every one knew that several great officers were required to be present at the lying in of the queen, a circumstance which in private families and the humbler walks of life, would be in the last degree indelicate. He hoped therefore he should never hear more of this delicacy. The law of England, contemplating only the abstract Sovereignty, knew nothing of the personal infirmities of the King. By the sound principles of the British constitution the crown and the King were perfectly distinct. By the laws of nature the King in person is subject to human infirmities, but in the language of the constitution the King never dies—the King can do no wrong—the King, that is the crown or kingly office, is free from all imperfections of human nature, and perpetual. If ever they were, in parliament to suffer themselves to be influenced by considerations derived from the personal infirmities of the King upon great questions of state, there would be an end of the constitution. The pretended precedent of 1788, on which so much stress was laid, appeared to him to afford them more a lesson of what ought to be avoided, than an example of what ought to be followed. It was a precedent without principle, and founded upon analogy without reason. Yet such as it was, the right hon. gentlemen opposite (the ministers) seemed only desirous of taking as much of it as a precedent, as suited themselves, and enabled them to keep their places; no doubt, from the pure and disinterested motives stated by the right hon. gent. who spoke third in this debate (Mr. Yorke)!
As to the question, so unnecessarily and improperly introduced into the discussion, respecting the person who should be appointed regent, he did not mean to meddle with it on that occasion. It was not for him to presume to dictate upon that point either to the portion of the nation composing that House or to the nation at large. Of this however there could be no doubt, that they could not go on longer in the ruinous state in which they had so long remained. Too much stress appeared to him to have been laid upon the precedent of 1788. If the measures then taken were even justified by the existing state of affairs, it must be obvious, that the same measures would not be jusfiable at present under the total change of circumstances which had since taken place not only in the state of this country, but of the whole of Europe. Then we were at peace with all the world—now we were at war with nearly the whole world—at that time France was impotent, now France was nearly omnipotent—then our revenue exceeded our expenditure one million and a half—now our expenditure exceeded our revenue twenty millions—at the former period our public debt was under three hundred millions—now he might safely state it at eight hundred millions—then we had recently concluded an advantageous commercial treaty with France, now our commerce was nearly annihilated—then we had no depreciated paper currency, now the whole country was deluged with depreciated paper, and the precious metals had altogether vanished from circulation—all, in fine, was then quiet, peace, tranquillity and prosperity, free from internal difficulties or external dangers, now on the contrary they had only to look around them to witness the embarrassments that had accumulated at home, and the perils that were menacing us from abroad. Could they then, under such a frightful alteration of circumstances, dare to desert their duty by acceding to the present motion? could they dare to defer for fourteen days more, the measures necessary to save their falling country? could they dare, after a month's delay already, to agree to another fortnight's adjournment, during which they would be without a King, and he might almost say, without a constitution.
never voted with more real satisfaction than on the former night against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He could not take the simple assurance of any man, as to the state of health of his beloved Monarch; but much less could he take the assurance of an interested minister; more particularly one of the present weak and ideotic administration. (Cries of hear, and interruption.) Every man of consideration knew this to be true, and it was proved by the imbecility of every measure and act they had adopted. He appealed for the truth of what he advanced, to the feelings of the public and to the persons upon the treasury bench! Let any one look over the way at it, and they must see what kind of a thing it was. It was quite farcical that a great nation should be governed by such an administration. As to ability they had none; as to character they had none; as to respectability they had none; and as to the confidence of the people, they never had and never could expect it! They had only one Scots county member among them, and not one of them had landed, or indeed any other kind of property. There was no responsibility to be found among them; a parcel of second rate lawyers and needy adventurers—(Cries of order)—of desperate ambition—(Cries of order, order)—not caring for the fate of the nation, if they could only contrive to keep their places? (Hear, hear)—if they could only contrive to retain their situations and the command of the public purse-strings! He perfectly agreed with an hon. baronet, his worthy friend, (the member for Westminster) that no such uncontrouled power as they now possessed should be left to them, especially in a crisis so pregnant with danger, and so ruinous in prospect. They ought never to have been trusted, and particularly at a time when the conqueror of Europe was watching an opportunity to pour his victorious legions on our shores. What was their management under these circumstances? They had drained the country of its defences. There were no men in England or Ireland to resist the enemy in any attempt to invade us, or to conquer him, if he should effect a landing, and the latter country was left completely at the mercy of our inveterate adversary: whilst four fifths of its population were paralised by their bigotry and intolerance. From the experience of a fortnight, they knew how to appreciate the Chancellor of the Exchequer's assertion, that the King's health had amended, and was in a state of progressive amendment. Either this was made in error, or wilfully to mislead the country, and to deceive the House of Commons. Knowing, as they did, that the third estate was wanting, and having no confidence in the assertion of ministers, he would vote, not only against the adjournment, but for the Prince of Wales being appointed regent, when the time came that he should be called to take upon him that office, with full regal power during the incapacity of his royal father, and no longer. He subscribed to the doctrine laid down in 1788 by Mr. Pitt, that the Prince had no more an inherent right to that station than any other Briton. But upon whom could their choice fall but on this excellent prince, who could thereby be raised to it by better means—the voice of his country, which well knew, that no one existed so able and likely to reconcile all jars, especially of Ireland, which looked to him with confidence to heal the injuries she had received from the mal-administration of the faction now over them. No man felt more keenly for the sufferings of his Sovereign than he did; but with all this, it was a source of happiness to him and to the country, to know that he had in his son so wise and experienced a Prince to supply for the present any defect that had arisen. He recommended to the House to follow the line of conduct pointed out by the constitution — to withdraw the power they enjoyed as speedily as possible from ministers, and to appoint the Prince of Wales to the regency, for which he was destined by the Almighty, from his situation and qualifications. On these grounds he should divide against the motion.
agreed with the hon. member who had just sat down, as to the vote he should give, but he was swayed in his opinion by different grounds from those stated by him. The hon. general seemed to rest his opinion on a desire to have ministers removed. This was not his reason for voting as he should this night vote. It was not the competency or incompetency of ministers that had any thing to do with the decision of this question, which was one of the utmost importance. The country in consequence of the suspension of the royal functions was placed in a state of republicanism—a state in which it ought not to be permitted to remain any longer. For in his opinion, founded on his best deliberation, he was decided that the form of government established by the British constitution was the fittest for the country; and he therefore called on the House to consider in what state they would leave the country if they consented to this adjournment. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished for another fortnight before he took any steps to repair their loss, which, however, he admitted, would then become a necessary measure. They did not know till now, how long, in the opinion of that right hon. gent. they could do without a monarch; but it now appeared, having passed one month, and being required to postpone all steps for another fortnight, that six weeks was the period for which they could dispense with that part of their constitutional government. Was this a fit way to treat the House?—Were they to be called on to meet there from fortnight to fortnight, and to do nothing? The right hon. gent. without following precedents, or taking decided measures, seemed to him to be steering a middle course, and trusting to all or any chances that might arise while he gained time. He seemed to be treating them with the chapter of accidents; and what was the paper on which he founded the proposition for another delay? It was not the report of the privy council, which even though it had been, it would have been an insufficient ground for them to act upon. They had administered oaths to the physicians, which they had no right to do, as they were merely a meeting of gentlemen, possessed of no such powers as they had assumed to themselves acting under the denomination of privy council. But were they (the House) to take those examinations for the rule of their action—examinations proceeding from a source unauthorised by and unknown to the constitution? The privy council had no such authority, and was not, like them, of coequal authority with the other estates of the realm. The hon. baronet (Sir F. Burdett) had, as it appeared to him, rather confounded matters, when he denied that it was the duty of the House to provide for any deficiency in the third estate. It was indeed true, that no written law could be shewn, saying, in such a case you shall do this. But the present was a case of high necessity, against which it never could be expected that laws could have been previously provided or devised. The hon. bart. reduced them to this dilemma—a King was wanted, but he did nor say how they were to supply one. On the other side, they seemed to think that they could do very well without a King altogether? At present they were in this situation—there was no King, and the kingly power was exercised by a set of gentlemen who had been chancellor of the exchequer, &c.—for he contended that when the source whence their appointments emanated had ceased, all their offices were at the same time suspended. On these grounds he was most decidedly hostile to the motion against which he should vote, and trusted that by its adoption the House would not put the country into the situation of being another fortnight without a King.
objected to the House of Commons acting upon the report of an examination which they had not heard—a report which, taken in the most extensive point of view, went only to state, that a great degree of probability existed of his Majesty's speedy recovery. The language made use of by a right hon. gent. on the opposite side of the House (Mr. Yorke) he thought was very unfit for such an occasion. He had called upon the House to "let his Majesty have fair play!" an expression which, in his mind, was highly improper on such a serious and solemn discussion. The mode of pressing an adjournment on this occasion he thought extremely precipitate—why were not the members of that House permitted to read the report themselves?—It was contrary to precedent, it was contrary to the general usage of parliament, to take a report into consideration the very day on which it was presented. He hoped the House would maturely consider whether they would themselves examine the King's physicians, or leave it to the discretion of ministers to act as they pleased. The House were, in his opinion, imperiously called on to examine the facts of his Majesty's illness, and, if necessary, to provide for the vacancy in the constitution occasioned by that illness. He concluded by entering his protest against the proposed adjournment. It was a measure which ought not be entertained in a period of such unexampled difficulty and danger.
stated that the first duty of the House was to hear by a committee of their own, the evidence as to the state in which his Majesty now was; and that they could not better discharge the sacred trust reposed in them by their constituents than by following such a course. No considerations of delicacy ought to induce them to depart from the line of conduct which they were thus imperiously called on to follow. It was much better for the House to examine by a committee into the state of their Sovereign, than to take their information at second hand. He certainly could never look upon the report of the privy council as authentic information, on which they could safely place reliance. The House would never allow any document to have equal weight in their estimation with what was consistent with their own knowledge. The present occasion differed materially from that of 1788, when an adjournment was proposed by Mr. Pitt. The House were not then told of the probability of an amendment, but they were positivelyassured on the ministerial responsibility of an actual convalescence. Mr. Pitt came to the House on the 20th of February, and they adjourned to the 24th, afterwards they adjourned to the 26th, again for other three days, and lastly till the 10th of the following month. The cases of 1801 and 1804 did not admit of the smallest application to the present. No communication was made to that House in 1801 of his Majesty's illness, and they were ignorant of the nature of his indisposition. In 1804, when the subject of his Majesty's illness was started in the House, they were assured by ministers that there was no necessary interruption of the royal functions. Here it would certainly have been usurpation had the House ventured to carry their enquiries farther; but the case is now totally, different. They had on their Journals a statement from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer that his Majesty was at present incapable of exercising the royal duties. What a difference too, between the present period and 1788. The nation was then in a state of peace, and Mr. Pitt was at the head of the administration. The internal affairs of the nation were consequently the only objects of consideration; and our foreign policy was not calculated to inspire us with uneasiness; but how different the present state of the nation, where a single step might be productive of important consequences to our most essential interests. Should any unforeseen accident happen to lord Wellington in Portugal, no assistance could be sent to him. Could any money be drawn from the exchequer, though circumstances might render a supply of money of the most indispensible necessity? Could the privy seal be affixed to the most necessary deed? Or could the sign manual be in any case procured? All that was asked, was, that the House might be put in a situation from which they might be enabled to decide on the ulterior steps that ought to be taken. He could not see what difference it could make with regard to the effect on the feelings of his Majesty, whether the examimination took place before the privy council or before the House. No answer had been given to the question, as to the time in which the recovery of his Majesty may be expected. He rejoiced as much as any man, at the probability of that recovery; but as it was impossible to look to any given period for such an event, he could not give his assent to an adjournment.
said, that, on a former evening, it had been stated by a right hon. gent. (alluding to Mr. Sheridan), that when a motion was on the point of being made for a committee of examination, it was abandoned on the sole and only ground of the public notoriety of his Majesty's improving health. In the present instance, they had no necessity to trust to such notoriety; they had before them documents, which held out the best hopes of a speedy recovery; there was, therefore, less necessity for such a proceeding. On the first night of adjournment, many gentlemen voted for that measure, who objected to it at present, on the ground that the moment the Sovereign was afflicted with illness, an examination of his physicians should take place; but the argument which they used on this occasion would equally apply to the former. In answer to what had fallen from an hon. baronet, he would observe, that the proceedings instituted in the year 1788, were founded on an acknowledged necessity for taking some steps to provide for the regal authority, in consequence of the report of his Majesty's physicians, who also agreed in the probability of an ultimate recovery, but did not speak of a progressive amendment—steps were then taken by the House, under circumstances new to it, and new to the regal power. It was at that time directed, that a provision should be made for the exercise of the kingly authority; but surely the same necessity did not exist at present, when the most flattering hopes were held out of a speedy recovery; and when, in a short time, such an amendment might take place, as would render unnecessary any proceeding which might be instituted. He was willing to give full credit to the statements of ministers: their high situation gave them an opportunity of procuring the most accurate information—and attached to them a responsibility which would render them tenacious of what they asserted. Next to a strict regard to their public duty, he thought they should study the feelings of the Sovereign—and he could not coincide with those who laughed at the idea of delicacy being used towards them. It was a question of prudence and propriety, whether the country should remain in the present state for a fortnight longer or an examination of his Majesty's physicians take place before a Committee of that House, with a view that proceedings be instituted thereon. For his part, he thought the former was the better mode of proceeding.—The paper laid on the table had, in his opinion, been very improperly termed "a report" it was no such thing—it was the copy of an examination taken before the privy council. On a former adjournment, the House had acted merely from the statement of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and would they now refuse the same proceeding, when the examination of the physicians was laid before them? In 1788 adjournments of the two Houses did take place, on the mere ipse dixit of lord Thurlow and Mr. Pitt—whether those adjournments were long or short was another question. Most assuredly the ground offered for the proceeding at present was greatly superior. The calamity which afflicted his Majesty at that period was of such a nature as rendered short adjournments necessary. Yet on the mere word of lord Thurlow stating the convalescence of his Majesty, the Regency bill, which having passed that House was in its progress through the House of Lords, was not completed. At the present time, there was no proceeding to be stopped—they were only called on to wait a few days, during which time the best hopes were entertained that his Majesty's health would be greatly improved. The examination of the physicians before the privy council could not have the power of binding the House; it was laid before the House; it was laid before them that they might act upon it as they thought expedient—and nothing could be more preposterous than to assert that it could have such an effect. It certainly was not, in the strict sense of the word, legal evidence: but it was the best which circumstances admitted, and in point of prudence warranted the proceeding which had been proposed.
An hon. baronet had stated, that the queries might be drawn up so artfully as to induce such answers as designing individuals wished; but the answer to that was, did any thing of that kind appear on the face of the documents? They certainly did not seem to be of such a description. Why should the House then exercise its inquisitorial power, where an absolute necessity did not appear, and where it might be the means of communicating pain? The hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) had spoken of the delicacy which should be observed on this occasion, with considerable asperity; but notwithstanding what he had said, he (Mr. Bathurst) believed that such delicacy was a principle inherent in every good, honest, and loyal subject. When an examination of his Majesty's physicians took place on a former occasion, there was a necessity for it; but it did not strike him that that was a reason why they should go into a variety of minute questions at present, when the same necessity did not exist, and when examination might be fraught with the most serious inconvenience. The delicacy which had been spoken of did not apply merely to the person of his Majesty, but to his high office; that delicacy ought to obviate those discussions which perchance might have the tendency, if they reached the royal ear, of retarding his resumption of that office which he had so long and so uprightly filled; and the nearer his Majesty approached to convalescence, the more likely was he to hear those proceedings. He was averse to an adjournment from day to day, as it would have the appearance of watching, and would, very probable, have an injurious effect on his Majesty's recovery. He acknowledged that they were in a critical state, and that some of the information relative to his Majesty had been exaggerated; but that did not convince him of the necessity of the proposed examination.—It was not possible to foresee the exact period of the King's recovery, but he thought the time offered to their consideration in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's motion, was such as would give them a fair opportunity of forming their minds on the subject; he would therefore vote for the proposed adjournment.
was as anxious as any member of that House for his Majesty's recovery, and could wish, if possible, that every principle of delicacy should be observed in the steps that they might take. He was persuaded, however, that no delicacy ought to stand in the way of the exercise of those sacred duties which as members of parliament they had to perform. He wished to explain to the House the motives that formerly induced him to vote for an adjournment, and which, on the present occasion, induced him to give a different vote. When it was stated on a former occasion that the minister had seen the physicians, and that they had given confident hopes of a speedy recovery, it was not perhaps granting too much to allow a fortnight before they should determine upon entering on a question of so delicate a nature. It was very different however, when two fortnights were asked. The vote in 1788 was perfectly different from that proposed on the present occasion. The House had then the distinct averments of lord Thurlow and Mr. Pitt, clothed with the most awful responsibility, and deriving weight from the grave and awful authority peculiar to lord Thurlow, to warrant them in their proceedings; but the situation in which the House now stood was very different. The privy council had been assembled as was done by Mr. Pitt in 1788; but the House had no responsibility to look to, and no evidence before them. The examination of the privy council was taken aliunde, not in the presence of the House. He maintained that it was contrary to the sound doctrine of parliament, and utterly impossible for that House to proceed to act on any evidence except evidence delivered in the House or in presence of those delegated from the House. The privy council was no doubt a respectable body, but the privy council was not parliament, and the evidence taken before it must be considered exactly in the same light as if taken before any other court. He asserted, therefore, that it was contrary to the duty of the House to proceed in any other way than by granting a commission in the way which had been proposed. Mr. Pitt thought fit on the Thursday to move for an adjournment to Monday; and on the Monday he moved for an examination into the state of his Majesty's health. Mr. Fox acceded to this measure as proper, and reasonable, although it proceeded from a person in political opposition to him, from a conviction that it was improper to proceed on evidence not taken before the House. When he (Mr. Adam) came to the House he imagined that an adjournment was in like manner to be proposed until Monday, and that then a Committee would be appointed, that the precedent of 1788 might be followed as nearly as possible, in order to enquire into the state of his Majesty's health. In such a case he could have agreed to an adjournment. He did not mean to say that the examination before the privy council was conducted on false principles: nor would he assert that there was not much in the examination of 1788 which every body wished had not taken place; but it was necessary parliament should see with its own eyes. Considerations of delicacy ought not to stand in the way of truth. He was perfectly aware of the defects of that House in many respects; but it was proper to consider the House in all its aspects; and not alone to dwell on its defects. He could not therefore, consent to abandon parliamentary enquiry, because some gentlemen might think proper to ask improper questions. This was the due course to be followed. He would not take into his consideration at present what might take place in consequence of the Committee's report; it was only what should transpire from that Committee, that could put them in possession of the circumstances which might enable them to take the necessary measures. He paid a tribute to his Majesty's virtues. He stated that he was unwilling to take any step deviating in the least from complete precedent; and there was one such precedent in 1788, in which all members were agreed. He stated the difference between responsibility, and examination before the privy council, which could only be considered in the light of a declaration of notoriety. He wished at present to avoid all questions of an ulterior nature, convinced as he was, that sufficient for the day is the evil thereof. On these and some other considerations, he voted against the adjournment.
said, that upon the whole view of the case, in all its bearings and circumstances, the balance in his mind was in favour of the adjournment. He could not but think that the legal habits of his hon. friend had led him to consider the question in too technical a sense. They were in the habit every day of acting upon similar grounds, nor had he heard, in all that had been said upon the subject, any positive substantial specific injury stated, as likely to result from an adjournment for a fortnight. He thought himself warranted therefore upon the whole, in voting for it. It was impossible to separate a respect for the person of the Sovereign from that abstract respect for the crown itself which every one was eager to profess. The people of this country loved their monarch, because they knew that he loved them, and because they experienced under his reign those benefits from which the world at large was excluded. Such considerations must create an attachment and a delicacy towards him, and long might such an attachment and delicacy exist. All the danger to be apprehended was lest delicacy should go too far, and therefore he was of opinion that his hon. friend was right in taking a precaution against his own excess of feeling. The entire of the objections against the adjournment, consisted in pushing principles too far. But it had been said, that the word of his Majesty's ministers should not be taken. There certainly was one sense in which their word was of more value, in such a case, than that of other people; they must necessarily be presumed to be better acquainted with the situation of affairs; and when they undertook to state upon their responsibility that no injury could arise from the adjournment, he was willing to believe them, and gratify those feelings of delicacy, which he was not ashamed to confess he entertained. No reason appeared to him to be made out against the principle of adjourning; for whatever constitutional objection could be used now, was equally applicable to the first adjournment and as no solid specific injury had been stated by any of the opponents of the motion, he should feel himself justified in supporting it by his vote.
—I never trimmed or juggled, and I will not trim or juggle now. I vote for the adjournment on the promises of Dr. Baillie and sir Henry Halford, honest men as I know them to be; and so far from being warped by interest on the present occasion, they make less by their attendance on his Majesty than they would by their attendance on the public at large. Those gentlemen, those honest men, say that his Majesty has at present force of mind and body, and that there is every probability of his perfect restoration to sanity of mind and body. What would we have more? What would we reason on in preference to simple facts—facts stated by the ablest and most virtuous men in the nation? Will any man deny them? Will any in this House be base enough to desert our poor, good old man, in his adversity?—Bless me from that most poignant of all afflictions!—an affliction to which every man from the prince down to the subject is liable.—Bless me, gentlemen,—(loud laugh,) I feel for my King and my country! I never gave a vote against my conscience!—I say it on my oath. Now, let you who laugh at me say as much—I never voted against reform, but to be sure that has nothing to say to the present questioh.—(A laugh!)—It may be ridiculous, gentlemen, but I say, whoever rats now and runs away, may the honourable person to whom he runs not receive him! Whoever deserts the old King is the basest of human beings, of human creatures; I care not whether he be prince or peasant; be him prince or peasant that rats, I say, blow him from this earth! I shall now vote for the adjournment, but after it, in case the King's recovery is not complete, then of course I shall agree to other measures. I shall do what the nation expects, but I shall not desert my sovereign now; and I say that man is base who would adopt a contrary line of conduct—it will be mean and it will be unworthy.
A loud cry of question arising here, the House divided on the question, That at its rising it do adjourn to this day fortnight; Ayes 233, Noes 129. Another division took place upon Mr. Ponsonby's motion*, to appoint a Committee to examine the physicians. Ayes 137, Noes 230. Adjourned to December 13.
* Sir J. Sebright, sir J. St. Aubyn, lord Pollington, Messrs. Prittie, M. A. Taylor, Freemantle, Calcraft, Evelyn and Wilkins, voted in the second Division.
List of the Minority. Abercromby, Hon. J. Lambton, R. Adair, Rt. Hon. R. Langton, Gore Adam, W. Latouche, John Agar, E. F. Latouche, Robert Althorpe, Viscount Leach, John Anstruther, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Lemon, Col. Lemon, J. Astley, Sir Jacob Lester, B. Lester Aubrey, Sir J. Lloyd, Sir E. Bagenal, Walt. Lloyd, J. M. Baring, A. Longman, Geo. Baring, T. Macdonald, J. Bewick, Col. Madocks, W. A. Barnard, Scrope Markham, J. Bennett, H. A. Martin, Henry Bradshaw, Hon. C. Mathew, Hon. M. Brand, Hon. T. Maule, Hon. W. Brown, Anthony Mexbro', Earl of Byng, Geo. Millbank, Sir R. Brougham, Hen. Miller, Sir T. Burdett, Sir F. Milner, Sir W. Campbell, Duncan Milton, Viscount Cavendish, Lord G. Morpeth, Viscount Cavendish, W. Morris, Ed. Chaloner, Robert Mosley, Sir Oswald Colborn, N. R. W. Mostyn, Sir Thos. Combe, H. C. Newport, Rt. Hon Sir J. Corry, T. C. S. Creevey, Thomas North, Dudley Cooke, Bryan Nugent, Sir Geo. Duncannon, Visc. O'Callagan, Col. Jas. Dillon, Hon. H. A. O'Hara, Chas. Dundas, Hon. L. Ossulston, Lord Eden, Hon. G. Osborne, Lord F. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. Palmer, C. S. Fitzgerald, Ld. W. Piggot, Sir A. Fitzpatrick, Right Hon. R. Peirse, H. Ponsonby, Right Hon. G. Foley, Hon. A. Folkestone, Lord Visc. Portman, E. B. Giles, Dan. Pym, F. S. Goddard, T. Quin, Hon. Wind. Gower, Earl Romilly, Sir Sam. Greenhill, Robert Russell, Lord W. Grenfell, Pascoe Scudamore, R. P. Halsey, Joseph Sharp, Richard Hamilton, Lord A. Shipley, W. Hanbury, — Smith, Samuel Hibbert, Geo. Smith, George Hippesley, Sir J. C. Smith, John Honywood, W. Smith, Abel Horner, Fran. Smith, Wm. Howard, Hon. W. Somerville, Sir M. Howard, Hen. Simpson, Hon. John Howorth, Hum. Stanley, Lord Hume, W. H. Stewart, James Hurst, Robert Symonds, T. P. Hussey, Thomas Talbot, R. W. Hutchinson, Hon. C. H. Tarleton, Ban. Taylor, W. O. Jackson, John Templetown, Visc. Jekyll, Joseph Tierney, Rt. Hon. Geo. Knox, Hon. T. Kensington, Lord Tracey, C. H. Lamb, Hon. T. Turton, Sir T. Vernon, G. G. V. Whitbread, Samuel Walpole, Hon. Geo. Winnington, Sir T. E. Ward, Hon. J. M. Wardle, G. L. Wynn, C. W. W. Wharton, John