according to order, reported from the Committee of the whole House, to whom it was referred to take into consideration the State of the Nation, the Resolutions which the Committee had directed him to report to the House. On the question that the said Resolutions be read,

Sir Francis Burdett rose to offer his objections to some of the Resolutions, but was informed by the Speaker, that the most proper time for making his observations would be when the question was put, That the House agree to the said Resolutions.

The Resolutions were then read as follow:

1. "Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that his Majesty is prevented by his present indisposition, from coming to his Parliament, and from attending to the public business; and that the personal exercise of the Royal Authority is thereby suspended."

2."Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that it is the right and duty of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, now assembled, and lawfully, fully, and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, to provide the means of supplying the defect in the personal exercise of the Royal Authority, arising from his Majesty's said indisposition, in such manner as the exigency of the case may appear to them to require."

3."Resolved, That it is the opinion of this Committee, that for this purpose, and for maintaining entire the constitutional Authority of the King, it is necessary that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, should determine on the means where by the Royal Assent may be given in Parliament to such Bill as may be passed by the two Houses of Parliament respecting the exercise of the powers and authorities of the Crown, in the name and on the behalf of the King, during the continuance of his Majesty's present "indisposition."

The first Resolution was agreed to unanimously. On the question being put upon the second, sir Francis Burdett and lord William Russell rose nearly at the same time, but sir Francis gave way to

, who said, that although he differed from the hon. baronet in many points, yet in this point he fully concurred with him. And as long as he found the hon. baronet maintaining doctrines which tended to preserve the liberties of all the people of these realms, so long would the hon. baronet find from him as warm a support as from any of his most determined partizans, at least as far as it was in the power of his humble abilities to support him. He agreed with him as to the propriety of rejecting the second Resolution. He was himself old enough to remember all the proceedings which took place in the year 1788, and he did not consider the cases so similar as to make the same Resolutions proper now, which were then conceived to be necessary. He recollected perfectly well, that the Resolutions which were then agreed to originated from circumstances which arose in the course of debate. An assertion was supposed to have been made by his revered friend, the late Mr. Fox, that the Prince had an absolute hereditary right to take upon himself the Regency, during the incapacity of Ms royal Father. It was on the supposition that such an assertion had been made, and a claim of that nature set up, that Mr. Pitt conceived it to be his duty to bring forward this Resolution, in the way of Counter-Resolution. There might, therefore, have been at that time some necessity for such Resolution, but it did not follow that there was the same necessity now, when no such expressions had been made use of. He did not conceive that the Great Seal could at all supply the place of the royal authority; and if it was intended to do so, he thought the person to whom it was entrusted ought to have the power to assent to or dissent from the proceedings of the two Houses, and exercise a choice whether he was to affix the seal or not. He could not agree with the Resolutions which had been read. He objected also to the principle of that House voting abstract propositions, and should therefore conclude by moving the previous question.

rose to support the motion made by the noble lord who had just sat down. That noble lord had fully stated his reasons for opposing the Resolution to which the House was now called upon to agree. His own object in rising was to add a few more reasons to those which had been so well urged by the noble lord. He thought, in the first place, that the ground taken by the noble lord in his opposition to that Resolution was such as imperiously to require an answer from those gentlemen, who relied so much upon the argument of necessity. It behoved those gentlemen to shew in what the necessity consisted. In his opinion that necessity had not been as yet made out; and the whole appeared to be but a false pretence to do that which nothing but extreme necessity could justify. Why had there been such discussion, such contrariety of opinion, if the necessity was clear: If the case were one of necessity, the necessity would admit of no alternative; but in this instance the House had an alternative and, therefore there could be no such extreme necessity as had been contended for. The House was perfectly at liberty to do one of two things, and consequently could not restricted to one only; as it would if acting under the pressure of an imperious necessity. Gentlemen might therefore call it expediency, conveniency, or designate it by any other pliable and indefinite term, but necessity they could not call it. The noble lord had stated, and had stated truly, that the bare assertion of an abstract proposition by that House could have, and ought to have no influence on a question like the present, and was in most cases to be deprecated. Of this there could be little doubt; that an Assembly constituted as that House was, could not be thought to bind either others or themselves at different periods. The mischief arising from this folly had been but too obvious. Hence it was, that as every House of Commons had a right to an opinion, and the expression of it, that the Journals of that House exhibited such a motley specimen of repugnant opinions, and contradictory resolutions; and for this reason, had he always been hostile to that House, or any Assembly so composed, taking upon itself the province of laying down abstract propositions, ultimately confirming and contradicting each other.

The noble lord had also adverted to the great difference which existed between the circumstances that attended the introduction of the second Resolution to the House in the year 1788, and at the present time: it appeared, that, in the course of the discussion, the question of right had been advanced; it rested upon the opinion of an individual, an opinion which the prince of Wales did not sanction. Now, this opinion in favour of the question of right, did appear to the hon. bart. not to be well founded; for where there was right there must be law; right was, in fact, law; and where there was no law there was no right. He therefore inferred, that the Prince's succession to the office of Regent was not absolutely matter of right. But he would here ask, if there could be right only where there was law, by what right could that House assume to itself the power of providing the means of supplying the defect in the Executive Government? Where was the law which warranted the right of such assumption? And if the law could not be found, he would ask, how came they by the right? There was, however, this difference between the supposed right of the Prince to the Regency, and the supposed right of that House to nominate the Regent, that in the former case there could be no doubt of the fitness and expediency of the Prince being the Regent, though there must be doubts as to the expedience of that House usurping the power of appointing any person Regent. The Heir Apparent ought to succeed to the Sovereign Power, in every case of the demise of the Crown. The present case was a demise of the Crown (Hear! hear!) This supposition was in no way inconsistent with the actual and existing integrity of the Kingly power. In all other cases of demise, the Heir Apparent to the throne was designed to succeed to the government of the country. In former periods of our history, in the event of the imprisonment of the reigning monarch, of his being driven out of his kingdom, and in being absent from his dominions, as in the case of Edward 4, in all such cases, the expediency and fitness of the next heir succeeding to the Executive Power during such demise could not have been questioned. He thought this, indeed, to rest upon a vital principle of the constitution, which regarded the parts of the constitution as distinct in themselves, however united or mingled in their joint co operation. This, he had no doubt, would be providing for the defect in the executive, in a way more consonant to the sound principles of the constitution. And he saw no reason why the minister should now call for a further delay to pass his own measure, when the same purpose could be more constitutionally answered without any delay, or at least without more than the delay of two or three days. They had now been six weeks without a government, and he saw no reason for adding to that delay by preferring one mode of proceeding to another, which was not only more constitutional, but would be productive of comparatively no delay, to say nothing of the House being called upon to exercise a right which did not belong to it. An hon. and learned gent. had last night asked, if, because the King was to be incapacitated, the House of Commons was to be incapacitated also? In times more pure, and with respect to the conformation of that assembly, infinitely more perfect, no such right was insisted on, and the want of it was not thought an incapacitation. But how was the House incapacitated by not assuming that province which the constitution had not given to it? The way of its duty, in the present case, was clear, plain, and explicit. In addressing the Prince, and offering him in that Address an opinion, and grounding upon that opinion a request, we did not usurp a disputed power, but exercised an undoubted right. We adhered to the good, old, sound principles of the constitution, by keeping within the sphere of our own rights and duties. The perfection of the constitution was its simplicity; and which course was more analogous to that simplicity? The doubtful, indirect, confused, and inefficient proceeding by Bill, or the simple, easy, direct course of Address? And yet, after spending six weeks in doing nothing, we were now to give rise to still greater delay, by preferring the former course to the latter! The hon. baronet insisted that a great deal of time had been unnecessarily wasted, and that the country ought not to have been suffered to remain six weeks under a mangled constitution, and without a chief magistrate competent to discharge the duties of that high office.

The hon. baronet then proceeded to animadvert upon the facetious observations, which his remark relative to the corporation of the city of London had called forth from a right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning.) He congratulated that right hon. gent. upon his restoration to those powers of pleasantry, which, unfortunately for the entertainment of the House, had so long been clouded. The hon. baronet said, he was not surprised, that the national calamity, which that right hon. gent. had been so instrumental in producing, had clouded for so long a time his characteristic gaiety and accustomed facetiousness. It was not, however, to be wondered at, that the right hon. gent. should grow somewhat grave, when he contemplated the dreadful marks of death, which the direful Expedition to Walcheren had inflicted upon this country. The hon. baronet thought, that while the country was groaning under the miseries of that fatal and disgraceful Expedition, the merriment of one of the authors of those miseries might have been better spared; and more particularly of him who stood before the public, self-convicted of having acted in concert with a colleague (lord Castlereagh) whom he had denounced as unfit, unworthy, and inefficient. Here, indeed, there was more than enough to suspend any unseasonable quips and quirks and drolleries, conscious, as that right hon. gent. must have been, that if ever there was a minister of this country who deserved impeachment, it was that right hon. gent., for his conduct in that transaction. No wonder, then, that the sense of his situation had depressed those light and airy sallied of pleasantry in which that right hon. gent. so much delighted, and which, however deficient in instruction, could not be said to be wholly destitute of amusement. Now, however, that the right hon. gent. had happily been restored to the exercise of his suspended powers, the hon. baronet said he would seriously advise him to be more select as to the subjects of his jokes in future. In the best periods of our history, the lord mayor, aldermen, and common council of the city of London were to be found taking a zealous and active part in defence of the rights and liberties of Englishmen. They were a very important body, and had considerable weight in all the political affairs of the country. At the period of the Revolution, they sat together with the first orders of the state, and in the Convention which then assembled, they did not prove themselves unworthy of co-operating with the highest of the nobility in the great work which was then accomplished. They had been in the most trying times of our history a great weight in the scale, and therefore had they been a party in waiting upon the Prince of Orange and addressing him to take upon himself the administration of public affairs. What would the right hon. gent. say, if the citizens of London were now to present an Address to the Prince of Wales? Although the right hon. gent. now affected to hold such bodies in great contempt, and although the interference of the citizens of London in matters of state was now treated as perfectly ridiculous, the right hon. gent. did not always hold them in such utter contempt: for however he might now despise them, he had not thought it beneath his dignity, when Secretary of State, to meet a parcel of contractors and loan jobbers at a public dinner given at a tavern; and even to condescend to vary their conviviality by haranguing them, in a sage and set speech, upon the state of the nation.

The hon. bart. next proceeded to observe upon the speech made last night, by the hon. and learned gent. who sat behind him (Mr. Horner.) That speech, considered as a whole, he thought very candid and intelligent. But there was one part of it from which he must beg leave to dissent. It was that part where the hon. and learned gent. seemed to argue, as if there was some law which was above the law of the land; a constitutional something which was only to be found in the proceedings of parliament. From this opinion he must totally dissent; or, if there was such a law, he confessed his understanding to be too narrow to comprehend it. He acknowledged no law superior to that which was to be found in the Statute Book; and as to the recorded proceedings of parliament, they were so variable and contradictory that he could not see how any thing could be extracted from such an inconsistent mass which de- served the name of law. What was a constitution but certain things established by law? but to talk of a law which was beyond the law, was, in his mind, to talk of a constitution in the air. It was evident that the generality of those who argued upon the constitution, differed entirely in their ideas of what was the constitution, and consequently all arguments were like endeavours to cast up the same sum with different figures.—As to the mode that was proposed for supplying the deficiency, it appeared to him more like a complete subversion and usurpation of the Crown, than the supplying its deficiency. If the two Houses wished to create a third estate, they ought to create a will also to judge of its necessary functions. Now, the gentlemen on the other side of the House seemed to consider the Great Seal as something possessing a magetic influence, a sort of a talisman, which could effect miracles; and one right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) seemed to think, that its having been thrown into the Thames at the time of the Revolution, made a serious difference in the question. The gentlemen on the other side mistook the principles of the Revolution entirely, if they thought Great Seal or no Great Seal was of any importance on that occasion. It was a great principle which was settled at that time, that power originated with the people; and that there did exist an original contract between the Crown and the people, which, if violated by the Crown, the power lawfully reverted to the people, who might confer it where they thought proper. It was this great principle which our ancestors had in their thoughts at the time of the Revolution, and the miserable expedient of making a sovereign of a Great Seal never occurred to them.

As for the precedent of the Resolutions of 1788, he never would admit that there was any necessity or expediency in the House of Commons laying down abstract propositions, and entering them upon their Journals to govern future cases, however dissimilar they might be in the circumstances. The ministers, however, had been most servile imitators of the precedent of 1788, and never seemed to have considered the reason why those Resolutions were then passed. Similar Resolutions were not now called for, as nobody had, upon the present occasion, started the doctrine which was then so warmly discussed. He, indeed, suspected that in 1788, as well as upon the present occasion, ministers had a reason which they did not choose to avow, and that was to produce as great a delay as possible. The Resolution which was now before the House asserted a thing which was not true in fact, namely, that the two Houses of Parliament "lawfully, fully, and freely represented "all the estates of the people of the realm." This statement was directly contrary to the fact: it was an assertion totally uncalled for, and, in his opinion, most unwise. He therefore felt it to be his duty, to take the sense of the House, upon the second Resolution—or rather to divide the House in order to have the objection recorded on the Journals—for as to what was called the sense of the House, that would doubtless on this, as on most other questions, accord with the sense of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or rather of the tripod whence he delivered his oracles.

declared his concurrence in the second Resolution, that the two Houses of Parliament had the right to supply the defect in the personal exercise of the royal authority, from whatever kind of incapacity arising. Adverting to the favourable account of the state of his Majesty's health, which had that day been published, he congratulated the House and the country upon it. But at the same time he could not help casting back his eyes upon the delay, which had been allowed to intervene between the suspension of the royal functions, and the provision necessary to be made for it; and protesting against it as contrary to the recognized fundamental law of the constitution. Reverting to the question of right, he maintained that whether the incapacity arose from the absence of the King, or from any other cause, the two Houses had an undoubted right to provide the remedy, and in proof of this, he cited the proceedings of the Long Parliament in the reign of Charles the first, though rejected by modern patriots as precedents. When he considered the ability of the lawyers who sat in that parliament, though they had come to an erroneous conclusion, yet, in his opinion, they had clearly established the ancient law in favour of the right of the House. No one was more disposed than he was to admit, with the hon. baronet, that there were defects in the representation of that House. No one was more willing to contend for the necessity of some reform; but still he must declare that until such reform took place, their assemblage was legal. The hon. baronet, anxious as he was in his efforts to prevent anarchy, ought to consider, in reality, what an anarchy he was introducing by thus sweeping away at one blow all their parliamentary acts for 100 years back—by thus reducing them at once to the primary assemblies. The hon. baronet's own proceedings too were at direct variance with his principles. Thus some time ago he applied to the House for the appointment of a committee to enquire into the State of the Representation: upon this proceeding, if agreed to, no doubt he intended to found a bill. Now, where was the use of the hon. baronet's application, or where would be the validity of his bill, in case, as he declared, that House was not legally convened? So much for the constitutional doctrine of the hon. baronet.—Now with respect to the delay which had taken place, he must say he thought that delay in the highest degree dangerous. He viewed it in a very different light, indeed; from that in which it was regarded by a right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Canning) who had declared that if a further adjournment had been proposed, he would have assented to it. It was right in the House, all would allow, to take effectual measures for supplying the deficiencies in the executive; but could any person say that it was right in them to defer this duty week after week, and proceed from one adjournment to another? Who knew what might be the effects of such delay—the injury arising from the precedent—the danger of the example—the detriment which must ensue to the public service? Delicacy had been assigned as the reason and the apology. He was very ready to allow every, deference to that delicacy within the bounds of discretion; he was willing to do it abstractedly as well as individually. It was impossible not to see this desire in the general sympathy of the country—it was impossible not to see the great bulwark raised round the monarch by the universal respect and compassion which he excited. Abstractedly, indeed, every delicacy was due to kings. It was the misfortune of their high station, that every act they did was the source of observation—their lives, their errors, their failings, their misfortunes, even their very maladies were subject to an inquisition, and might be productive of the most important effects. The proceeding by Bill he deprecated altogether. As to its hav- ing more weight than an Address, he confessed himself incapable of conceiving how that could be the case.—He could not see how a commission executed by a body could possibly have more efficiency than the act of the body itself, whence that commission emanated. The proceeding by Bill he thought illegal; but even supposing it was equally legal with that by Address, still could not every object be as well attained by the latter? Could not every limitation be as effectually imposed? Could not any provision be as well engrafted on the Address as they were in a former instance on the Declaration of Rights? He did not wish, constitutionally speaking, to trust to the discretion of any Regent or of any King; it was right to suspect them, not personally, but politically; it was right to watch over them with a vigilance, Which, without supposing them unjust, might prevent their being so. To those who would say that the mode of Address freed the Regent from this suspicion, he would ask, did not the mode by Bill rather tend to throw that suspicion upon parliament? Did it not go to say that the moment the Prince came into power, he might influence the House, and fritter away the limitation? As to the care of the King's person, whoever had observed the duty and veneration which the Prince had manifested towards his royal father could be under no apprehension upon that point. King William, it was known, had refused to assent to two Bills founded on the Declaration of Rights at the Revolution; the Triennial Bill, and a bill respecting the Judges' salaries. But the parliament and the people prevailed at last. Here they would have a better security in the word and honour of the Prince, in some measure voluntarily given. The hon. gent. concluded, by again declaring his preference of the mode of Address in every point of view, and with hoping that the House would revise its decision of last night.

began by observing, that he found great difficulty in replying to the manner of the hon. baronet's (sir F. Burdett) argument, but very little to the matter. The hon. member, however, who had just sat down, had, in his eloquent and impressive speech, anticipated much of what he had to urge in reply to the hon. baronet. He had the misfortune to differ from the hon. baronet in every point but one. To differ from the hon. baronet, was, indeed, nothing new, but the difference in the present instance was rather singular. The hon. baronet had declared his concurrence in all the sentiments of a speech delivered by an hon. and learned gent. (Mr. Horner) last night, with one exception. Now, that exception was exactly the only point in which he (Mr. Stephen) happened to agree with the hon. and learned gent. to whom the hon. baronet alluded. He agreed with the hon. and learned gent. that in the practice and law of parliament the foundation was to be found of some of the most important constitutional principles, independent of the statute law and common laws of the land. He admitted, that the value of the precedent of the Revolution did not arise from the use which had been made of the Great Seal on that occasion, but the constitutional principle which had then been established—not that the two Houses of Parliament had a right to cashier, as it had been called, the King, when he attempted to violate public liberty, but it was, as Mr. Justice Blackstone said, with his usual correctness, a case compounded of various parts, forming a principle upon which they were not only justified, but bound to act, if a similar instance should occur. If, then, a sovereign should abrogate the fundamental laws of the realm and leave the kingdom, there would be an abdication and a vacancy, and the Lords and Commons would have the right to supply the defect, and alter the succession, as had been done at the Revolution. In the year 1788, however, they had a new case, and the three estates of the realm determined that upon such an occasion the proceeding ought, to be such as was now proposed by his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. baronet well knew that the constitution was not the work of a day, but that it arose gradually from the practice of parliament, in particular cases, by which several great and leading general principles were solemnly sanctioned and established—some of the most important of these depended only upon one precedent. The crown was hereditary, but subject to different rules of succession from those which belonged to the ordinary succession to property; there was no coparcenary; all the females did not inherit together, according to the common law of the kingdom. At the death of Edward VI. his sisters, Mary and Elizabeth, did not succeed as co-heirs, but Mary succeeded alone, and from this circumstance the canon was formed, that in cases of female succession, the elder sister alone should be the heir to the crown. He could not find another precedent for this rule. Mary, too, succeeded her brother, though only of the half blood—another point in which the succession to the crown differed from the law in other cases, and by this precedent, another important general canon was established. In the same manner, he regarded the precedent of 1788, as establishing a new canon, that where an incapacity in the Sovereign took place, the right devolved upon the two Houses to provide for the temporary exercise of the royal authority, and that the constitutional mode of proceeding was by Bill; every other proceeding being then solemnly negatived. This was the broad foundation on which his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood, in adhering to the precedent of 1788. It was not merely an inchoate transaction, but as far as the questions upon both the second and third Resolutions were concerned, consummated; for the parliament had actually been opened by commission. Here, therefore, was a full and complete precedent, and, as had been justly observed, one which was afterwards practically ratified by the sanction of his Majesty when he recovered, and by the royal assent having been given by him to several bills which had been introduced into a parliament held under these circumstances. This argument had been so much felt by gentlemen on the other side, that they had made the strongest efforts to meet it, though without success. They spoke in disparaging terms of the party in power on that occasion, and of other circumstances, in their opinion, detracting from the force of this precedent. But they did not appear to consider that reasoning of this kind might overturn some of the most important precedents on the Journals of the House. The proceeding in 1788, could not, without the greatest danger, be regarded in any other light than as a full and complete precedent. Instead of this, however, hon. members had treated it without even a decent respect. They described it as a flagrant absurdity, as a fraud, an imposition, and even as high treason against the constitution. What would be the consequence, if this sort of reasoning were to be applied to the precedent at the Revolution?

The hon. and learned gent. next adverted to the reasons given by the hon. gent. who spoke last, in support of his preference of the mode of proceeding by Ad- dress rather than by Bill. This had been but little touched upon in the course of the debate of last night; and all he could collect from the hon. gent.'s observations was, that his royal highness the Prince of Wales would feel himself more bound to adhere to the declaration and wishes of the two Houses, if the proceeding by Address should be adopted. He concurred in every thing that had been said respecting the punctilious honour of the Prince of Wales, but the hon. gent. seemed to have forgot his own argument, that personal confidence was not a good constitutional principle in any case. But the hon. gent. asked if the two Houses and the people would bear that their confidence should be abused? He asked in return, whether they would bear that the Regent should violate an act of parliament? Kings and Regents must act by advisers, and the mode by Bill would afford a better remedy against evil counsellors. Reverting to the case of the Revolution, Mr. Stephen stated, that a distinction had been noticed by the right hon. gent. near him (Mr. Canning), who had treated the subject with so much force and eloquence, to which no reply had been made. On that occasion there was no King to affix the Seal to a Commission. If they had used the Seal in the name of James 2, who had abdicated, the Convention would have violated their principles. Here, however, no such difficulty existed. There was in existence a King, in whose name every thing must proceed, whether the Seal was in the custody of a Regent or a Chancellor. Whoever had the custody of it, it must be the Great Seal of George the Third. The precedent of 1788 was exactly in point, and for the space of 21 years had been acquiesced in, and not impeached till the present moment.—The hon. and learned gent. then adverted to the charge of delay for seven weeks, and observed that if this was to be alledged as a fault in his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was a fault in which they were all implicated, for the adjournment had taken place when they were perfectly aware of the King's incapacity. He contended, however, that the conduct of his right hon. friend, in this respect, deserved praise and not blame; and this would appear from the evidence before the House, which the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Whitbread) seemed to have very much misunderstood. He did not know where the hon. gent. had found any thing to support the view he had taken of it, unless in the questions which he himself had asked in the Committee, and which had been expunged. There certainly was no foundation for it in the printed Report. He found there the most confident hopes expressed of his Majesty's ultimate recovery, and in this case the physicians had declared, that they thought that his Majesty's having been previously affected three times with the same disorder, and having recovered, though the matter certainly had two aspects, was, upon the whole, rather a favourable circumstance. Why, then, with such a chance of recovery, would his right hon. friend have been justified in neglecting to propose an adjournment, as long as the dearest interests of the country were not sacrificed? There were one or two passages in the Report peculiarly consolatory. The cause of the malady was known. It had been ascribed by all the physicians to a domestic calamity, and this had been stated as a ground of hope; and if it had not been so stated, any one, even without a medical education, might have conjectured that where a sound system was disturbed by an extrinsic cause, the more violent the cause, so much the greater must be the chance of recovery when that cause was removed. And who that knew the feelings of a father, but must be aware of the violence of that cause? A modern poet, who well knew how to touch the heart, as, well as to amuse the imagination, had afforded an apt illustration of the affection which his Majesty entertained for his daughter:—

Some feelings are to mortals given,

With less of earth in them than heaven;

But if there be a human tear

From passion's drops refin'd and clear,

A tear so limpid and so meek,

It would not stain an angel's cheek,

Tis that which pious fathers shed

Upon a duteous daughter's head.

LADY OF THE LAKE.

If such were the parental extacies of his Majesty, what must have been his affliction in losing this daughter, under the most trying circumstances,—a daughter whom he knew to have been struggling for weeks and months with death.—The hon. and learned gent. said, that when he heard of the agitation of his Majesty, on receiving the daily report of his daughter's health; when he heard of his daily visit; when he figured to himself his venerable form approaching his child, only to mark with his yet remaining senses her faultering voice, and feeble respiration, while that child, as the flame of life glimmered in the socket, shewed "Her ruling passion strong in death," and presented the ring to her father, that he might remember her whom he could not see—when he heard all this, he was not ashamed to confess that he could not hear all this without shedding a tear. Still, however, this afforded a consolatory hope of his Majesty's recovery; and he could not help congratulating the House upon the reflection, that a constitution which had withstood such an attack could not be munch injured, that it had still a self-restoring power, and that there was strong ground to conclude, that the country would be for a longer time blessed with a King, whose virtues during a reign of fifty years had sunk so deep into the hearts of his subjects.—If his right hon. friend had not delayed for the longest term that the dearest interests of the country would admit, under these favourable circumstances, he would have shrunk from his duty towards one of the best and most amiable sovereigns that ever graced the throne of this or of any other nation. He was glad that the merits of his Majesty had been recognized on both sides of the House, and he did not envy the feelings of those who yesterday grudged the House even that satisfaction, and alluded to the failures of the various administrations that had been in office during his Majesty's long and eventful reign. He hoped the country would soon again have the advantage of his full restoration, with all his regal virtues. Never, perhaps, was there a monarch so beloved. The hon. and learned gent. concluded, by remarking that the imputations of delay by the gentlemen opposite were at war with their objection to the proceeding by Bill. It was not the Bill, but the spirit of controversy which occasioned the delay. If the Bill should be acrimoniously contested in all its stages, a considerable delay would no doubt take place, but without this the proceeding by Bill could not be much more dilatory than that by Address. The Address of the Irish Parliament had been about fifteen days, he believed, under discussion. It was for the gentlemen on the other side to prevent delay, by ceasing from that tedious opposition by which the progress of the measure had been retarded.

contended, that the House was not warranted in arguing this subject by a reference to the virtues of his Majesty during a reign of fifty years, on the one hand; nor, on the other, by expatiating on the virtues of his royal highness the Prince of Wales, and the confidence that might safely be placed in that illustrious personage. They were there met to decide upon a great constitutional question, and should in debating it, consider the situation of a King generally, not of the reigning King, nor of the present Prince of Wales. He agreed fully in the principle laid down in the second Resolution, "that it was the right and duty of the two Houses of Parliament to provide the means of supplying the defect in the personal exercise of the royal authority;" but he was confident that that right and that duty were sufficiently established by the Resolution that was agreed to in the year 1788, and that it was wholly unnecessary to pass a similar Resolution in the present instance: but as the Resolution has received the sanction of the Committee, he did not think it proper to get rid of it now by the previous question, lest that might bring the principle itself into doubt.

On the third Resolution he felt considerable difficulty in stating the opinion he entertained, differing as it did from the opinions of those whom he most loved and respected; but he had to decide upon a great constitutional question, and could not give up his conviction in deference to the highest and most revered authorities. He had, however, the satisfaction of knowing, that in the line of conduct he was in this instance adopting, he was following the example of one whose memory he most honoured and revered, and whose name he bore^*. The third Resolution rested upon the two preceding Resolutions. If the two Houses should at once direct the Keeper of the Great Seal to affix it to a commission for declaring the royal assent to a bill, that proceeding would be a nullity; the bill would not be an act of parliament; and no court of justice would be bound to take notice of it. But in this case, the two Houses would have previously declared the incapacity of the sovereign, and from this would arise their authority, founded on the necessity of the case, to order the King's own Seal to be affixed to the commission. These previous Resolutions therefore were the basis of the proceeding of the House, as without such declaration of the fact and of the right, any fabric that might be raised upon the third Re- solution would not stand the slightest touch. In either course of proceeding, by Bill or by Address, the courts of law would be obliged to take notice of them. He could not, therefore, allow that the proceeding by Bill would be illegal. There was nothing obligatory on the House to proceed by either course more than by the other. It had, indeed, been argued, that the precedent of 1788 had established a new canon in the constitution. If the hon. and learned gent. who used that argument, and who sat in that House in consequence of the Union with Ireland, had used it previous to the Union, it might have had some weight; but at present, the gentlemen who represented Ireland had as good a right to refer to the precedent of the Irish Parliament. It had also been said that the precedent of 1788 had been finally ratified by the King, as the bills which had been introduced during the progress of the Regency Bill had been ultimately completed. Not one of those bills however, had passed either House previous to the second commission, and, at all events, that House would not allow either the King or the other House to advert to the progress of any measures it passed, except for the purpose of ascertaining that they had been read three times. Yet, after all, this was but a technical view of the question. The King's Speech was always considered the speech of his ministers, approving of their own measures; and in the Commissioner's Speech, which had been so much dwelt upon, there was no allusion whatever to any of the bills before the House at the time.lb/> As to the argument, that the proceeding by Address was not so expedient as that by Bill, he must contend that the Address, if accepted by the Regent, with its accompanying conditions, would have the force of an act of parliament. It would be as absurd to think of providing for giving the assent of the King, whom they had already declared, incapable, to the Bill of the right hon. gent., as it would have been to have provided for giving the assent of James the second to the act declaring his abdication. The functions of the executive were suspended, and it was the duty of the House to proceed in the plainest way to supply the defect. The argument, that the delay arose from the opposition to the course proposed, amounted to this, that if the House, would implicitly agree to all the measures of the right hon. gentlemen opposite, they would be sooner completed. The course by bill was tedious in its process, and necessarily must be attended with delay. The simpler course would be to declare the incapacity, and to provide at once for supplying it by Address. A right hon. gent. had, on a former night, supposed a case of the Regent being advised to overturn the whole policy of the state; but he would suppose a case not less urgent in rendering the immediate supply of the executive functions necessary. Suppose the cabinet had resolved to evacuate Portugal, against the opinion of lord Wellington, would that general, having the declaration of both Houses as to the incapacity of the King before him, feel bound to obey an order from the Secretary of State to withdraw the British army from the peninsula? Could he, for disobeying it, be punished by any court-martial or civil court?—He concurred in the opinion of lord Camden in 1788, that during the King's incapacity, the functions of the executive government were suspended. But if there were no other argument in favour of the Address than that, the House ought to take care not to usurp the executive power. The soundest principle of the constitution was, that which kept the executive and legislative powers distinct. If the House could now provide for giving the royal assent to a Bill, they might do so, on another occasion, where the same necessity may not exist. He did not mean to say that the Houses of Parliament should decide in this instance from any contemplation of any future evil, which might result from the precedent: but when two courses presented themselves, they ought to adopt that which was plainest and least objectionable. He had a respect for the precedent of 1788, but that had not been acted upon, whereas the precedent of the Revolution had been tried, and had stood the test of time. On all these grounds he should prefer the mode of proceeding by Address.

^* Sir William Williams. See Cobbett's Parliamentary, History, vol. 5, pp. 42, &c.

, upon the fullest consideration he could give the question, remained of the same opinion as formerly. He could not but consider it rather strange, that those hon. gentlemen, who were so sanguine in discovering objections to the course recommended by his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should speak of their own plans in general terms, without adverting to any of the objections to which they were, too, liable. For himself, he thought that the House had only a choice of difficulties, and that no plan that could be proposed would be free from objections. The House was in this instance transcending the line which ought, in ordinary times, to bound their proceedings. He would grant, that they were substantively about to usurp a part of the executive power: but the necessity in the present situation of the country, of providing for its safety, by supplying the deficiency of the executive power, obliged them to resort to a course certainly objectionable, and he would add anomalous, if it were not consistent with the course of proceedings adopted in the courts of law, in cases concerning the right and security of landed property. But it was contended, that they ought to proceed in a clear and simple manner, by appointing a Regent at once in a bold and manly way. If they should take that course, however, the Regent, accepting the Address with conditions, would have no more authority than the two Houses of Parliament would give him. Would such a course satisfy the constitutional line that should bound their proceedings? So far from doing the thing in a manly way, it would be, in truth, at the time they pretended to give the royal authority, to impose conditions upon the Regent in an irregular manner. The hon. member said he would own that any course would not be free from objections; but in the mode proposed by his right hon. friend they would be treading in the footsteps of the constitution. When he considered the acuteness of those gentlemen who recommended the mode of Address, he could not help calling to mind what had taken place, in the former case in 1788, though unquestionably the discussion had in this instance been hitherto conducted with a very, different temper. Yet he could not but bring to mind, that the discussions had on that occasion grown out of a claim of right. It was the more necessary, therefore, though the right was not new claimed, to follow the former precedent, lest a departure from it, in this instance, might lead to an assertion of the right again on the part of some future Prince of Wales, if the same calamitous incapacity should unfortunately befal a future sovereign. The true value of the precedent was, that it would finally settle the question; and if they were to depart from it, there was no saying what difficulties and ill consequences might follow. It was of great importance for them to pursue a course which was defined and settled. It was the glory of the constitution of this country, that they were there debating in bloodless contest those questions which in former times were decided by armies in the field, and deluged the country with blood. The confirmation of the former precedent, by adopting it now, would put an end to any future contests. They ought therefore to abstain from opening on this occasion, a question which, in the former instance, had been so completely settled upon due and full deliberation. He did not feel attached to the former precedent on the same grounds as his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Stephen,) who, from his legal habits might be induced to adhere to it as a point solemnly determined, but from a consideration of its tendency to promote the security of the constitution and the happiness of the people. He thought, that in the course of the debate last night gentlemen had argued too much from the present circumstances of the royal family, rather than from the principles which ought to guide the conduct of the House of Commons upon so momentous a question. It was to the eternal honour of the Prince of Wales, that his royal highness, and indeed every member of the royal family, seemed by their conduct to consider every thing in this country as the child and creature of the laws; and that whatever his sentiments might be upon the subject, his royal highness was waiting with dignity for the decision of the two Houses of Parliament; a line of conduct, than which nothing could be more constitutional, nor hold out a fairer prospect of what was to be expected under his future government, but however, the House ought not to advert to such points, they should act upon great public principles. If they were to adopt any course, which might lead to the re-assertion of the right, there was no knowing into what future dangers it might plunge the country. They must therefore bear in mind, that on this occasion they were legislating for all successive generations. It was consequently the more incumbent upon them to settle finally a question, which, if left open, might be attended hereafter with the most alarming consequences. As to the particular restrictions proposed by his right hon. friend, he should not think it right to give a hasty opinion, but should reserve what he had to say respecting the subordinate parts of the measure, till it should be actually before the House. If he understood his right hon. friend right, he did not appear to insist `upon those subordinate parts, so as to preclude any modification of them, in degree if not in substance. As to what had been said respecting the delay which had taken place, he should only observe, that when future historians should record the whole transaction for posterity, it would be the highest honour to the present times, and the great glory of the British constitution, that the two Houses of Parliament were quietly settling questions, which under other systems of government, and in different times, would have been decided by violence and blood-shed. Gentlemen did not seem to bear in mind, that the system about to be adopted was only a temporary system; and he remembered that that was a great ground of the argument of the much lamented statesman, (Mr. Pitt) when he established the precedent of 1788, and in which he displayed his great talents, perhaps it might be said in a higher degree than on any other occasion. If gentlemen opposite did but consider the difficulties of that great man's situation, he was confident, that even they would bear testimony, and pay a willing tribute to the talents, the disinterestedness, and integrity he displayed at the period he alluded to. The House had now to act upon similar principles, and to carry on the executive power, without lessening the authority of the King, when he should resume the reins of government. In his opinion, the House had reason to felicitate themselves, that if they adhered in the present instance to the precedent established, they would find it as it were a polar star, that would direct them, whatever might be the darkness, of the night or the storms of the sea.

said, that he should support the proceeding by way of Address. He had approved of that mode of proceeding in the year 1789, in the Irish House of Parliament, and he had done so from attachment to the King and to the House of Brunswick.

rose to say a few words on the question before the Committee, and to state briefly the grounds of the vote which he meant to give. The first consideration that presented itself to the mind on this occasion, was, that all the operations of the constitution were suspended by the unhappy calamity that had fallen upon the King. The functions of the royal autho- rity thus suspended temporarily, it followed of course that the two Houses of Parliament should take measures for supplying the deficiency. To the two Houses of Parliament, and to no other body of men in the nation, belonged the right and the power to supply the defect of the royal functions and to make the constitution whole. If that right and that power could belong to any other class of the subjects of this realm, there would be at once an end to the constitution; if they were to devolve upon the society at large, the nation would be reduced to the state of primeval anarchy. The two Houses of Parliament, therefore, one representing the nation by hereditary right—the other by delegated authority, alone have the right and the power to provide for the safety of that community they so represent, upon such an emergency. Their obligation was founded upon the comprehensive political maxim, salus populi suprema lex. That the community had the right to provide for its own safety could not be questioned in cases of extremity; but in all cases short of extreme necessity, the two constitutional bodies of representatives of the nation were bound to act upon that general maxim for the salvation of the whole community. Of the right, then, there was no question. The manner of exercising the right was next to be considered. It was obvious, that the two Houses, failing the principal member of the constitution, could have no constitutional power of legislation. The first step then to be taken, was to put themselves in a capacity to legislate by the creation of a third estate, by repairing the defective state of the constitution, by restoring to full vigour the functions of that member which were at present unfortunately suspended, by making the legislature whole. This would not be an act of legislation, for, to such an act, the two Houses were not competent; but an act of power authorised by the general right of the community to provide for its security. In the first place, then, they had a power, qualified by necessity, for supplying the incapacity of the King, supported by the right of the community to preserve the constitution; and, in the next place, they would have an act of parliament sanctioned by the whole constitution. This was the fair state of the case, and the course to be pursued for the attainment of the desired object, was fully borne out and warranted by the best precedent in history; the precedent of the Revolution. Yet it had been argued that, as precedent only provided for an actual vacancy of the throne, it did not strictly apply to the present case, which was to provide for supplying the incapacity of an existing sovereign. This was a fallacy, because the precedent, which would be applicable to the greater, could not be inapplicable to the lesser necessity. The principle was the same in both; to supply some deficiency of the third branch of the constitution, and whatever may be the difference of degree, there could be no doubt of the equal application of the same principle to both cases. Besides, it should not be forgotten, that the precedent of the Revolution had been acted upon, had been tried, had stood the test of time, had been cheerfully submitted to by the people, and was devoutly looked up to as the great and permanent foundation of the rights and liberties of the nation. How stood the other precedent, which had been so much relied upon, that of 1788, in this respect? It was incomplete. The measure had passed that House it was true; but it was no less true that it had not completed its progress in the other House, still more that it had not received the sanction of the third branch of the legislature; but, above all, that it had never been acted upon, nor consequently submitted to by the people. If that and the other House were to direct the King's officer to apply the King's Seal to a public instrument, it would be an act of power; so also would it be an act of power, if they were to appoint a Regent. But the difference would be this, in the latter case they would only exercise a power derived from general right, and qualified by the necessity of the case; in the former, they would usurp a power with which they could have no constitutional right to interfere. What power could the two Houses of Parliament have over the servants of the King? Could they enforce obedience to their commands? Had they the power to punish the King's officers for disobeying their orders? They had no such power, and to attempt to exercise it would be to assume the functions of the executive government, to overstep the bounds of their own constitutional powers, to make themselves, as it were, the inheritors of the personal functions of the sovereign, in every case of temporary incompetence, and thereby to overthrow the just equilibrium of the British constitution. Why then, he would ask, should the two Houses of Parliament assume the powers of the King, whose incapacity they had already declared? If an act should pass, having the royal assent given to it, in consequence of the usurpation, it would be a self convicted act of parliament. He should object to such a measure on two grounds, because it would be an unconstitutional exercise of the political power of the King, and because it would be to assume to two branches only the authority of the supreme legislature of the nation without even the semblance of the sanction of the King. Suppose the two Houses were to issue orders to the commander in chief to prepare for a particular expedition, could they expect that he would yield obedience to such orders? Could they punish him for disobedience? Suppose again that they were to command the treasury to make a certain disbursement of the public money, could they inforce obedience to their orders? If they could not then, what sort of an executive power must that be which cannot command the officers of the crown? What sort of a legislative power must that be which cannot enforce the obedience of the subject? Could the two Houses impose a tax and punish a resistance to the levy of it? Would the loss of life during such resistance be found murder by a jury? With respect to the distinction between the political and personal character of the sovereign, that was a distinction which ought ever to be made with great caution. It was well known that when the Long Parliament overturned the constitutional monarchy, they made use of the political character of the King, in support of their pretensions, though the King's personal character was in the ranks against them. As to limitations upon the powers to be exercised by the Regent, he should never consent to take away from him any of the powers belonging to the kingly office. He should acquiesce in the decision, but should vote for the proceeding by Address.

said, that the question now before the House was nothing more, than whether the better mode of supplying the defect of the personal exercise of the Royal Authority was by Bill or by way of Address. The arguments which he had heard, defining the duties and powers of that House, were just, but would not apply to a case of urgent necessity. The House was now deliberating what ought to be done to provide for the calamity that had fallen upon the nation. There was little or no resemblance between the circumstances that attended the Revolution and those of the present emergency.—The throne was then vacant, now it was full: we had a King labouring under temporary incapacity, but at that time a King was wanted. Precedents, in his opinion, ought always to be followed, except when the circumstances of the times presented some striking peculiarities of contrast. On such an occasion, the right hon. gent. said, he would not look to the letter of the law, but would trace out the spirit of the constitution, in the Records and Proceedings of Parliament. In the space of twenty-two years, which had elapsed since the year 1788, the precedent established at that period had remained uncontroverted. It had not been contradicted or rescinded. But it did not stand upon its own single authority; it was founded on the proceedings, at the two periods in the reign of Henry the Sixth; both of which appeared to him to be strictly in point. If, as at that time, it should again happen that the crown, devolved to an infant, and the infant was not placed by any expression of the will of the deceased Sovereign in any particular guardianship, would not the course which was then pursued be again adopted? Would any difficulty be then interposed to putting the Great Seal to a commission? Would not this be an act which it would be imperative on the privy council to perform? The difference between incapacity arising from infancy, and that produced by indisposition, was immaterial, but a case of indisposition occurred also in that reign, when the same power was used in the same manner. This was previous to the civil war, which had not then commenced, as was proved, by the circumstance of the courts of justice sitting uninterrupted. He could not, therefore, perceive the force of those objections which had been raised against the supposed assumption of an unconstitutional power.

observed, that the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, had well remarked, that precedents, to be in point, should be applicable to times and circumstances. With respect to the precedent of 1788, he was rather surprized that an hon. and learned gent. (Mr. Stephen) who had condescended to represent an Irish Borough, should have entirely overlooked, in his predilection for the precedent of 1788–9, the conduct of the Irish Parliament at that period. But of those who with so much tenacity adhered to the precedent of 1788, he would wish to ask, were we now in the same situation as at that period? Then, we were at peace and tranquillity with the world; were we so now? Then, the colossal power of France had not overshadowed the continent of Europe; was that the case now? Then, the people of this country were not overburdened and borne down by the weight of taxation; was it so now? No: for the taxes and the burthens of the country had doubled during that period. Then, the King was twenty-two years younger, and had not encountered that affliction, by which, as was most feelingly expressed, by one suffering under a similar privation, knowledge was "at one entrance quite shut out." The argument he wished to deduce from this dissimilarity was, that the reasons which operated on the. Irish Parliament at that time, and induced them to come to the decision they did come to, now applied with tenfold force to their deliberations. Every thing conspired to inculcate the absolute necessity of a speedy and complete filling up of the executive. If ever there was a moment, however, when delay was to be guarded against as pregnant with the most serious dangers, the present was that moment. In what situation did we stand with respect to Sweden? Had not that power declared war against us, and had we resorted to any measures in consequence? Was it not true that Swedish ships which had been detained, had been released since the declaration of war against us? What, too, was the state of our relations with America? We were in conditional hostility with her; and to the rash and ill-advised counsels of ministers was it owing, that, to avoid an open rupture, we must compulsorily yield those concessions which ought to have been made long ago. Our merchants, who had been deluded by the measures and promises of the right. hon. gent. he believed had since seen ample cause for regretting their infatuation.—These and other difficulties, into which, by the suspension of the royal functions, we were plunged, the right hon. baronet conceived were sufficient arguments for dispatch, and gave additional force to the observation which had been made upon the mode of proceeding proposed by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the proceeding by Bill was at any time a bad course, but at the present disastrous moment the worst of all. The right hon. gent. who spoke last, had placed much reliance on the precedent of the time of Henry VI. when he argued, that because the courts were sitting at that period, there were no disturbances, but all was peace, quiet, and tranquillity. Had there, then, been no rebellion in Ireland in our times? for the Irish courts of law continued to sit, and not only that, but the judges went on their circuits and assizes as regularly as ever. The right hon. gent.'s criterion, then, of tranquillity was not a just one. But, what was the duty, that they, as the representatives of the people, were now called on to perform? It was to execute the trust reposed in them, and provide for the security of the people. This was their first, their greatest duty; and with as high a respect for the Sovereign as any man in that House, or the country, could feel, he must say, that of late years they had been less accustomed to consider the Sovereign as what he really was, the Sovereign of the constitution, than as the Sovereign in being, to whose person they were attached. He earnestly recommended to the House, in this important argument, to look at the Sovereign in the former light, which would be better and more constitutional, than to suffer his name to be brought in to influence their debates, and warp or bias their judgments. In older, and, he might add, better times, this practice was held to be a high breach of privilege; but now, as on the present occasion, it had been done by an hon. and learned gent. the personal afflictions of the monarch were introduced with impunity into their discussions. He reverenced as much as man could, the virtues of his Sovereign, and felt for his calamities, but he peremptorily denied to gentlemen of the other side, that exclusive claim to loyalty which they seemed to assert, merely from their repeated lamentations and expressions of feeling for the personal sufferings and misfortunes of their Sovereign. He felt as much as the gentlemen opposite could possibly feel; but he thought it unnecessary and disgusting to make so great a parade of it. Yet, with all their professions of attachment to the throne, what was their language? Why, it was a libel upon monarchy; as the restrictions which they would impose on the Regent, were calculated to afford a practical proof of the doctrine, that the monarchical power might exist deprived of a part of the regal functions. It had been said, that to proceed by Address might be as tedious as to proceed by Bill; and an hon. and learned gent. (Mr. Stephen) had stated, that the Address of 1789 in the Irish Parliament had occupied fifteen days. He advised that hon. gent. to make himself better acquainted with Irish history before he ventured upon such statements. The fact was, that the intimation of his Majesty's illness was made to the Irish Parliament on the 2nd of February, when they adjourned over for four days. They then met, and the business was concluded so speedily, that on the 11th the Address was completed and carried up to the Lord Lieutenant. But here, how different was the case! They had already been seven weeks acquainted with the melancholy incapacity of the Sovereign, during which the interests of the country had undeniably and most materially suffered: they had been seven weeks waiting, and for what purpose? why, to see if the ministers could find money enough to support them against any events that might occur.—If Parliament had contemplated these dangers and difficulties before, they might long since have made provision for obviating the evil effects arising from a recurrence of situations similarly disastrous. For his part, now it was come upon them, he preferred the most speedy remedy. It was acknowledged, that they were competent to proceed by either of the modes pointed out; and if so, he was decidedly in favour of that which was most prompt; which, looking at the present state of Europe, he thought it could not for an instant be doubted was indubitably the best. As a member, for a portion of that country which he had the honour to represent, it appeared to him to be peculiarly his duty to press for expedition in this important crisis. Their vigilance with regard to that country ought to be extreme; for Ireland stood in the front of the battle; and if it was to be fought at all (which God forbid it should be!) it was upon her shores that the contest must be decided. Yet though the most exposed, she was the least protected part of the United Kingdom. As one of the representatives of that country, he would now take upon him to say, that if any part of the United Empire looked with more anxiety than another to the royal personage on whom, at this moment, all eyes were, fixed, it was Ireland. Ireland viewed him with the most favourable sentiments; for a considerable time past there had existed a mutual interchange of affection between the Prince of Wales and Ireland, and between Ireland and the Prince of Wales. He could, indeed, conscientiously declare, that the influence of that royal personage would do more in the way of restoring tranquillity to Ireland than could be accomplished by any other man living. A conciliatory word from him would do more in Ireland than the efforts of any man, or the united efforts of any set of men in the empire. He reigned already in the hearts of Irishmen, who looked up to him as likely to afford them that protection, which they had hitherto enjoyed in a less degree than any other description of his Majesty's subjects.—An hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Stephen) had, indeed, told them, that if they (the Opposition) did not debate the Bill, it would be equally expeditious with an Address. But this was requiring of them to surrender their deliberative capacity as the price of expedition, and to adopt at once such a measure as the framer of the Bill might desire: but he, for one, would never consent, after seven weeks wasted in useless inactivity, to wave the right of animadversion, even for the desirable object of attaining promptitude and dispatch.

said he should feel it necessary to make only a very short trespass on the time of the House. The question appeared to him to lie within a narrow compass, though he knew it had, on a former occasion, given rise to very large and protracted discussions, and was certainly capable of being made the source of almost infinite subtleties, and refinements, and metaphysical distinctions. He did not profess to be expert in the exercise of such weapons, and even, if he were more conversant with the use of them, he should carefully abstain from it in the present instance, as there never was a subject which it was so desirable to take out of the intricacies in which it had been involved. The exigency, in which the country was now unhappily placed, was one against which it was admitted, the law had not guarded by any specific provisions. It might be properly stated to be a casus omissus in our constitution. In this predicament, it was natural to have recourse to precedents, and the right hon. gent. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had relied on the proceedings in the year 1788. He, Mr. Elliot, was not in parliament at that period, but he had heard many of the debates, and was in habits of close intimacy and friendship with several of the persons, who took a prominent share in those discussions. He then certainly had very strong impressions in favour of the proceeding by Address, and on a recent cool and deliberate review of the parliamentary history of that period, he confessed his first opinion remained not only unchanged, but strengthened and confirmed. He begged those who cited the example of 1788, as the authoritative guide of the House on the present occasion, to recollect that the transaction was never completed, that in England the Houses of Lords and Commons were much divided in it; that, though there were very distinguished abilities on both sides of the question, yet of the most eminent authorities the majority, in point of number, were against the proceeding by Bill, and that in Ireland two of the branches of the legislature rejected it. Under such circumstances, was any one justified in asserting that this precedent was to be considered as coercive on the judgment of the House in the existing emergency? For his own part, he had no hesitation in declaring, that he wished to see that precedent wholly subverted, because he considered it as utterly incompatible with the safety of that branch of the constitution, the interests and security of which the right hon. gent. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) professed himself so zealous to guard and to maintain. Another right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) had cited precedents taken from very early periods of our history. Those precedents had been adduced in the year 1788, and very opposite inferences drawn from them. By some they were used as arguments for proceeding by Address; by others they were considered as strongly: countenancing the mode which was now proposed to the adoption of the House, by the rt. hon. gent. For his own part, though he thought the weight of some of them preponderated on the side of the course for which he felt so decided a preference, he could not bring himself to lay much stress on the transactions of times so obscure and variable, and, if he might be permitted to use the expression, so polluted by civil intrigues and dissensions. He had no scruple in declaring that they afforded to his mind, a very feeble, and precarious light; but there was a light, which appeared to his eye to burn with clear and steady flame, and which he believed to be sufficient to lead the House out of all the difficulties and embarrassments of the subject, if they would take it for their guide; he meant the general analogy and genuine spirit of the constitution. The gentlemen on the other side of the House founded all their arguments on the position that the throne was full, alluding, he presumed, to that maxim in our constitution, which ascribes immortality to the king, and which meant that there could be no intermission in the executive authority. The hand of Providence, however, which overwhelms all human definitions and all human provisions, had actually afflicted the country with such an intermission, and the House had declared it to be its right and duty to supply the deficiency. The question, therefore, was by what means this object could be best and most constitutionally accomplished. The mode proposed by his right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby) was plain, short, direct, and had been found effectual in one of the most momentous periods of our history. If it had in 1688 proved adequate to the establishment of the throne, and the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people, why should it not be equally efficacious in the present exigency? The measure which had been submitted to the House by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval) was operose, dilatory, and fictitious. It was admitted that the Houses of Lords and Commons could not legislate, (indeed to assert they could was treasonable), but the right hon. gent. proposed that they should pass a Bill for the appointment of a Regent, to which the Lord Chancellor, on their requisition, was to put the Great Seal; and this process was to go to the country, as the Act of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of the Realm, with the assent of the King, although the two Houses of Parliament knew and had declared the King to be incapable of giving his assent. A fallacy, which did not, in his eyes, recommend or dignify the proceeding. For the sake of illustration, he would suppose that three members of that House, were appointed to a trust; every act of which should require the bonâ fide concurrence of the three trustees, under their separate seals, and that one of the three falling into a state of incapacity, the remaining two should prevail upon the agent of the incapacitated person to affix his principal's seal, to an instrument of the trust, and that they should declare such an instrument to be the bonâ fide act of the three trustees. In the House of Commons, he presumed, from the sentiments he had heard, the learned gentlemen opposite would describe the proceeding as an admirable legal device, a venerable fiction of law, but he should like to know how they would treat such a transaction if they met it at the Old Bailey. There, he apprehended, it would find a less courteous reception, and incur the risk of being branded with the opprobrious epithets of fraud and forgery. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval) had talked of the commands of the two Houses being laid on the Lord Chancellor, this was very royal language, and certainly very suitable to the act of regality which they proposed to perform: but was it clear that they had power to enforce their commands? He did not mean to attribute to the noble and learned lord who at present had the custody of the Great Seal, an intention of throwing any obstacle in their way, but they were to consider that they were establishing precedents for succeeding times, and their posterity might have to encounter chancellors of a less accommodating character. If, for instance, a stern and sturdy lord chancellor, on receiving such a communication, should return for answer, "I am the officer of the King my master; the Seal I hold is his Seal, and I neither can, nor will, affix it to any instrument, (especially to one, which may prove detrimental to the interests of his crown) without his consent and approbation, and I know him to be incapable of giving his consent or conveying his command. I am the Chancellor of the King, and not the Chancellor either of the Lords or of the Commons. The Lords and Commons have no right to legislate, and those, who assert they have, incur the penalties of a præmunire." What would be the right hon. gent.'s counsel in such a case? Would he advise that the Houses should take the Seal from the Chancellor, and order another person to affix it? Such a proceeding would in fact be the appointment of a new Chancellor, and gentlemen would therefore perceive to what the precedent led, and how their regal character would grow upon them. If it were admitted that they could not nominate a new Chancellor, then the efficacy of the measure was dependent on the discretion of an individual, and he desired no more convincing testimony of the error and futility of the mode which it had been proposed to them to adopt. On the subject of restrictions, he should say only a few words, because other more proper oc- casions would occur for discussing them. Those, who were most forward to assert, the right of limiting the powers of the Regent, would not deny that it was a matter entirely of discretion, and therefore must be considered with a reference to times and circumstances. There was, he believed, no man, who did not feel the contrast between the present crisis and the period of 1788, when the country was in profound peace; when there were no commercial or financial difficulties, and when the fortune of the empire was not hanging on the result of the impending operations of contending armies. In this awful and momentous exigency he was convinced there could be but one sentiment, respecting the necessity of a strong, vigorous, and efficacious executive authority.—He should trouble the House no further, but he could not conclude, without once more deprecating the course which the right hon. gent. had recommended to the House. If it should be established as a precedent, and the nation should hereafter be visited by the recurrence of such calamities as that with which it was now afflicted: he saw little prospect of security for the constitution. The safety of the constitution depended on the check and controul which one branch of the legislature had over the other. That House had its own particular privileges; the House of Lords had privileges of its own; end the King was invested with prerogatives to protect the executive authority from the encroachment of either of the other members of the legislature. He possessed the power of creating poems, for instance, to enable him to resist the cabals in the House of Lords, and the prerogative of dissolution to defend him from factions in the House of Commons. But the tendency of the measures under consideration, was wholly to overthrow all the salutary balances and counterpoises of the state. The history of the country afforded examples of very encroaching parliaments. Future times might furnish more such instances; and if, during a suspension of the faculties of the crown, the two Houses assumed an unmodified right to elect a Regent, and an unqualified power of limiting his authority, they might so cripple his functions as to reader him incapable of defending the just prerogatives of the crown against the subsequent invasions of an aspiring parliament, and as infirm sovereign might awake from his trance, to witness only the mutilated and mouldering remains of his throne. With regard to the question, the second Resolution, which was more immediately before the House, he had merely to observe that it was impossible for him to concur in it, in the terms in which it was formed. It had always appeared to him perfectly superfluous, and therefore if he should be in the House at the time of the division, he should vote for disposing of it by the previous question.

said, that he had risen at the same time as the last speaker, under the impression of an irresistible impulse to notice some of the observations made by the member who had immediately preceded him. The right hon. bart. (sir John Newport) had begun by stating the difference between the present period and the year 1788; that we were then in a state of profound peace, and now in a state of ruinous war; that our taxes and the burthens of the country were at the former period not one half what they were at present; and from such a change of circumstances had argued, that a measure of such a description as that now discussing, might have been proper then, but was, on account of that difference, improper now. This very mode of argument confirmed him in the propriety and necessity of adhering to that precedent then laid down: a precedent which he for one would not venture to unseal; as by that means a door would be opened to posterity, for whom we were legislating no less than for ourselves, to measure their conduct and regulate their proceedings, on similar emergencies, by every change of circumstances; which would be attended with no less danger than embarrassment. The worthy bart. had noticed, that since the year 1788, his Majesty's age had encreased 22 years, but had not pointed that remark so as to make the object of it quite intelligible. It, however, produced one natural observation from him, viz. that such an increase had given the worthy bart. and the rest of the community 22 years more experience of the blessings of his Majesty's mild and paternal reign, and so far cause for accumulated attachment and gratitude. But if it was meant to apply at all to the question before them, he would beg to remind the House, that it was unanimously the opinion of the physicians, that such encreased age did not at all diminish the prospect of his Majesty's recovery. The worthy bart. had also commented with severity on the pathetic description of the effect produced on his Majesty's mind from the Princess's illness, by an hon. and learned gent. who had spoken early in the debate (Mr. Stephen.) Mr. A. thought that address to the feelings of the House perfectly legitimate, because it was necessarily connected with the important testimony of all the physicians, that such was the real assignable cause of his Majesty's illness, quite demonstrated by sir H. Halford; and that there were on that account better hopes of course.—The right hon. gent. who had immediately preceded him, had manfully declared, that he preferred the course by Address, because it would be repealing the precedent of 1788. At that period he had been in parliament; and having supported that measure, was partly responsible for it. He had been present at all the debates; had heard all the arguments in support of it; and amongst the rest, those of a noble person, (lord Grenville) then Speaker of that House, which were unanswered, and, he believed, unanswerable. But, though he had then so voted, it was not for the sake of consistency only, but from conviction, confirmed by reflection, that he should vote for similar proceedings now, as being the most wise and the most constitutional. If it was possible to suppose that, from so great a calamity, any one advantage would arise, it was this—that it afforded the occasion, in times of comparative quiet, and under the auspices of the greatest talents that this country had ever witnessed, to establish the precedent which we were now called on to abandon, and which was to be the guide and beacon to future generations, under similar emergency. His right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been last night taunted for having relied exclusively on this precedent; a taunt to which he should also expose himself, thinking a reference to preceding ones unnecessary. In fact, none of them were in point; those of Henry 6th were the nearest; that of the Revolution (of which he had heard so much) hardly at all. The only point of resemblance between that and the present was, that then, on account of a great emergency, the two Houses were obliged to act for themselves. The throne was then vacant; it was now full, and the King's political capacity entire. He had sincere deference for the opinions of many gentlemen on his side of the House, and they would have at least as much for that which he was about to quote; it was of no less a person than Mr. Fox himself, whose brilliant career at their head was fresh in their memories, and who had, in a memorable speech in 1789, declared, that the case of the Revolution had no resemblance whatever to that then discussing. This he (Mr. A.) had heard expressed, and his own recollection was confirmed by existing reports, which any one might refer to. Mr. Addington said, there were two points never to be lost sight of in this discussion:—One, that the object of our proceedings was professedly temporary; the other, that the illustrious individual proposed to supply the present deficiency, was to be no more than a deputy; a substitute, a delegate, a trustee. For his own part, he could gladly (gladly was not a proper term on so afflicting an occasion); he would readily and confidently consent to devolve that trust on his royal highness the Prince of Wales, as on all accounts the most proper person for it. If a Regency was in itself an evil, which no one would deny, that evil would happily be greatly qualified by a consideration of the great and amiable qualities of the illustrious person who would have to execute its duties. If prudence should suggest the propriety of any guards being put on this authority, to be so given for a short time, it did not, it could not, proceed from any doubt or jealousy of the individual. But, let our confidence be what it may, we were not to act on personal confidence, but on public principles.—He would say but little on the subject of the proposed restrictions, as other and fitter opportunities would occur of discussing them. But gentlemen ought to bear in their minds what all might not know, that there was not one solitary instance in the annals of Great Britain, of an individual being appointed Regent without limitations of some sort—not one. It was true that full executive power had been given to Regents, who had been saddled with a permanent Council; but that might be considered as a sort of constant restriction, arising from the possible opposition of a majority of that Council to any of the Regent's measures, and was therefore infinitely more objectionable even to him. Here the few limitations were proposed to be defined by Act of Parliament. These two modes of proceeding had been weighed by the great man at the head of affairs, in 1788, and he had wisely and disinterestedly preferred the former.—Mr. Addington would trouble the House no further on a subject that had been so abundantly discussed, though there were many other topics that pressed on his mind at that moment, and which he would reserve for some subsequent occasion.

stated that it had not been his intention to say a single word upon the second Resolution; but as it had been brought under the consideration of the House, he would take that opportunity of briefly stating his sentiments upon it. To that Resolution, in substance, he gave his most cordial assent: He believed both Houses qualified and constitutionally entitled to supply any defect in the personal exercise of the royal authority; for if such a principle did not exist in the constitution, the whole system must perish. An hon. baronet (sir Francis Burdett) had asked upon this subject, why the House did not appeal to their constituents? Why they did not apply to corporate bodies? But, he would ask, Were they to apply to corporate bodies, who were continually telling them that they were not the real representatives of the people? Why should not that House exercise their right as a Convention, and in one substantive act, emanating from themselves, proceed to fill up the deficiency. This was to proceed to an act entirely their own. But if the House proceeded by themselves to affix the Great Seal to any act, they would soon begin to consider all the other acts of the executive in the same light. It had been said, that there was no magic in a Seal; true, but one proceeding paved the way to another, and no man could possiby foresee where all this would terminate. They had been forced to look to the precedent of the Revolution. That was the precedent to which the King owed his throne, and the people their liberties.—The noble lord then proceeded to combat the arguments adduced, on a former evening, by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and contended that the analogy, in point of principle, was exactly the same now as at the period of the Revolution; that on that occasion the functions of royalty were extinct; so now it was requisite to provide for the absence of the exercise of those functions which the unfortunate malady of the sovereign had ocasioned. He denied that the Opposition in 1788 was, as the right hon. gent. had asserted, the disgraceful offspring of party fury. The ground of objection which the right hon. gent. made to the precedent of the parliament of Ireland, for an Address to his royal highness, was, he believed, for these reasons, that they would not adopt the line of proceeding of the Irish Parliament, because that parliament would not do homage to the measure of Mr. Pitt. Was there any proof, he would ask, that the king, on his recovery, condemned or disapproved of the conduct of the Irish Parliament? Were the proceedings rescinded? Certainly not. It was fair, therefore, to conclude that such disapproval was not manifested. He contended, therefore, most strenuously for the necessity of proceeding by way of Address.

stated, that there were three precedents; first, that in the reign of Charles the Second, at the period, commonly called the Restoration; second, that of the Revolution in 1688, which could not bear on the present case, because there was not then, in point of fact, any monarch; and third, the precedent of 1788. The throne being now full, the present case could not be said to apply in point to the precedent at the Revolution. To comply with that precedent would, in his opinion, be a derilection of the duty, which, as Representatives of the people, they awed to their constituents. He should therefore support the mode of proceeding by Bill.

rose to reply, and addressed the House as follows;

Sir; It is not my intention, at this late hour, to trouble the House at any length. With the turn which the debate has taken, and with the manner in which it has been conducted, I am perfectly satisfied. I wish, however, to explain myself, on account of the noble lord who spoke last but one, having addressed himself to me for a definition of the law and the right in the present instance. In answer to the noble lord's question, I tell him that the law is the necessity. The hon. baronet opposite (sir F. Burdett) denies, however, that there is any necessity. A charge also has been made against me, that I have left out of consideration all precedent but the precedent of 1788. This is not the fact. What I did state was, that in 1788 the House had all the precedents before them, and had come to a conclusion; and that by entering into them again, no new light would be thrown upon the subject. The precedent of the Revolution would be a proper one for a similar case, which I deny the present to be. I am surprised at the argument of the hon. gentlemen opposite, that the mode pro- posed by me, is illegal, and that the one which they contend for is not so; because, if one be illegal, the other must be so likewise. It has also been said that if the two Houses of Parliament should pass a Bill, the Lord Chancellor might refuse to affix the Great Seal to it. True; but upon the same principle, the Lord Chancellor might refuse to affix or to resign the Great Seal upon an Address of the two Houses of Parliament. I do not mean to say that the Lord Chancellor would refuse to obey the pleasure of the two Houses, whether expressed by Bill or by Address, but only that the probability is the same in both cases.

I never contended, nor has it been urged by any hon. member who has supported the Resolutions, that the mode of proceeding which has been adopted, is free from objection or from difficulties. On the contrary, I have admitted them in the fullest extent, and have justified them upon the only ground on which they were to be justified, namely, the imperious necessity of the case. And here I cannot but express my astonishment, that the hon. gentlemen opposite to me, with that acuteness which they so eminently possess, should have objected to the plan which I have had the honour to propose to the House, on the ground of illegality or informality; seeing that every one of those objections apply, with equal if not greater force, to the mode which they are anxious to adopt. The hon. gentlemen opposite to me have, in speaking of the means of obtaining the Sign Manual, made use of the words fraud, fiction, and many other hard terms; but I should be glad to ask these hon. gentlemen, whether, if their plan of proceeding by way of Address were adopted, the same objections would not lie, and whether the same language might not be used? Suppose both Houses of Parliament should agree to address his royal highness the Prince of Wales, to take upon himself the office of Regent; I desire, speaking in legal strictness, to know how the Great Seal could be used in a manner less objectionable than by the mode I have proposed? The Regent would order the Chancellor to apply the Great Seal; but the Great Seal can only be applied by an order under the sign manual. How, then, would the Regent give the order to the Chancellor? I wish the hon. gentlemen opposite would answer that question; but really, if I may judge from their manner, I should think they have not made up their minds upon the subject. Would the Regent, so appointed, communicate the order under his own signature? If he did, I should be glad to know if their plan is not liable to exactly the same objection as mine. In both cases, the Sign Manual would be wanting. Would the Regent issue the order, affixing the King's signature? If he did, would the hon. gentlemen contend, speaking in legal strictness, that that was the Sign Manual? But a right hon. gent. opposite to me (Mr. Ponsonby) has quoted, for another purpose, an act passed in the reign of Henry the eighth, which makes it high treason to forge the King's Sign Manual. I beg, therefore, the House will consider the difficulties that would follow from the adoption of the plan suggested by the gentlemen opposite to me. If the Regent issued the order for the use of the Great Seal, under his own signature, then the Sign Manual would be wanting just as much as it would be by the mode I propose. If the Regent affixed the King's signature, then the statute of Henry the eighth would apply. So that the only difference between the plan of the gentlemen on the other side and mine is, that they would recommend that the first act of the Regent should be an act of High Treason! I know very well that in such a case, parliament would afterwards pass an act to sanction the measure. I am only contending, that, in legal strictness, their plan is quite as objectionable as mine, and that all which gentlemen have said about fraud and fiction, apply quite as strongly to the mode which they recommend as it can do to the other.

But I beg gentlemen to recollect, that there are many very grave and important occasions in which the Sign Manual is necessary, as well as the one to which we have been alluding. Suppose we were to proceed by way of Address, and the Regent was called upon to put the Sign Manual to a commission for holding a court martial; suppose the person accused, convicted, and sentenced to die, and a question put to the Judges whether the commission under which he was tried, not being signed by the King, though purporting to bear his signature, was a valid one, what would be their answer? I am strongly inclined to think that they would be of opinion, that the man ought not to be executed; because it will be recollected, that it is competent to aver against the Sign Manual, though not against the Great Seal. It would be a matter of great doubt, therefore, whether such a commission would be a valid one. Now, the course we propose to adopt is free from this objection; we clothe ourselves in legal forms, and have therefore a sound foundation. At the same time, I admit that it is only legal from the absolute necessity of the case.

Some observations have been made, and I think not quite fairly, upon what I said, concerning the proceedings of the parliament of Ireland in 1789. It has been insinuated that I spoke with disrespect of that precedent. The arguments I used in order to shew that it did not apply to the present case, might not be satisfactory, but certainly they were not intended by me to be disrespectful. I said there were material distinctions between the two cases, and pointed them out; but nothing could be further from my intention, than to speak slightly or disrespectfully of the parliament of Ireland.

A right hon. gent. opposite to me, who expressed himself strongly in favour of the mode of proceeding by Address, has endeavoured to illustrate his argument by a case from private life, although he admitted that such examples were very seldom applicable to public questions. Suppose, said the right hon. gent., that three gentlemen were appointed trustees of an estate, and that one of them had the power of acting by agent, and suppose also that the trustee having that power became incapable of acting for a time, what would you say, exclaimed the right hon. gent., if the two other trustees were to go to the agent and desire him to act in the name of his principal, during the time of his incapacity? Why, Sir, I do not imagine that the two remaining trustees would be quite in so difficult a situation as the right hon. gent. imagines; for though he will not allow the Great Seal to be in a state of inactivity now, it would be, in the case he has put; and the two remaining trustees would, by an application to the Lord Chancellor, be soon relieved from the supposed difficulty. But let us see how this supposed case applies to the present question. The right hon. gent. thinks it, would be most improper conduct if they were to desire the agent to act for the third trustee. But pray, does he conceive the case would be much mended, if they were to proceed by way of Address? Does he think all the difficulties would be removed if they were to address the agent or any other person, desiring him to execute the duties of their co-trustee? The right hon. gent. said he did not like applying cases from private life to public questions, and I am very much inclined to think that the success of this experiment will not very much increase his fondness for that mode of illustration.

I will now, Sir, if the House will permit me, make a few short observations upon some arguments, which were urged last night on the other side of the House. The hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Whitbread) made some observations upon the testimony of his Majesty's physicians, respecting the period of the commencement of the King's illness. He said, that Dr. Baillie and sir H. Halford, the only two physicians that were in attendance upon his Majesty at that time, differed in opinion as to the time of the commencement of the indisposition. Now, I think the hon. gent. has not stated the evidence quite accurately. It will be seen in the Report (p. 161,) that the following questions are put to sir H. Halford:—

Q.—"Up to the 28th, was his Majesty in a state to transact public business?

A.—I think so; I think the King could transact public business.

Q.—"Are the Committee to understand that, up to the 28th of October and on the 28th of October, his Majesty was in such a state as, if he had been a private individual, he would have been intrusted with the transaction of any thing in the management of his own concerns? A.—I think you would not have been justified, in taking from any individual the power of transacting his own business, if under the circumstances that his Majesty was, I think I might say to the night of the 27th of October."

Now, Sir, I ask the hon. gent. opposite, I ask the House, whether, when his Majesty was in a state in which it would not have been proper "to take from any individual the power of transacting his own business," it would have been proper for any person to take upon himself to disobey the King's orders, and to refuse to execute his commands. Let us now look to the Evidence of Dr. Baillie (p. 177).

Q.—"On the 25th when you attended the King, not in the capacity in which you subsequently attended him, did you observe any thing particular in his Majesty's manner? A.—He was hurried in his manner. That is the observation that I have made in my memorandum; that his pulse was at 90, and his conversation was hurried, and a little desultory; that is, passing from one thing a little rapidly to another: that was at three o'clock.

Q.—"On the 26th, the Committee is to understand, the King's malady was established? A.—I saw him formally, as a physician, on the 26th: his conversation then was certainly very much hurried; but I see, in my Memorandum, that it was not irrational, although hurried and not very well connected. I should not have trusted to my memory for that, but I find that in my memorandum book on that day.

"Q.—Did you think on the 26th, from what you observed in his Majesty, that he was capable of conducting business? A.—I really cannot give a very accurate answer to that question; I should rather think that he was not capable, but I would not take upon me to say that that is a perfectly accurate answer."

Now, Sir, I contend, that it can hardly be said that the physicians differ from each other, when the one speaks positively, and the other only expresses his doubts, and those doubts founded, not upon his recollection, but upon his Memorandum.

The same hon. gent. adverted to the indisposition of his Majesty in the years 1801 and 1804, and censured the government of the former of these periods, for not taking notice of his Majesty's relapse. Sir, I say that in 1801, the indisposition of his Majesty, and the nature of it, was notorious to parliament, and I say also, that parliament did abstain, intentionally abstain, from taking notice of it. After his Majesty recovered, he had a short relapse; but the government finding that parliament did not take notice of the longer indisposition, of course concluded that it would not think it necessary to interfere in one that lasted for so short a period. That his Majesty's relapse in 1801, was known to parliament as well as his previous indisposition is obvious from one particular circumstance. It was about the time of the change in administration; the Lord Chancellor had then accepted the seals; but the King relapsed so soon after he had accepted them, that his Lordship had not the power of resigning the chief justiceship of the Common Pleas. It was known, that from that circumstance the then Master of the Rolls, who was to succeed to the Common Pleas, could not take the office, and for the same reason the present Master of the Rolls could not enter upon his office. The fact, therefore, of his Majesty's illness and relapse in 1801, was perfectly well known, and therefore I am justified in saying, that parliament studiously abstained from noticing it.

In 1804, too, the hon. gent. thinks there was something not quite satisfactory; but upon this occasion there was no relapse; there were some vestiges of the complaint, some occasional symptoms of hurry, as it is stated in the Evidence, but the witness positively says, that his Majesty was in a complete state of competence to transact business.

Sir, I contend that the delays which parliament suffered to take place, during the proceedings in 1788, and the periods which it allowed to elapse in 1801 and 1804, without noticing his Majesty's indisposition, afford a strong proof that parliament feels that there is so much difficulty and inconvenience connected with the appointment of a Regent, that it will be disposed to pause for a long time before it will take any step for that purpose. Sir, I collect that to be the feeling of parliament from another circumstance; namely, that it did not think proper to adopt any measures for establishing a permanent Regency, after any of the indispositions alluded to, in case of their recurrence. And it has been in consonance with this feeling, that his Majesty's ministers have acted on the present occasion. Sir, we have not shut our eyes to the inconveniences that must exist in such a state of things; we are quite as sensible of them, as the gentlemen on the opposite side possibly can be. It cannot be supposed that we are not aware of all the cases which have been put, where his Majesty's servants may be under the necessity of giving directions in his name. We have not been blind to these things. Sir, if ministers should find it necessary to take such steps, I contend they would be justified under the particular circumstances of the case; but they would act under a heavy responsibility, and parliament would be bound in duty to examine their conduct afterwards. Sir, I am deeply convinced that I stand in a situation of as deep responsibility as ever a minister stood in: it is a double responsibility; a responsibility to the Public, and a responsibility to the King my master. Sir, I feel that to be our situation; and parliament must have felt it so too, in suffering the delays that have already taken place. Gentlemen opposite may put what construction they please upon what I am about to say, but I do contend boldly before parliament; and before my country, that, if under the circumstances I have described, any measure in any of the public departments, required the Sign Manual, the officer at the head of that department would act most culpably if he did not issue the necessary orders to his inferior, upon his responsibility. Sir, this is the view I have of the situation and of the duties of his Majesty's ministers; and although gentlemen on the other side have thought proper to insinuate that our measures have been influenced by a desire of retaining our offices, I am sure the House will not be of opinion that our situation is particularly enviable, or one that could by any possibility be an object of choice. We feel—we admit—all the inconveniences of the present state of things; but, considering the duration to be but short, are they in any degree equal to the inconvenience of appointing another person to execute the functions of the sovereign; or, in other words, of appointing a Regent, unless the necessity of the case absolutely requires it? It is not from feelings of delicacy only that his Majesty's ministers have acted, but from the conviction that the preserving to his Majesty the power of exercising his authority immediately upon his recovery, without the interruption of a Regent, would be a great national advantage. The Regent, when appointed, would of course act as he thought best for the interests of the state, and even admitting that the plans which he would adopt would be better than those now pursued, yet I contend that this change from a bad to a better system, with the probability of again shortly recurring to the old system, would be much more injurious to the welfare of the public than the inconveniences which have been so strongly urged by the gentlemen on the other side of the House.

Sir, Gentlemen have, in enumerating the inconveniencies of our present situation, adverted to the case of Sweden and of America, and to the state of our relations with those countries. It cannot be expected that I should now give any particular information to the House, with regard to our present situation with those powers; but I can undertake to say, that no inconveniences whatever has arisen with regard to either of them. Sir, the delay which has taken place has been no covert delay: it has been perfectly open, and the reason why it was asked was fairly stated. We have had no disguise, no subterfuge; our object was broadly and fairly stated to Parliament. Sir, I say again, that ministers feel deeply the heavy responsibility of their situation: they know that their conduct will necessarily be examined and scrutinized by Parliament; they know that they may have to request justice from Parliament for their conduct, at a time when those who are now censuring their conduct with so much acrimony, may possess a greater sway than they do at present. Is such a situation, then, a desirable one? Is it an object of ambition? Is it possible that any man, or set of men, can covet such a situation, or wish to retain it, except from the imperious sense of the duty which they owe to their Sovereign and to their country? That duty I will perform to the best of my humble abilities, and cheerfully, submit my conduct to the justice of Parliament and of my country.

It has been asked, whether, if under the present circumstances, the evacuation of Portugal were deemed necessary, any order could be sent out to Lord Wellington for that purpose? And do gentlemen really believe that any difficulty exists upon such a subject? Do they really believe that Lord Wellington would refuse to obey an order transmitted to him, by his Majesty's Secretary of State, for that purpose, merely because he had heard of the King's indisposition? Undoubtedly they do not: the case they have put, is then, an imaginary one. Sir, in the office which I have the honour to hold, money must be taken out of the Exchequer for the public service; it is the bounden duty of ministers to see that service performed; and do the hon. gentlemen opposite think that I would hesitate to draw the money for that purpose?—[A loud cry of Hear, hear! from the Opposition Bench]—Sir, I am unable to account for the distinction which the gentlemen opposite appear to me to make between the two cases which I have put. When I said that ministers would not hesitate to give orders for the evacuation of Portugal, if it were deemed necessary, they seemed, by their silence at least, to acquiesce in what I said; but when I spoke of applying the money voted for the public service, to the public service, they affect great astonishment, as if the principle of the two cases was not the same. Sir, I repeat, that I should act under great responsibility, but do gentlemen think that where money has been voted by Parliament, and ordered by Parliament to be applied to a particular service, that I would hesitate to have that public service performed, for fear of the responsibility that would attach to me? Do they think that I would endanger the best interests of the country, from any consideration of personal danger to myself? Do they think that I would risk a mutiny in the army or the navy, rather than take upon me the responsibility of issuing their pay. No, Sir, if I could be guilty of such conduct, I should be unfit, indeed, for the situation which I hold; I should be guilty of a base dereliction of my duty to my Sovereign and my country.

Sir, before I sit down, I must beg leave to observe, that I do not think the gentlemen on the other side of the House have acted quite fairly towards me. When I proposed the Resolutions, I stated at the same time the general nature of the plan I had to propose. Now, the gentlemen on the opposite side have, it seems, some plan in reserve, besides their Address, which they have thought proper to keep back from the knowledge of Parliament and the country. At the same time, they have argued, by anticipation as it were, against the limitations and restrictions which I said I meant to propose, though I had not an opportunity of stating the grounds upon which I meant to propose them. I must, however, beg of the House to keep their minds open upon the question of the Restrictions, and that they will not decide until they have heard the arguments on both sides of the question. The gentlemen on the other side say, they can establish restrictions upon the power of the Regent, if necessary, by their mode of proceeding, and the way they would do it, is, by conveying suggestions and hints, as it were, of their intention in the Address to his royal highness the Prince. Why, Sir, if the two Houses of Parliament can legislate by Address, where is the security, for the constitution? That the two Houses of Parliament can, by Address, limit the power of the Crown is a proposition which I am sure will never be listened to in this House.—There were some questions put to me yesterday by the hon. gent. opposite to me, (Mr. Whitbread) respecting the Physicians; such as, at whose desire a certain Physician was sent; whether the presence of one of them was not disagreeable to a great personage, &c. Sir, with respect to these questions, I hope I shall be pardoned if I say, that I will not answer them, unless commanded by the House, because I cannot conceive any good that could by any possibility arise from giving the information required. I shall now conclude, Sir, with apologizing for the length of time I have trespassed upon the patience of the House.

rose and said:—Much, Sir, as the bold and extraordinary speech which the right hon. gent. has just made, may have furnished me with ample topics for animadversion, it is not my intention to trouble you at any length at this late hour. Would to God, that every member of the United Parliament of England, Scotland, and Ireland had been present to have heard the speech in which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proclaimed his possession of the royal attributes, and had boldly and arrogantly triumphed in the usurpation. With regard to the second Resolution, it appears to me totally unnecessary, and I firmly believe that it was introduced for the purpose of provoking an acrimonious debate, But the importance of the Resolution is trifling when it is compared with the momentous considerations which must suggest themselves to the mind of every reflecting man on hearing the declarations of the right hon. gent. Would Mr. Pitt in the plenitude of his power have ventured upon such declarations? Would he have dared in the face of the House of Commons to tell the nation that, in any interruption of the functions of the sovereign, he and his colleagues would assume the controul of the public purse, and that the rights of the King descended to his servant? He would not: and shall it be endured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the present day should invest himself with powers subversive of every principle of the constitution—that he should assume to himself the application of the public money when and how he shall think proper, and upon a pretended responsibility, trample upon that throne which he is sworn to support? If the right hon. gent. were to do an act for which there existed an unavoidable necessity, and was afterwards to come to parliament and state that necessity, I trust, notwithstanding our political hostility, that I have justice and magnanimity enough in my nature to give my sanction to a Bill of Indemnity for such an act. But the cases alluded to by the right hon. gent. are not cases of necessity, and as the right hon. gent. has this night discovered so much arrogance and presumption, I pledge myself to scrutinize every act that he may venture, with more than ordinary rigour. Never in the whole course of my parliamentary life did I witness such unprecedented boldness! But we are told that the subordinate officers of the Exchequer and the other branches of the state would not dare to refuse the unauthorized mandate of the Treasury. The right hon. gent. may "call spirits from the vasty deep, but will they come when he do call for them?" He may order them to obey his instructions, but could he punish them for disobedience? Have those officers no positive duties to perform? Have they taken no oaths? Or are their consciences in the possession or at the controul of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Let me advise him not to be too presumptuous. He may possibly find himself under a delusion. This great minister, who has led us to commercial prosperity and military renown, may, however, possibly find, from the splendour of his career, willing instruments in every department to uphold the power he has wantonly usurped. From the repeated impunity which every violation of our interests has met with, we have become so familiar with outrage, that very possibly the minister of the present day may be able to effect that, which if Mr. Pitt, in 1788, with a whole nation at his back, had done, he would not have been suffered to continue in the direction of public affairs one day longer. The object of the right hon. gent in introducing a Bill into the House is evidently for the purpose of delay; but I hereby give him and the House notice, that if in the interval between the present period and Monday sen'night his Majesty should recover so completely as to resume the royal functions, if no one else will institute such a proceeding, I will myself move to take into consideration the best means of supplying any future deficiency in the royal authority that may unfortunately occur. One word, Sir, as to the charge which has been made against me of having asked an indelicate question respecting the persons by whose advice a certain physician had been called to attend his Majesty. The right hon. gent. let it be recollected, has made the charge, and thereby forced me to the necessity of an explanation. I regret that I do not possess the pathetic eloquence of the hon. and learned gent. (Mr. Stephen) who has this night so eminently shewn the versatility of his talents. I will, then, figure to myself a possible picture. What if a man—that man a king, in a state of twofold blindness, bodily and mental—stretched on the bed of affliction, with his remaining faculties alive to the dread of being committed to the care of an individual personally obnoxious to him, should most fervently implore, and that his afflicted family placed around his bed, should all unite in the supplication, that he might not again be subjected to his controul! Can the House figure to itself a case of greater misery? And what, I ask, must be the feelings of those who could refuse such a supplication; and is it not more natural to suppose that the malady of the patient would be increased rather than alleviated by the presence of the person so obnoxious? I have been compelled to put the case hypothetically, seeing that I was over-ruled in the Committee when I expressed a desire to put a question that would have elicited the truth. I was also over-ruled in my wish to inquire into the nature of those "hurries" described by the physicians, and of the means by which they were excited; although the answer to that question would have better enabled me to form a judgment as to the probability of his Majesty's recovery. Sir, after the daring declaration of the right hon. gent., I trust the two Houses of Parliament will feel it an incumbent duty to take immediate steps in order to prevent the controul of ministers over the public purse—to prevent a Lord Chancellor or a Chancellor of the Exchequer, from conceiving himself entitled to decide on the great question of peace or war, or on any other question to which the royal authority is alone competent. The right hon. gent. and the knot of lawyers by whom he is surrounded must not be thus allowed to devise modes of cheating us out of the Constitution. For myself, Sir, having sworn allegiance to his Majesty, and entertaining no anti-monarchical sentiment in my bosom, I would die rather than submit to the usurpation proclaimed this night by the right hon. gent. opposite.

animadverted with considerable force on the dangerous consequences to be apprehended from a system of prospective responsibility. The mode of claiming indemnity did not apply to a case of novel, unexpected, and extraordinary occurrence, but a case foreseen, in which the act was premeditated; if this system was to be avowed and tolerated, the first act of the legislature, the moment parliament should be restored, ought to be to appoint a succedaneum for the executive in the event of the King at any future time being afflicted by the same calamity. Nothing could be more censurable than the readiness of the right hon. gent. to incur a prospective responsibility. The true genius of the constitution would sanction indemnity for an accidental violation of the law, justified by necessity; but it would never sanction indemnity for a predicted, uninterrupted course of violation which no necessity could justify. The evidence of Dr. Willis had been alluded to; now, what did that evidence state: that on the 6th of Nov., the day on which Dr. Willis first saw the King, his Majesty was then "perfectly unconscious of surrounding objects." It was on the first of the same month, and on the 15th, that the right hon. gent. prevailed on the House to adjourn over each time a fortnight, on the high probability of his Majesty's speedy recovery. And thus a month had been lost. But if the system of these prospective responsibilities were to be admitted, what would be the use of those checks which the constitution had ordained should exist? Where would be the necessity at all of the sign manual? Bold as was the doctrine of the right hon. gent., it was yet worthy of observation, that whether from a difference of strength as to nerves, or as to prudence, that there were others in the same cabinet with that right hon. gent. who were not so forward to hazard such responsibility. He knew of his own knowledge that the Chancellor of England would not put the Great Seal to a commission of the peace. He admitted the question to be a question of difficulty, a question of necessity, in both cases; whether of Bill or Address, parliament would act and parliament only act, with this difference, that in the one it acted without interfering with the functions of the crown, in the other it usurped and exercised those functions.

hoped that he should be allowed to make a short explanation in consequence of what had fallen from an hon. member (Mr. Whitbread.) That hon. gent. had undoubtedly expressed himself to be perfectly ready to grant him an indemnity for acts of absolute necessity, and all that he had himself said with respect to others, was, that he thought during the delay which was now unavoidable, all those who held offices should discharge their duty to the utmost, upon their own responsibility. The hon. gent. had however charged him with assuming a bold and arrogant tone. He, to be sure, was a bad judge of his own defects; but, as far as he knew himself, he did not believe that improper boldness or arrogance belonged to his character. Whether it did or not, he left it to the House to judge. It might happen that sometimes in the warmth of debate, and in the eagerness to make himself perfectly heard and understood, he might raise his voice a little louder than was absolutely necessary, to convey his sentiments to all parts of the House; but if this was to be conceived a proof of arrogance, the hon. gent. himself would hardly escape the imputation; for he, also, sometimes elevated his voice to a higher pitch than appeared absolutely necessary. The hon. and learned gent. who spoke last had said, that to his knowledge the Chancellor of England would not now put the Great Seal to a commission of the peace. This could easily be accounted for: there was always a commission of the peace existing, and it was not of great consequence whether one, two or more names were added. But if there was a serious occasion for putting the Great Seal to a commission, such as the suppression of a mutiny, he was much mistaken in his noble and learned friend, if he would hesitate a single moment to affix the Seal on his own responsibility.

acknowledged, that, among his many defects, his voice was sometimes louder than, perhaps, was necessary. There were also many things, in which he would wish to rival the right hon. gent. He would wish to rival him in acuteness; but above all things in his rapid transition from the warmth engendered by political contest to the good humour of private intercourse. If he spoke of arrogance, he certainly did not mean personal arrogance, but that degree of political arrogance which made him now pledge his responsibility so deeply. Under this responsibility ministers might take advantage of a mental malady in the King, to usurp all the powers of the state.

The House then divided, when there appeared,

The second and third Resolutions were then agreed.

After the gallery was cleared, Mr. C. W. Wynn asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the event of the House agreeing to the Restriction which would deprive the Regent of the nomination of the officers of the Household, he proposed to follow the plan given notice of by Mr. Pitt in 1788, of allowing to the Regent an additional regal establishment, and imposing fresh taxes to defray the expence of it, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered in the affirmative.