rose. He observed, That after what he had already stated upon the subject in general, but more particularly upon that part of it which now came under the consideration of the House, he should not delay them long. There now remained little more for him to do than to repeat what he had said upon the former occasion, and recommended it to the particular consideration and attention of the Committee. The general substance of the Resolution which he was now to submit, whatever might be the opinion as to its particular points, was of great importance. He felt no hesitation to press upon their minds, on this night, as he did the night before, the consideration of his Majesty's feelings. If after an early re- covery, which no man in the House could say might not take place: if after the lapse of six weeks his Majesty was to surmount the dangers of his disorder, and recollecting what had been done in the former instance, should find that he did not meet with the same consideration now, as under similar circumstances he had then experienced, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would ask, what must be his sensations on such a discovery? (Some dissatisfaction expressed on the Opposition side.) He observed, that if there was any impropriety in what he had said, he hoped gentlemen would have the goodness to state it, in order that he might have an opportunity of noticing the objection; but till some reason was advanced, he should feel himself entitled to contend, that if any duty was binding on them after a due attention to the public service, it was the duty of consulting the Monarch under the present distressing circumstances. He would wish to know whether he could be called to order for a sentiment of this description? Or whether he was to be prevented from putting to the feelings of the House what operated so strongly on his own? He would beg the Committee to consider, that the question this night was, whether any, the smallest, pause should be interposed with, he would not say a sanguine, but even with the smallest hope of his Majesty's recovery. The whole question for their consideration this night was, whether there would be any necessity to withdraw from her Majesty any of those powers over the Royal Household, which the Resolution was calculated to grant; whether there was a necessity, during the probably short period of his Majesty's illness, to have his whole Household establishment disarranged, by placing things in a situation different from that which his Majesty had heretofore sanctioned? If the House were of opinion that the power conferred by the Resolution should be extended to the shortest possible period, he would certainly agree that even that was better than to do it away entirely. But he thought that there was no mischief, danger, or inconvenience to be apprehended from acceding to the Resolution in its full extent. He was aware that some gentlemen considered the question of economy involved in the vote of that night, and the proposition of his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) under the gallery was calculated to give some countenance to the opinion; but did the question of economy bear with any weight upon the subject? There was the Lord Chamberlain, the Lords of the Bed Chamber, the Groom of the Stole, and some few others; and the Prince of Wales would probably not require so many. The whole expence would be covered by 14 or 15,000l. so that if gentlemen would consider it fairly, the question of economy was not involved, at least not to any degree, that should make them apprehensive of the consequences. When they considered, in addition to this, that the grant was not required for any length of time, but merely for the space of twelve months, surely there was not a liberal man in the country who would wish for any alteration while a hope remained. But it had been urged, that this establishment, being in the power of the Queen, might be considerably abused. He would admit that it was possible a member of that House might be dismissed for his conduct in parliament by her Majesty, and he would allow it to be a great abuse of the power with which her Majesty was intrusted; but he would put it to their common sense whether they could suspect her of such an attempt, with a power so limited with respect to time. Yet still if gentlemen would be satisfied with dashing out the words "power to remove," he would not object to such a modification. In principle he conceived it to be wrong; the porter at his Majesty's gate was appointed by the Lord Chamberlain; the scullion in his kitchen by the Lord Steward; and others in like manner; yet this should not interfere with a parliamentary regulation. Such being the view he took of the subject, he would leave it with the Committee to decide; but again he would intreat them to consider the mischief they would do if they did not agree to the proposition for a limited time. He allowed that the question of peerages was a much greater constitutional consideration than the present; but the present had a nearer application to his Majesty's personal feelings, and was more calculated to secure his easy return to the functions of his high office, and the resumption of that power with which he was invested by the constitution. The right hon. gent. concluded with moving the Fifth Resolution: viz.

Resolved, "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the care of his Majesty's royal person, during the continuance of his Majesty's illness, should be committed to the Queen's most excellent Majesty: and that her Majesty, for a time to be limited, should have the power to remove from, and to nominate, and appoint such persons as she shall think proper, to the several offices in his Majesty's Household, and to dispose, order, and manage, all other matters and things relating to the care of his Majesty's royal person, during the time aforesaid; and that, for the better enabling her Majesty to discharge this important trust, it is also expedient that a Council should be appointed to advise and assist her Majesty in the several matters aforesaid; and with power, from time to time, as they may see cause, to examine, upon oath, the physicians and others attending his Majesty's person, touching the state of his Majesty's health, and all matters relative thereto."

rose for the purpose of moving an Amendment. He considered the expence that would unavoidably attend the two separate establishments as highly unnecessary. The nation, he was persuaded, was willing to give every thing requisite to support the magnificence that should ever attend the exercise of the executive; but surely the increased expence with which it was proposed on the present occasion to burden the nation, was, to say the least of it, unnecessary.—During the time of his Majesty's retirement, he could certainly have no occasion for his present household. However, there was another reason which had been urged against this measure, which weighed on his mind more than the consideration of expence, and that was the danger of forming a party in the country, which might tend to weaken and impede the powers of the government. The Restrictions of last night tended to render the government weaker than it would otherwise be; and the present measure would go to raise up an additional party in the state, to obstruct it still more. He should therefore move an Amendment to the motion brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He proposed to omit that part of the Resolution from the words "Queen's most excellent Majesty," and to insert in the room of it, "together with such direction of his household as may be suitable for the care of his Majesty's royal person, and the maintenance of the Royal dignity."

thought, that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had gone quite as far in his address to the feelings of the House, as his own personal feelings could have led him. But he would protest against this mode of making an appeal at any time, to the feelings of parliament, however the personal feelings of any right hon. gent. might be affected. He, for his own part, did not find it necessary to be constantly stating his feelings of attachment and duty to his Sovereign. He hoped rather that his feelings should be judged of by his conduct, as those of every member ought to be. If the House owed a duty to the person of the King, they were not to forget that they also owed a duty to the crown and to the people. He protested against the attempt to separate the King's person from the crown. Consistently with the view he took of the question, he must vote for the Amendment. He objected to the Resolution, as contrary to constitutional principles. To the second Resolution he had agreed, because by that they pledged themselves to supply the existing defect in the exercise of the power of the crown: and that was all that they were called upon to do. The third Resolution went to the preservation of the kingly power, and that was the whole which they were called upon to supply and not to diminish the rights of the crown itself. The household, as well as every other prerogative and privilege of the crown, were given by the people, who entrusted them to the crown for the general benefit. They were bestowed on the King, not for his personal convenience, but to adorn his magistracy. Believing that to be the reason of the King's holding them, he should be glad to know, for what purpose they were called upon to dismember the crown by taking away what had always been annexed to it? Principles—the Chancellor of the Exchequer had none on this subject, for he had stated none. Precedents he had none, for no precedent had he referred to? There was one precedent he could give, but be hardly thought that the right hon. gent. would be ambitious of making use of it. It was the case of the Lords Ordainers, who extorted from the unfortunate Edward II. the appointment of the chief officers of his household. That could scarcely be taken as an authority. The transactions of 1788 could never constitute a precedent; for a precedent must have been complete and acted upon. That transaction was not complete in the House of Commons; and in the House of Lords, the great person whose name had been already mentioned, lord Thurlow, had admitted a readiness, on his part, to agree to considerable alterations. So far it was clear it was no precedent. The hon. and learned gent. contended, that there having been no precedent, it would be extremely wrong in the House to think of stripping the Regent of those powers which had always belonged to the King; and with out which it had uniformly been contended, that the kingly office cannot be maintained. He more particularly objected to the Resolution on this further ground, that the House had already agreed to trust the Prince of Wales as Regent with the power of the sword; but they were now desired to refuse him the nominating of the Household; a circumstance which would be deemed highly derogatory to the character of any private individual. He flattered himself he should always be found as attentive in all his duties to his Sovereign as any other member of that House, and no man could be more averse than he was from diminishing in the smallest degree, the magnificence and splendour, which ought to be attached to him in his royal capacity; but in the present case the House ought only to consider the real personal convenience and comfort of his Majesty. No splendour could be necessary to his present unfortunate situation. He could not therefore agree to grant, in a time of great public pressure like the present, any additional expenditure which might be saved to the country; and seeing nothing to be dreaded in trusting the Regent with the government of the Household, as well as with the government of the Empire, he should certainly vote in favour of the Amendment proposed by the noble lord.

said, he could not avoid protesting against the doctrine of the hon. and learned gent. who had just sat down, as applied against his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for having adverted to the personal feelings of his Majesty in case of his recovery. So far from deserving censure, he was clearly of opinion that his right hon. friend had done himself the greatest honour in shewing his respect and gratitude to a beloved sovereign, who had placed in him the highest and most flattering confidence; and though he could not agree to the Resolution his right hon. friend had proposed, he must do him the justice to say, that he admired him for paying that regard to his Majesty's feelings which he had done.—With respect to the precedent of 1788, he thought that, in the outset, it was a wise and proper measure; but he did not think that the restrictions and limitations were judicious. He conceived that the same arguments which, during the practice of so many years, had fully proved that the powers with which his Majesty was vested were necessary for the safety of the people, would apply equally to the propriety of granting the same authority to the Regent; and those powers could not be withheld, without producing many injurious consequences. In his opinion, if the clause restricting the Regent from making Peers, and the one putting the Household into the hands of the Queen, had been acted on in the year 1788, it would have been attended with the most dangerous effects. The House, at that time, had been hurried on by strong personal feelings, which were most improper upon such an occasion. A spirit of acrimony and recrimination prevailed. An hon. gent. (Mr. Fox) at that time introduced doctrines in the House of Commons, which were certainly unconstitutional; and in the course of the proceedings, much obloquy had been thrown on Mr. Pitt; and he had, perhaps, under these circumstances, introduced that which, had he consulted his more sober judgment, he would not have done. The hon. gent. said he believed, that that part of the measure brought forward in 1788, which respected the royal household, would have been ultimately subjected to limitation—for no person could imagine that so immense a patronage would be left in the hands of the Queen for a series of years. He did not know upon what data his right hon. friend had made his calculation; but he would assert, that the patronage was very different in 1788. It was at that time not less than 400,000l. per annum; and such a patronage could not be exerted for a number of years without producing the most baneful effects. The feeling and temper with which the business was discussed at the present day, must be contemplated with very great pleasure, particularly when it was considered, that the question was of the description most likely to produce irritation. It was highly honourable to the House to see their debates carried on with such temper and coolness. Nor had any disposition appeared in his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to grasp any such power as was aimed at in 1788, He did not wish to go out of his way to pay his right hon. friend a compliment, but he certainly must do him the justice to say, that upon the present occasion, he had conducted himself with great temper and ability. He could not, however, agree to sever from the crown that which had been always attached to it. He should be happy to be informed why the power of creating peerages should be refused to the Regent? The argument which he had heard in favour of that Restriction, amounted to nothing: it went to say, that perhaps the Regent, if invested with that power, would use it so as to injure the royal prerogative on his Majesty's recovery: such an argument was completely illusory, no man of sense could listen to it. And he believed that, if even the two Houses of Parliament were willing to impair the regal authority, the feeling and principle of the English people would be sufficient to defeat the attempt. He conceived all the power of the crown to be necessary for the government of the realm in a period of such difficulty, and he could not give his consent to any abridgment of that authority. It was a pleasing circumstance to behold all parties agreed in one point, that the Prince of Wales should be Regent of the empire: all were unanimous in that idea. He, however, conceived that he should, in that situation, enjoy the full regal authority, without restriction or limitation. His right hon. friend seemed to fear that the Regent would make a very lavish use of those powers: he, however, felt no apprehension on that head. No place in reversion could be granted; and if any situation became vacant, he knew of no person more deserving to reap benefit from the contingency than the right hon. gent. himself. But no evil which even the lavish use of the kingly authority might produce, struck him as being so dangerous as a breach in the constitution. He could not conceive that the Regent would be firmly placed at the head of the government, unless he was completely in possession of the regal powers, which powers the restrictions tended to dismember. He was sorry to differ from his right hon. friend, for whom he entertained the highest esteem—but he felt it his duty to vote for the Amendment.

said, that he rose principally for one purpose and for one only, namely to advert in a manner not quite so cold as the hon. gent. who spoke last, to the extraordinary language which the hon. and learned gent. who spoke last but one, had made use of. He could not but express his astonishment, in which he hoped a great majority of the House would concur, that the learned gent. should have had the indecency almost to call his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to order, for having made use of his Majesty's name, in the way, and with the view with which it had been done. It had been made use of in the strictest correctness of argument—for what was it adverting to? To the much desired event of his Majesty's restoration to health; than which a greater national object it was, at this time, in every point of view, impossible to contemplate. What, when we were discussing a subject, in every step we took upon which his Majesty's rights and dearest interests were involved, were we to be told that it was our duty carefully to abstain from even making use of the royal name? If such was really our duty, he defied any member of the House who might be delivering his sentiments, to execute it, whatever might be his efforts. He would tell the hon. and learned gent. that, on parliamentary grounds, he was in a complete error, and would assert, without fear of contradiction, that the whole question might be argued exclusively on the ground of feeling for, and the personal qualities of the Sovereign on the Throne. Where was the man who had a spark of generosity or loyalty in his breast, who would disclaim such feeling? He (Mr. A.) would not rest on that ground, conscious that in the part he was taking he stood on firmer ground—on the spirit of the constitution itself—not to be trampled upon, but to support him. And yet he could by no means wish that the question should be argued quite so drily as the hon. and learned gent. seemed to recommend. He would not do it himself. "Este mei me "mores," might surely be supposed to be the sentiment even now, from the bed of sickness itself, uppermost in the royal mind, as directed to his Houses of Parliament assembled in deliberation on this distressing and momentous occasion—"Este mei memores," not from sympathy in my affliction—not because I feel that I have any claim on your gratitude and that of the country at large for my unceasing efforts, during a long and eventful reign, to cherish your rights, and to protect your privileges, but because I know that the preservation of my rights is inseparably connected with your present and future welfare—because I am still your King on the throne of my ancestors, with my political capacity entire; and as such, which you all know, an integral part of the British Constitution.—Mr. A. added, that not having quite made up his mind to the immediate question before the House, he was desirous to hear the opinions of the other gentlemen upon it before he decided. He rather thought the Amendment too loose and indefinite, and was inclined at present to think, that on the Resolution now moved, it might be safest to adhere to the precedent of 1788, at least in principle; and, amongst other reasons, for the very powerful one given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Perhaps some useful modifications of it might be introduced in the subsequent stages.

considered the Resolution now under consideration, by far the most objectionable of all the objectionable Resolutions proposed. The question now was, not whether the prerogative should remain in abeyance, but whether it should be transferred to other hands, wholly distinct from those who exercised the royal functions; not whether certain powers should remain dormant, but whether after the Regent was abridged, those powers should be exercised by a fourth estate of the realm, wholly unknown to the constitution. If influence was to exist at all, it was invariably admitted, that it should be annexed to the crown. Some, and he was amongst the number, were of opinion that such influence could be advantageously diminished; but whilst it was allowed to exist, he would never recognize the propriety of that existence, in any other hands but those of the chief magistrate. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer grounded the present Resolution upon the propriety of entrusting such powers to the wife of the reigning Monarch. How, he would ask, would that right hon. gent. provide, if her Majesty should happen to die? Would the right hon. gent., acting upon the principle, transfer those powers still farther? Would he, to the injury of the crown, entrust them to some other relative? Or would he be obliged by circumstances to retrace his steps, and consign them to that chief magistracy from which they ought never to be separated. He had heard some gentlemen talk of persons being ready to vote powers to the Regent, which they were unwilling to confide to the King. What those powers were he was wholly ignorant, but this he well knew, that there were persons who were most anxious either to transfer to an unrecognized quarter, powers which were annexed to the crown, or to usurp them themselves, at the very time that they called upon that House to divest the representative of Royalty of many of the rights and dignities connected with that sacred trust. Those persons were the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues. They endeavoured to effect a system which would separate influence from the government, detach the court from the state, and in a great degree dismember the monarchy itself. Not only had they provided to deprive the government of the Regent of all its legitimate influence, but they had endeavoured by the present Resolution to embody an influence under the pretext of its being necessary for the protection of the reigning King, but with the view of being for their own purposes operative against the government of his representative. And this course they had pursued for the purpose of guarding posterity from the evil effects of any improper precedent which might be now established. It was not, said they, to meet any personal consideration, but to take care that the precedent of the present day should not be in future times the source of mischievous consequences, that the Regency has been restricted. Why, then, when the right hon. gent, was taking caution against the government of bad Regents, was he not equally solicitous against the establishment of a precedent which might be serviceable to bad Queens? History was not without instances of ambitious Queens, deaf to all the considerations of honour and duty, establishing their own influence upon the subversion of the interests of their husband and of their family. And therefore he must again repeat, that if the right hon. gent. was sincere in his assertion, that it was for future safety that the proposed course was to be adopted, surely he was bound by every principle of consistency to shew the same solicitude in the case of a Queen invested with such new powers as in that of a Regent abridged of the legitimate influence of that King whom he represented.

said, he could hardly refrain from offering his admiration of the sentiments expressed by the last speaker but one, and his warm disapprobation of the doctrine of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Martin.) Never was he more astonished than upon hearing his hon. and learned friend maintain that they should put all considerations of personal respect to the Sovereign out of their minds on this occasion. It would indeed be a most cruel and pedantic interpretation of the orders of the House to think of enforcing them under such circumstances. It was fair, it was right, for his right hon. friend to consider the feelings of his Majesty, and to provide that when the use of his understanding should be restored he should not see strangers around him. Unfortunately they had many proofs, that neither age nor sickness had blunted the edge of that exquisite sensibility of which he was possessed. The people found in the virtues, both public and private, of his Majesty, an antidote to the poison of party feeling. He did not want confidence in the illustrious personage in whose hands it was proposed that the power should be lodged; he had all that respect for him which his rank and virtues demanded, but of him they had not yet had experience; they had not been governed by him fifty years. He was surprised to hear his hon. and learned friend talk of economy. It had been said that the establishment might be rated at 400,000l. a-year, but most of this was devoted to tradesmen's bills, and not to any parliamentary influence. Besides it was now only demanded for a year, perhaps not for half a year, perhaps the whole sum required might not amount to 50,000l. and would they refuse that to a monarch who had reigned over them fifty years? His hon. and learned friend supposed that the people of England would approve of such a saving, not merely on account of the sum itself, but on account of the popular purpose with which it was withheld. But he would defend the people of England from such an imputation. He was sure they would pay ten times the sum, rather than see their sovereign inconvenienced, he was sure they would say, Curse upon the economy that saved us this, while it left our beloved monarch in a situation so little according with our wishes. He could conceive that there might be cases in which this power, which was called by some gentlemen the fourth estate, might be exerted usefully. However syllogistical the argument of an hon. and learned friend of his who spoke last night (Mr. Leach) had been, he thought it both unsound and illogical. (Hear! hear!) He was aware by those cheers that it appeared to some gentlemen that he had made a blunder in describing the argument as both syllogistical and illogical, but in the form of a syllogism there might be conclusions illogical well as unsound. The necessity of supplying the royal power was granted, but the question now before the House was, whether it was necessary to supply all the royal functions, or whether it would not be sufficient to supply a part. He did not consider that the precedent of 1788 was at all worse, or intitled to less authority, for its being a modern precedent.

said, that although he should have been sorry to let such a question as the present pass through the House without offering his opinions upon it, yet he should not have intruded at that moment upon the Committee, if he had not felt that injustice had been done to his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Martin) in the manner in which his expressions had been quoted, and in the observations which had been made on them. There had been nothing stated by his hon. and learned friend, which conveyed any disregard to the feelings of his Majesty. What had been stated, and as he thought very properly stated, was, that the gentlemen on the other side dwelt upon that point of what would probably be his Majesty's private feelings on his recovery more than was proper in that House. It was well known that on common occasions it was irregular and unparliamentary to use the name of his Majesty for the purpose of influencing their proceedings. In this case, although it was impossible to avoid naming his Majesty, yet he conceived it highly irregular to dwell upon his private feelings as an argument to influence the votes of members. He thought, also, that it was very unfair to assume it as a matter of course, that if power was given to the Regent to discharge the officers of the Household, he would immediately proceed to exercise that power by the removal of all those servants whom he found placed about his Majesty. To represent this as the necessary or probable consequence of placing the officers of the Household at the disposition of the Regent, was highly injurious to the character of the Prince. It was unjust to his Majesty to represent him as entertaining suspicions that this would be done.—As to the bare possibility of power being abused, he would ask how that was to be prevented? What security, for example, was there that this power might not be abused in a similar manner in the hands of the Queen? The security was only in the natural feeling of conjugal affection, which made it unlikely that she would run the risk of wounding the feelings of his Majesty by removing the servants to whom he had been accustomed, and appointing strangers in the place of them. Now, if the House considered that there was perfect security for the private feelings of his Majesty in this point, by relying on the conjugal affection of the Queen, he would ask, was there no security in the filial affection of the Prince? (Hear! hear!) It appeared to him, too, that a most irreverent use was made of his Majesty's name by those gentlemen who alledged, that of all the changes which could be made by the Regent, those which might be made in the Household would affect most deeply the private feelings of the King. Was it doing justice to his Majesty's paternal regard for his people to pretend, that no appointments or changes which could be made with respect to military and naval commanders, or to the internal administration of the country, or its relations with foreign states, on which the happiness of the people depends, would affect the feelings of his Majesty so much as the dismissal of some lords of the bedchamber? The gentlemen who maintained that argument seemed to consider, that, whether the war was conducted with wisdom or folly, whether a peace might be made on honourable or disgraceful terms, or whether the people were to be rendered happy or unhappy by the manner in which they were governed, were points which might be committed absolutely to the discretion of the Regent, as they only related to the interests of the nation, but that the deepest attack which could be made on the private feelings of his Majesty would be in removing the lords of the bed-chamber. He was confident, however, that the gentlemen on the other side had as much mistaken the sentiments of his Majesty, as they had been irregular in introducing them into the debate for the purpose of influencing the House. It was absurd to state that the Prince might safely be trusted with all the higher powers of the government, upon which the honour and security of his Majesty's crown as well as of the country depended; but that he was not fit to be trusted with the regulation of the royal Household, or with the appointment or removal of a few lords of the bed-chamber.

Before he proceeded to state his opinion on the particular Resolution submitted to the House, he hoped that he should not be considered much out of order, in making some observations upon the Restrictions in general. This question was so connected with the particular one before the House, that he did not know how to separate them. There were two questions: 1st, As to the right of the two Houses to impose Restrictions on the Regent; and 2dly, As to the expediency of doing it. Upon the first, he said, that he entertained great doubt of the right of the two Houses to impose Restrictions. (Loud cries of hear! hear! principally from the Ministerial benches). He should repeat, that he had great doubts, whether the two Houses possessed any such right; and, it appeared to him, that the Resolutions which they had adopted, were inconsistent with the course that they were pursuing. They first, in their Resolutions, state, that it is the right and duty of the two Houses of Parliament to supply the deficiency in the royal authority; and after so stating that it is their duty to supply it, they proceed by leaving part of it unsupplied, and consequently their duty unperformed. From the necessity of the case the two Houses had a right to supply the royal authority, but he did not think they had a right to substitute any thing else in the place of it. The two Houses had a right to restore what was deficient in the Constitution, but they had no right to alter it without the consent of the third branch of the legislature. They had not a right to make a new Constitution at their pleasure. If the two Houses, for example, should choose to appoint a person merely to give his assent to their bills, leaving at the same time all the other functions of royalty unsupplied, they would be doing a thing which they had no right to do. Their right and their duty was to supply the deficiency in the monarchy during the illness of the Sovereign; and if they did not supply the entire deficiency, but only what part of it they thought proper, they would be failing to discharge that which in their own Resolution they had declared to be their duty. A right hon. gentleman had said, on the preceding night, that the two Houses had not a right to confer on the Regent more of the royal authority than the exigency of the case required. That right hon. gent. had not, however, explained what part of the royal prerogative was not necessary for the well-being of the government; and, he must say, that in the course of his studies, he had never found out what was unnecessary. If any branches of the prerogative were not necessary, they ought not to exist. A power that was quite unnecessary, ought not to be placed in any hands. Admitting, however, for the sake of argument, that the two Houses had a right to impose Restrictions, surely at such a time as this, it could not be expedient to exercise that right. It was not a just way of considering the question of Restrictions to estimate one branch of the prerogative as standing by itself and disconnected with the others. For the proper exercise of one branch of the prerogative, it was often necessary that the crown should possess the others. The power of creating Peers, for example, might be necessary to enable the crown properly to appoint to offices of very great importance. It had been generally reported, whether truly or not the Chancellor of the Exchequer best knew, that when the office of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas last became vacant, the King had selected a gentleman whose talents, learning, and integrity his Majesty thought qualified him for that office, but the gentleman so selected, refused to accept the office, unless it was accompanied with a peerage; in the particular instance, his Majesty did not think it expedient to purchase at that price the services of the gentleman for the public, but it might have been thought highly advantageous to the country to have conferred the Peerage, and if the person exercising the functions of royalty have not the power to grant it, it is obvious that he may be obliged to appoint a person to discharge the duties of a high judicial office who is in his judgment not the best qualified to discharge them. It may perhaps by some be doubted whether the making judges peers be beneficial to the public, but this was not a time to discuss that question; it was sufficient that of late years it had been very usual, in the Common Pleas in three very late instances the chiefs had been peers, and in the King's Bench it was much more usual than in the Common Pleas, and it conld hardly be doubted, that if a person in a judicial office be one who aspires to a Peerage, it is much better that it should be conferred on him when he enters on his office than be reserved as a reward for the services he may perform. Neither, if there were to be any exception in this restriction, respecting the peerage, could he think that it should be confined to those who might have performed military or naval services. He thought that this would be a most invidious distinction in the peerage, to lay it down that some of the peers were entitled to it from their merit, and that the rest owed their promotion merely to the favour or caprice of the sovereign. The public good ought to be the object in view in all creations of peers; and to confine these honours to those who had performed military or naval exploits was as little conducive to the public benefit, as it was degrading to the peerage, by making invidious distinctions. All that the Houses of Parliament had now to do, was to restore the constitution, and the whole constitution.

He differed very much from the opinion which was expressed by an hon. and learn, gentleman (Mr. Stephen) of the speech of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Leach): so far from thinking that it could be called illogical and unsound in its conclusions, it appeared to him to be most clear and convincing. It had been completely unanswered hitherto, and he believed it was unanswerable. As to the precedent of 1788, which had been so much relied on, it did not appear to him entitled to all that weight and authority which had been supposed to belong to it. It was not complete: the Bill had passed through one House, but might never have received the concurrence of the other. He had last session brought in a Bill to alter the criminal law, which passed through the House of Commons almost without opposition; nor were any objections made to it in the Lords, until the very last stage. Now, if any accident had prevented the decision of the Lords being taken on this last stage of the Bill, he might just as well have plumed himself in the thought, that the two Houses of Parliament had adopted his ideas, as the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer could now bring forward the unfinished proceedings of the year 1788 as a complete and established parliamentary precedent. In fact this precedent, much as it had been extolled by many gentlemen, had been cited by them only to be departed from.

He was not disposed to attach a greater degree of value to this precedent for what had been said of the high authority of the person from whom it proceeded; he was not a worshipper of the memory of Mr. Pitt, although, as he was now dead, he did not wish to speak against him. He knew how many persons in that House were connected with him by private friendship, and were almost idolators of his character and talents. To those gentlemen he did not wish to act with incivility, by dispraising him of whom they thought so highly; but he must say that notwithstanding the great talents which he undoubtedly possessed, he never could acknowledge his claim to be considered a great man (loud cries of hear! hear! from both sides). Before he could give him that character, he must see the instances where the great talents he possessed, and the great influence he had so long enjoyed, had been exercised in improving the condition of any part of his Majesty's subjects. Was it possible to read the proceedings of the two Houses in the year 1788, without being convinced, that the object of Mr. Pitt, through the whole course of those proceedings, was merely to retain the power in his own hands as long as he could, and when he could no longer keep it, to give it up to his successors as much curtailed as possible? He had laid hold of an expression, which had fallen inconsiderately from his political antagonist in the course of debate, and which had not been insisted on, and had made it the subject of a Resolution merely that he might gain a triumph to himself. The proceedings in parliament at that day exhibited a struggle, in which scene Mr. Pitt appeared the principal actor, contending for his own power.

At the present time, when all the strength of majesty was necessary, he thought the executive power should not be stripped of its accustomed splendour, or diminished in its power. The question which the gentlemen on the other side seemed to wish to determine, was, with how small a portion of the regal authority the business of government could go on. With respect to the houshold, either the Regent was to be stripped of the splendour which belonged to it, or there are to be two housholds at great additional expence to the public, and the people were to see the Regent begin the exercise of his authority by new burdens imposed on them.

He could not pass over in silence, one observation in the speech of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the preceding night. He had said, that he could not conceive that the Restrictions to be imposed on the Regent could tend to diminish the royal authority' because he apprehended that on all sides would be felt the impropriety of entertaining any proposition which could tend to affect the royal prerogative during the unfortunate suspension of the exercise by his Majesty of his royal functions. He did not know what was the exact meaning of this: but if it meant, that during the existence of the Regency there was, as it were by common consent, to be a suspension of all those measures of Reform which had occupied the public attention, and to which the people looked with anxiety; if it was meant, that all this was to be laid aside, because it might be conceived to affect the royal prerogative, and the people, though they might see their burdens increased, must not hope to see any reform effected, he for one must protest against this doctrine. He should think such a Restriction one of the most fatal that could be imposed on the Regent.

He was averse from making an experiment upon the constitution, by the appointment of a Regent with Restrictions of the powers of the executive government. In times so perilous as these, such an experiment could not be tried without great danger in the person of any Regent, even of one far removed from the hope of ever succeeding to the throne; but in his opinion the experiment was much more dangerous, and likely to be attended with more mischievous effects from the circumstance of the person with whom it was to be tried being the heir apparent of the throne, and who was destined at some time to sway the sceptre of this realm. The question would naturally be asked, why if he could govern the country with such limited powers as Regent, may not he, the very same individual afterwards govern it with the same limited powers as King? Were these times in which it was safe to invite such inquiries, or to try such hazardous experiments? No person could reflect on what he has seen passing in the world, or look forward to that which is to come, without being convinced that the reign of his Majesty's successor will in all probability be marked with very important events. Considering with what dangers he may be surrounded and in what difficulties he may be involved, it is most important for the country that he should ascend the throne with every possible advantage, with all the strength which he can derive from the respect, and veneration, and affection of his people. That he should do this, must be the wish of every person who has the good of his country at heart, even of every one who only regards his own personal interest, of every friend of the Prince, of every friend of the King: it must, above all, be the wish of the King himself.

Nothing certainly can be nearer to his Majesty's heart, than that the glories of his own reign may be far surpassed by those of his successor, and that his son may more than himself be a blessing to his subjects. How then, recollecting this, can it be thought by any one to be advantageous to the Prince, to the King, or to the country, to pursue the course which has been by the ministers recommended to us, and by which, before his Royal Highness shall ascend the throne as Sovereign, his people shall have been accustomed to see him exercising authority over them as a kind of half king, with curtailed prerogatives and diminished splendour, and embarrassed and fettered with Restrictions which will import the strongest distrust of the two Houses of Parliament, and their firm belief that he could not be safely trusted with all the powers of royalty. He confidently hoped that the House would not by this vote give countenance to these most unjust and ungenerous suspicions.

observed, that the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned gent., and which no doubt had escaped him unintentionally, bore hard upon those who happened to differ in opinion from him. When the learned gent. particularised the difficulties in which the Regent would be placed as heir apparent to the throne, by the operation of the Restrictions, he thought his conclusions, though just ground for reasoning, not warranted; and for himself should say, that he deduced the opposite inference from his premises. Nothing, in his opinion, could more plainly mark the distinction between the throne, and the temporary exercise of the royal functions, than that the person appointed to the office of Regent should be limited in the exercise of those powers and prerogatives which belong to the Sovereign actually filling the throne. He was persuaded, that his hon. and learned friend, when arguing coolly, would not be disposed to maintain, that the limitations proposed on this occasion could, if carried into effect, be any stigma on the illustrious person to be invested with the office of Regent. In agreeing to the Restrictions, he was ready to declare, that he was not ac- tuated by any jealousy or distrust of the Prince of Wales. He thought it of importance, on such an occasion, for the Houses of Parliament to act, not upon the ground of any jealousy to be entertained respecting the royal personage who was now to be appointed Regent, but generally with reference to all persons who might by possibility stand in the same situation. They were always to bear in mind, that though no distrust could apply to the case of the present Prince of Wales, other princes might be hereafter placed in similar circumstances, in whom the same confidence could not safely be reposed. He was ready to admit, and with satisfaction, that the circumstances of the present Regent were such, as to do away all question respecting the effect of the personal distinctions to which he had already adverted. Different opinions must of course be entertained, according to the different views of the subject, taken by gentlemen on each side of the House; but, for his own part, he was persuaded, that what the Committee had to do on this occasion was, to endeavour to ascertain how much of the executive power was necessary to be given to the Regent, in order to enable him to carry on the administration of affairs for a time (Hear! Hear!)—Unless he had let slip some expression of which he was not aware, he was at a loss to find out what ridicule attached to the observation he had just made. He should therefore repeat, that the question for the Committee to decide was, what degree of the royal functions was necessary to be given to the Regent, in order to enable him to carry on the government with efficiency, and what degree of restriction would be expedient to be interposed with a view to prevent any power being conferred which was not actually necessary for carrying on the government, and to remove any obstructions to the resumption of his royal functions on the part of his Majesty, on his happy restoration to health. It was not to be denied that at the present moment the country was in a state of war; but he did not think the power to grant Peerages during a year necessary to enable a Regent to administer the government. With regard to the main question before the Committee, he would own, that on coming down his mind was not made up, and that consequently he was disposed to listen to every thing that might tend to obviate the difficulties on his mind. Not having expected the business to come on so soon, he had not had the advantage of hearing what had fallen from his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But he thought that on a question of this description, much consideration was due to the personal comfort and satisfaction of his Majesty; and that for this object, it would be desirable, that on his recovery he should not find himself surrounded by persons strangers to him. He trusted, however, that even that would not have any injurious effect, as his Majesty had a truly British heart. The House would not consider the saving of 15,000l. as any material consideration. He looked upon it, that the keeping of persons about his Majesty, who would be grateful to him, would be a desirable object. His right hon. friend (Mr. Canning,) had stated last night, that it would be better to give the controul of the Household to the Queen for life, than to fix any limit at which it was to be vested in the Regent. For himself, he thought the happy medium between the two extremes might be adopted. Before he sat down, he could not avoid adverting to what had been said of Mr. Pitt, by his hon. and learned friend; if his hon. and learned friend had had the opportunities of knowing that great man, which he had, he would have been better enabled to do justice to his character. He was no worshipper of Mr. Pitt. He had differed from him—with what pain none but himself could tell; but if he knew any thing of that great man, every other consideration was absorbed in his grand ruling passion, the love of country—with respect to his talents, there could be, and there was, but one opinion throughout the country; and, with respect to his other qualities, he could only adopt the words which those qualities had provoked from the admiration of a formidable but generous rival, inamicitia est sempiterna, inamicitia est brevis.'

rose for the purpose, as he was persuaded he could do, of satisfying his hon. friend and the Committee, that the Amendment ought to be agreed to. He did not think that the character of the late Mr. Pitt ought to influence their opinions respecting the precedent of 1788. This question neither involved a consideration of the character of that great man, nor that of his great antagonist. He was acquainted with that individual, during a great part of his life, and had consequently opportunities of knowing his eminent qualities, at the same time that he had never altered his sentiments respecting his great rival. As to the question under consideration, he could have wished that it had been left to the Regent to shew his regard to his King and father, by abstaining from making any change in his Household. He was therefore a friend to the Amendment. There was a difference in the object of the proceedings last night and this night. The Resolutions of last night went to impose regulations; those of this night restrictions; no difference of opinion existed as to the regulation respecting the personal property of the King. The restriction for a limited time respecting the Household, his noble friend's Amendment proposed to do away, but his noble friend was not, as appeared to him, original in the course he proposed. If he had understood his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was his intention that the Regent should not be restricted as in 1789; but that after the lapse of a year, and six weeks after the ensuing session of parliament, if parliament should not reconsider the subject, the restrictions should cease and determine. The Amendment of his noble friend called upon them to do that now, which the restrictions required to be done at a future period. But there were certain offices not essential to the personal comfort of his Majesty, which might be, without any inconvenience, attached to the Regent. The hon. and learned gent. then enumerated the offices of Lord Chamberlain, Steward of the Household, Master of the Horse, Groom of the Stole, and the Officers of the Bed-Chamber; and then submitted whether these were essential to the personal comfort or gratification of the Sovereign: and if they were, might they not be secured as to their attendance upon his Majesty on his recovery by a Bill? But this was a point which he wished to have left to the Regent, in order to give him an opportunity of shewing his respect and attention to his Majesty. He thought the principal part of the Household ought to be given to the Regent, and the personal part to the Queen; and that they should not resort to that incongruous and unconstitutional arrangement which would give the whole to her Majesty. Upon this question there might be some difference in the constitutional ground, though little as to the comfort of his Majesty. But, if his Majesty should happily recover within a year, would he not re- sume his Household in the same full dominion over it as at present? As to the constitutional question, he was of opinion that, upon transferring the principal part of the household to the Regent, enough would be left to support the dignity of his Majesty. He had heard all the debates of 1789, in which the greatest men that this or any country had ever produced had taken a part, and there was one doctrine which neither then nor now appeared to him to have been touched upon. It had been said, that the Regent would not be responsible. There could be no earthly doubt of it. By the constitution of this government the King was irresponsible, but acted by responsible advisers. The Regent, who stood in the place of the Sovereign, must be equally irresponsible, and be served by advisers, to whom the nation could look as responsible for his measures. But if the control of the household were to be given to the Queen, the consort of the Sovereign, he would wish to know what was to become of that responsibility? He wished to speak of her Majesty with all due respect, but the provisions of a Bill would not make her more responsible than at present. Was it right, then, that a power from which influence was to arise should pass into irresponsible hands? The speech of his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Leach) which arrested the attention of that House, in a more eminent degree than any thing of the kind he had ever witnessed, by the power of its reasoning and the justness of its logic, had clearly proved that the two Houses of Parliament had no right to impose any restrictions upon a Regent, and had never altered the powers of the crown. He contended, therefore, that the royal powers ought to be given entire and complete. It was monstrous to give the powers of making war or peace, and not to give those powers necessary to maintain the dignity of the throne. The powers of the Sovereign were given for the benefit of the people; they were the right of the nation, and the parliament had no authority to alienate them, and consequently could not alienate them, without a violation of the constitution.

maintained, that in discussing a great constitutional question, it was very unnecessary to depart from it, for the purpose of depreciating an illustrious character, or attributing motives to him by which he had not been actuated— it might have been done, perhaps, with a view to lessen the weight of that authority by which the measures now proposed appeared to be sanctioned. It had been stated that he loved power, and never rendered an essential service to his country. But it was in the recollection of those who heard him, that the navy, when he came into administration, was far from being in that state of perfection and superiority which rendered it at this day the terror and admiration of the world. Could it be forgotten that his counsels had saved the country, in those awful times when he stemmed the torrent of the French Revolution, and rooted out the lurking seeds of democracy? Inexperienced as he was, and unable to do justice to the exalted qualities of that illustrious character, yet he could not pass over in silence his great financial talents—talents which he possessed in so eminent a degree, that it appeared as if his other merits were forgotten in the contemplation of those. During his life, he believed that nine-tenths of the country approved his measures, and he trusted that in death nine-tenths of that country would rescue his name from the aspersions which were cast upon it.—With regard to the subject before them, he said that he had hoped that the Resolutions which were passed, together with the precedent on which they were founded, would have produced unanimity. He thought that the Bill had given evidence that they were bestowing the strongest sanction on the Regency. The gentlemen on the opposite side had objected to the power of the two branches to establish an act of legislature; they objected to the precedent of 1788, and yet they set up that of the Irish parliament. There was royal authority in one case, and not in the other. The King had approved of the act of his ministers. But did the precedent of 1788 stand on its own merits alone? Did no previous precedent give it weight? Had there ever been, since the foundation of the constitution, an unlimited Regency? It had been objected, that the times were difficult; but he saw less occasion for unlimited power now than in 1788, for at that time the seeds of internal commotion were sown; whereas now all was tranquil in the country, and a sufficient power would be vested in the hands of the Regent by those Resolutions, to enable him to provide for all the necessities of war. The gentlemen who opposed them should recollect that Richard III had been called to the Regency on the principles which they wished to establish. The noble lord contended with deprecating the economy which would put 15 or 20,000l. in the balance against the comfort or the dignity of the King.

said, that the whole matter before the Committee turned upon 15,000l. They might give what they pleased, but let them retain the King's Servants about him, that when he returned to his life and feelings, he might find his old companions in attendance upon him, and see that his people had not deserted him (A laugh). Gentlemen might laugh, but he would tell them that they laughed at the wrong side of their mouths. He stood there as a legislator, and would do his duty, and would not yield his consent to a precedent that did not exist. The Prince of Wales had always treated him like a gentleman; but he thought, notwithstanding that as Regent he should be restricted, and not have the power of enlarging the peerage, for he might create not only six peers in a day, but six times six. He would act the same part he now did, if the Prince of Wales was under the same circumstances, or his darling daughter, and he should respect him for it. As for the 15,000l. he looked on it as a song; and he thought the people would pay it themselves sooner than their good old King should be deprived of his comforts.

observed, that the greater portion of the discussion of that night, and especially the latter part of it, had been conducted, as if the Committee had lost sight altogether of the question actually before them. I think therefore, said Mr. Canning, that I may possibly do an acceptable service, if, studiously passing by all the extraneous topics which have been introduced into the debate, I confine myself entirely to the explaining the grounds of the vote, which I mean to give this night, and so recal the attention of the Committee to the real question upon which alone we have on this occasion to decide. During the latter part of the debate not only the question of restrictions in general, but all the various points connected with the whole complicated subject of the Regency have been again discussed, as if the vote of to-night were to decide them all. But in my apprehension the question now under consideration lies within a very narrow compass. It is but a small part even of a small part of the whole subject, and, however it may be decided, it will not only not affect the other Resolutions, but not even decide finally the arrangements, to which it immediately relates. In giving my vote this night, I certainly reserve to myself the right, when the Bill shall be brought in, of considering minutely the details by which the principle of the Resolution shall be carried into effect.

The question, then, immediately before us, is simply this, what degree of power, and whether any political power should be granted to her Majesty, to whom, by the consent of all, the care of his Majesty's sacred person ought to be intrusted? In the settlement of this, as indeed of every other point of the Regency, I think those hon. gentlemen go too far, who recommend extraordinary caution in regard to the present proceedings, on the notion, that they are to constitute a fixed rule to guide all future parliaments, who may be called upon to make provision for a similar emergency. In the present instance I certainly have no hesitation in saying, that the Regency should, and ought to be committed to the Prince of Wales, and the care of his Majesty's sacred person to his Majesty's royal Consort: but I desire to be distinctly understood, that I do not consider myself as giving in this admission an opinion, that, in all future possible cases either the Regency or the custody of the King's person must of necessity be so confided. I utterly deny, that we are, in these particulars, which are matters not of fixed principles, but of expediency and discretion, now settling an immoveable precedent for the future. This I have thought it necessary to say, in order to argue upon the present case with the more freedom.

The Resolution now before the Committee divides itself into three parts: first, that the custody of his Majesty's person shall be given to the Queen; on this point there is in the present instance no doubt or difference of opinion. The second, or rather the third point as it stands in the order of the Resolution, but I take it here to get it out of the way, is, that it is expedient that, for the due administration of this trust, her Majesty should have a Council—on that too, as a general proposition, there, appears no difference of opinion. The intermediate proposition between these two, is that which forms the question for the present discussion; namely, whether the trust to be confided to the Queen shall be accompanied with a grant of political power; whether her Majesty shall be enabled to remove not only the officers of his Majesty's household, of less consequence in a political view, though of great importance with regard to his Majesty's comforts, but also persons standing in the situation of great officers of state; whether we may not sufficiently provide for the comfort and dignity of his Majesty, without committing considerable political authority to hands, in which such authority has never before been constitutionally placed.

According to my view of the state of this question, if I were this night to vote for the original Resolution, I should at once decide affirmatively, that the Queen should have the power of removing sixteen great officers sitting in the House of Lords and several others having seats in the House of Commons. The Amendment going, as I understand it, only to the object of taking care that a point of such importance shall not be hastily decided, the effect of adopting it would be, not to negative the grant of any power, but merely to decide that the whole shall not be granted, to allow sufficient time for deliberation as to the precise quantum of political power that ought to be lodged in the hands of the Queen. The Resolution goes at once to the decision of the whole case; the Amendment reserves it for more mature discussion and future decision. Between these two courses, with the doubts, which I confess I entertain upon the subject, I cannot but prefer that, which, pledging the Committee against nothing but the sweeping grant of the whole of the household, will not prevent the giving a due portion of power, even political power to her Majesty, by provisions to be introduced into the Bill, if, upon full consideration, it shall be thought wise or necessary to do so. Having only to choose between two propositions—one deciding the question at once—the other allowing time for consideration—and the question being in its nature and its consequences such, as neither to require nor to admit an instantaneous decision, I am disposed to adopt that alternative which affords further time for deliberation.

With regard to the exalted personage, the object for whom this provision is to be made, it is unnecessary to say, that he claims every attention, not only from his rank, but from be as he is, so justly and tenderly endeared to the hearts of his subjects. Whatever may be the arrangement to be made for the care of his Ma- jesty's sacred person, I hope I need not disclaim the giving any vote or opinion on the ground of any paltry and pitiful retrenchment. I would not economize upon the sufferings of my King; nor would I agree, that in the state in which he at present lies, he should be stripped of that splendour which must indicate to the world the consideration in which he is still held by his faithful and loving subjects. The royal diadem, however for the moment its lustre may be dimmed, is not to be altogether shorn of its beams. I would not in the infirmities of the man forget the station and character of the monarch. I would shade the chamber of his sickness, not with the curtain of oblivion, but with the veil of the sanctuary (hear, hear, hear). I would place to guard it those, whom, if he should happily recover, he would be glad to find at his door. And that these chosen sentinels should be irremovable by any power whatever is an opinion, which I shall submit to the House, when we come to the consideration of the details of the Bill. I think we should do our duty by taking care that the sovereign shall have those about him whom he himself has chosen, so that, when, upon waking from his trance, he may pronounce some well known name, he may not be to be told "that he whom he calls for is not there." On this principle I should think it better to form an establishment for the sovereign somewhat smaller in extent but not liable to accident or uncertainty, than to continue the household altogether on its present scale for a limited time liable to change hereafter. I would rather take less but have it permanent and unalterable, than have all for a limited time, subject to future retrenchment, and with a power to make any alterations in it, to whomsoever that power might be given.

It has been well observed that we do not legislate upon suspicion. Suspicion of the Prince of Wales is disclaimed by those who support the restrictions. I hope that those, who may hesitate to concur in giving the whole power of the household to the Queen, will be equally free from the charge of entertaining any suspicion as to the mode in which her Majesty would administer that trust. I can truly say, that I am not influenced in my opinions by any feeling of such a nature. The difficulty, which I chiefly feel in giving the power of removal to the Queen is that of entrusting political power in hands, where it had never formerly lodged, and thus creating an anomaly in the practice of the constitution. On the other hand the Regent, for his own sake, if for no more weighty reasons, unquestionably ought not to have the power of removing or appointing the persons who are to surround the sick bed of the King. I see but one mode of obviating both these difficulties, namely that of selecting that portion of the offices, the holders of which are called on more immediately to give their attendance on his Majesty's person, and fixing them immutably by law during the continuance of his Majesty's indisposition.

Perhaps I should still more completely discharge my mind, if I stated some more detailed view of this subject. First, then, my object is, that all those officers whose more peculiar duty it is to wait on his Majesty—such as the lords and grooms of the bed chamber, the groom of the stole, &c. should be put out of the power both of the Queen and of the Regent—should not be liable to be removed at all during his Majesty's indisposition. The expence of this establishment would be as nothing. State the whole at 16,000l., of which 4,000l. comes back in taxes into the coffers of the state, and what is such a sum compared with that degree of comfort, of tenderness, and compassionate and respectful care, which belongs to such an arrangement?

I confess I should have been inclined to have added to the officers I have named the lord steward, had it not been for what has fallen from an honourable and learned member on the other side, (Mr. Adam.) The details of the departments of the household form a very complicated and abstruse science, with which I do not pretend to be very accurately acquainted. I can therefore only state the application of the principle upon which I would act, so far as I have yet had an opportunity of acquiring information. How far the office of lord steward of the household is in the situation stated by the hon. and learned gent.—or whether it may safely be included among those, which I have already mentioned, and made irremovable, I am not at present able to form a determined opinion. At all events there would, remain the office of lord chamberlain, an office now vacant; that of the master of the horse; and the two golden sticks—offices of pomp and shew, which are necessary to the office of Regent as having the command of the guards, to form the foundation of the Regent's household splendour. The splendour of the throne, as such, ought in my opinion to accompany the royal dignity and be attached to the person charged with the executive power. I confess I think it is infinitely more desirable, that the Regent should exhibit himself to the country, clothed as far as possible in the insignia of his father's authority, than with any new and separate establishment created for his new situation, and to pass away together with it.

The King's lord chamberlain, the King's master of the horse—perhaps also (but of that I feel less confident) the King's lord steward—officers, as they are, not merely of domestic service, but of state, of pomp, and of political power, ought to be the officers of the Regent—and whoever surround his person ought of course to be under his controul. On the other hand whatever inferior officers, even in the departments of these greater officers of state, are near the person of the King, or employed in his immediate service—and generally all those of whatever rank or station, who are objects of the King's personal choice—in short, who are strictly domestic, not state, and not political officers—ought to be fixed permanently and irremoveably around the King, to watch and wait his recovery. The distribution and detail of such a plan may be difficult and troublesome: but we cannot grudge the trouble; and we should surely be able to remove the difficulty. To obtain time for this purpose I must vote for the Amendment.

But the Resolution is liable to still further objections. I cannot consent to the erecting by a vote of one night an independent political influence, which might by possibility be turned against the executive. I am far from thinking that the executive power is in a state, in which it can admit of being diminished: but if it could afford to lose the political influence, now proposed to be transferred from it; if this portion of the power of the executive is to be in a state of abeyance, then it ought to be in a state of abeyance entirely. What I propose would put the offices in question in a state, in which, politically speaking, they could neither do harm nor good. It would render those officers of the household, whose attendance about the person of his Majesty is necessary, an independent body, not transferring the power of removing them to other hands, but making them not removeable. The right of appointing such officers should not remain in an authority co-ordinate with the Regent. If the influence belonging to such appointments does not go with the executive authority, it ought to be provided at least that it should not go against it. And if this be necessary for the power of the Regent, not less necessary is it for the comfort of the Queen. To give to her Majesty great political power and parliamentary influence, would be to change the very essence of her situation; to incumber her with new cares, solicitudes and anxieties. We are not calling her Majesty to an office of power, but delegating to her a tender, a delicate, a painful duty, which will occupy all her mind, and absorb all her attention. It would be an act of distressing generosity; a most mistaken compliment to her Majesty, to burthen her with the distribution of political patronage; and to mix with the sacred trust devolved upon her in the custody of his Majesty's person, another trust of a totally different nature; and one which, constitutionally speaking, we are bound to consider as liable to abuse, not by her Majesty, but by her advisers.

There is another objection, Sir, which I feel to this Resolution, which I do not know if any other gentleman feels in the same manner. My right hon. friend has said, that the period for which he proposes the present plan is short: that till the expiration of that period, it is better to let things remain as they at present stand: and that it will then be necessary to reconsider and revise the whole plan; to retrench the household establishment of his Majesty, and place that of the Regent on a more enlarged and suitable footing. I cannot but feel, that there is something not alone, not soothing, but revolting in the idea of holding out to the country two stages of proceeding; one as the period of hope, the other as the period of despair. I would much rather look to the question once for all, than again return to it hereafter, with the prospect of regarding his Majesty's disorder then as a permanent and incurable affliction. It is not the lapse of a year, that can induce me to legislate for the indisposition of the King, as if it were his death. While there is life there is hope. The arrangements, which his illness makes necessary, are necessary now; what are unnecessary ought not merely to be delayed; but ought not to be made at all. What ought to be made at all, I thought it had been agreed on all hands, ought rather to be made before the Regency is established, and while we have the power in our own hands, than left to the Regent and his advisers to propose hereafter. And surely of all the points, upon which we ought most carefully to avoid creating a necessity, or affording a plea for the Regent's interference, the royal household is the most prominent. It is that, upon which our duty and our feelings, most peremptorily call upon us to see justice done to the King. It is that, which, if it be not the most unsafe, is the most invidious to be left to the Regent. For all these reasons I disapprove of the original Resolution. The Amendment, as reserving for more deliberate consideration the question as to the exact proportions, in which the household might be allotted to the Regent and to her Majesty, I am bound upon my own principle to prefer. I shall therefore give my vote for that Amendment. The Committee on the Bill will be the proper stage, in which the details of the plan, I have now submitted to the Committee, can be discussed. I shall endeavour by that time to digest the opinions and principles, which I have taken the liberty to state, into a shape, in which I may venture to submit them to the House; unless my right hon. friend, or some other gentleman, shall in the mean time suggest some plan for our adoption, that shall appear to me free from the objections, to which the present Resolution is liable.

, agreeing as he did with his right hon. friend, who had just sat down, that the question under consideration lay within a very narrow compass, should not feel it necessary to detain the Committee long at that hour by going into any detailed discussion of it. Indeed, it was not his intention to have addressed the Committee again that night, if it had not been for the call made upon him, from the opposite side of the House, and the wish he felt to correct what appeared to him a misconception in the arguments of his right hon. friend. He should not conceal the very great anxiety which he felt for the success of this Resolution, because in the event of the Amendment being agreed to, he could clearly anticipate from the effect it might have upon the mind of his Majesty, when he should become convalescent, one of the most serious calamities that could befal the country—a relapse into his present unfortunate disease. This he thought it necessary to state, because it accorded with the conviction of his mind, and while he entertained such an opinion, if he omitted to state it, he should be guilty of a breach of duty both to his sovereign, and to the nation, to which the speedy restoration of his Majesty to health was an object of such great and vital importance. There was but one consideration, that could deter him from more fully expressing his feelings to the House upon this subject, and that was the apprehension, that in so doing he might perhaps be out of order; an hon. gent, having, on a former occasion, charged him for having alluded to the feelings of his Majesty, with having been as nearly out of order as possible, without having been altogether disorderly. But, whilst the attention of the Committee was engaged in considering the case of the King, and in devising the means of providing for his convenience and comfort under his unhappy malady, how was it possible to avoid adverting to what was known to have been the nature of his feelings on these particular points? A reference to those feelings was indispensibly necessary in such a discussion, and it appeared to him, therefore, any thing but disorderly, to reason from them with a view to induce the Committee to make such provisions as would be most likely to prove satisfactory to the King upon his reestablishment. Undoubtedly, if the happy event of his Majesty's recovery should be distant; if his malady should be protracted, the sensations of his Majesty, upon finding that changes had taken place in the domestics employed about his person, would not be either so painful or so acute, as they would be, if, after a speedy recovery, he should perceive, that he was surrounded by new objects; that his old domestics were all removed; and the whole frame and constitution of his household inverted. If that, then, was likely to be the case, he should contend, that it was not disorderly to advert to those feelings in order to induce the House to adopt a course which would guard against the possibility of their being excited.

His right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) had argued the question that night, as if the Resolution was fundamentally objectionable upon constitutional principles: yet if he did not misrecollect his right hon. friend's speech on a former evening, his right hon. friend had panegyrised the proceeding of 1788, upon which this Resolution was founded, as a masterpiece of political wisdom. Now, for himself, he must confess, that, he could not conceive how any change of circumstances or difference of times, whether as to a state of war or a state of peace, could make that, which in 1788 was in principle the essence of political wisdom, in 1811 in principle fundamentally wrong and objectionable. But his right hon. friend could not have been present when he made his statement opening this Resolution to the Committee. If he had been present during that statement, his right hon. friend would have been aware of what his speech shewed him to be unacquainted with, namely the declaration made by him in that opening statement—that, if any considerable number of members should appear to be of opinion that the power of removing the officers of the household should be taken from the Queen, and that by his acceding to the wishes in that point he should conciliate their support to the principle of the Resolution generally, he would be disposed, notwithstanding all the objections he felt to such a modification, to agree, with a view to obtain their support, to take that part of the question again into consideration. Had his right hon. friend heard him make that declaration, he was convinced, that he would be of opinion that it would be much better to support some modification to that effect, than to agree to the Amendment now proposed, which would radically pledge the House to a diminution of the establishment more immediately employed about the King's person. If that pledge were once given, his right hon. friend must be fully aware that the only question, which would then remain to be decided, would be, what proportion of that establishment should be left for the personal comfort and convenience of his Majesty. (Hear, hear, hear! from the Opposition benches.) Was he not correct in this statement? Did it not necessarily follow from the words of the Amendment, that some portion of his Majesty's establishment was to be reduced? So, at least, he understood the Amendment, and so he was persuaded it must be understood by every other man, if it had any meaning at all. The Amendment purported to give to the Queen such portion of his Majesty's Household as may be necessary for the due and suitable care of his royal person, and for the maintenance of his state and dignity. Was it to be collected from an Amendment so worded that the whole of the Household was to be given to the Queen? Certainly not, unless it should be contended that a portion was equivalent to the whole. He should, therefore, submit to his right hon. friend, that he must be as much pledged after agreeing to such an Amendment, to accede to a proposition for reducing the establishment to be given to her Majesty, as he could possibly be bound, by agreeing to the Resolution granting the whole, to resist any modification which might afterwards be proposed. The obligation was equally strong either way; but he must insist, that his right hon. friend would not be irrevocably pledged in either case.

When the Bill should be brought in, if it should be the pleasure of the House to controul or curtail any part of the establishment proposed to be given to her Majesty, it would be perfectly competent to the House to make provision in the Bill for that purpose. He hoped, therefore, that his right hon. friend would be convinced there was as much objection, according to the view he had taken of the matter, in adopting the Amendment, as in agreeing to the Resolution. The course followed in 1788, he submitted, was a proceeding exactly in point, in which the question of peace or war could make no difference. If gentlemen, however, would be satisfied by taking from the Queen the power of removing any of the establishment, he should not oppose an Amendment to that effect. At the same time, he must remind the House, that her Majesty would be put in an aukward situation, if they were to give her only a part of the Household, and to impose upon her a responsibility for servants whom she had not the power to controul or to dismiss.

His noble friend under the gallery too, (lord Castlereagh) objected to any new arrangement which would have the effect, as he termed it, of creating a double establishment. But surely his noble friend must be sensible that the arrangement now to be made, was to be temporary. If it was intended to be permanent, he would agree with his noble friend, that it would be unwise and inexpedient to dismember or divide the royal establishment. All that was meant to be done in the present instance was suggested by the contemplation of the probable early recovery of his Majesty, and with such a desirable event in prospect, he was persuaded that his noble friend would agree with him, that, though circumstances may demand some temporary modification of the Household, it was yet an object of considerable importance, that any alteration, which may be necessary, should be as small as possible. His right hon. friend, however, had stated another objection to this temporary arrangement; he did not like that the subject should be again in next session of parliament brought under the consideration of the House; he did not wish to have two periods fixed for parliament to look to, one a period of hope, the other a period of despair. But was this a fair way of stating the question? In submitting his propositions to the Committee he had expressed a hope that the period would be but short when his Majesty would be enabled to resume his functions of royalty, and with that expectation wished to limit a period within which no alteration in the establishment should take place, being aware that his Majesty's feelings would be different if his recovery should be more remote from what they must be should he recover in a short period, and find that within that period, short as it was, parliament had deranged his whole establishment. He entreated the House therefore to consider what the effect would be—what it might be, one way; and what could be the national inconvenience in the other way. A month or six weeks might restore his Majesty to the wishes of his people, and would not every gentleman then regret that any derangement in his Majesty's establishment had taken place? He again repeated that, if desired by his right hon. friend or the House, the power of removal or dismissal, which may be used for political purposes, might be taken away from her Majesty. There must be some inconvenience under any arrangement, and a certain share of influence and power must exist in any case. He should most solemnly protest against any derangement of his Majesty's Household at the present moment.—He dreaded it as likely to produce the greatest calamity.—He might have formed an erroneous opinion on the subject; he trusted in God, if the Amendment proposed was adopted, it might be found he had done so.

explained. His right hon. friend had endeavoured to answer one of his objections to the Resolution; but he had entirely omitted the notice of others, which weighed even more strongly with him in the decision he had come to.

then rose and said:—It was not my intention, Sir, to have taken any share in the debate upon this part of the Resolutions, but to reserve what I had to say till the Report of the Committee should be brought up, and the House should be called upon to pronounce finally upon the propositions of the right hon. gent. But, after the very extraordinary speech of the right hon. gent. (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) who has just sat down in a much fuller House than that, in which, on a former night, he conducted himself in an extraordinary manner, I find it impossible for me to remain silent or refrain from trespassing upon the time and attention of the Committee with a few observations, expressive alike of my indignation and astonishment. That right hon. gent. having broken down all the most important barriers of the constitution; having usurped all the prerogatives of the crown; has now gone a step further, and added to his daring innovations by breaking down all the barriers provided to secure the freedom and independence of debate in this House; he has not hesitated to transgress not alone the rules of discussion in this House, but even those which he laid down for himself, and recommended to the House on opening this subject to parliament. The right hon. gent., indeed, has denied, that his conduct is disorderly, and justified the irregular introduction of the King's name, and the allusion to his Majesty's feelings, upon the ground, that it was impossible otherwise fully to discuss the question under consideration. But I will put it to any member of the Committee, whether upon any other subject, than that immediately before us, such conduct, such allusions, such language would not have been considered highly disorderly? Whether any Chairman of a Committee of this House would not have felt it imperatively his duty to interrupt the irregularity and correct the disorder? Upon a question, such as this, however, it is not easy to draw the precise line of distinction, when a Chairman ought to interfere; and though we are all conscious of the disorder, no man can readily fix upon the particular expressions, which it would be right and proper to have taken down. Can any man entertain a doubt for a moment, that it is inconsistent with the recognised and established rules of debate to appeal against our judgments to our feelings, and to tell us that if we shall vote for an Amendment upon a ministerial Resolution, the effect of that vote will be to throw the royal mind back from a state of convalescent health and mental sanity into a state of deplora- ble derangement? (Hear, hear!) Is this conduct to be endured? Are we then to be driven from the exercise of our right of free debate by the disorderly introduction of such topics, or the influence of such unconstitutional menaces? And how deplorable a picture does the right hon. gent. draw of the royal person, when he represents him as likely on his recovery to be in future liable, from a knowledge of a vote of this House, to have his mind thrown back into unconsciousness and confusion? If insinuations of this description are fit to be made, and shall produce the effect for which they are obviously intended, will not this circumstance give rise to various and serious considerations in the public mind, from which doubts might very naturally spring as to the period and completion of his Majesty's ultimate recovery? I will ask the right hon. gent., whether, at a time when the royal mind is susceptible of those agitations which so much trouble has been taken to describe; when feelings so sensible and strong, as the House has been told might possibly be awakened on a return to reason, would venture to submit to the King's consideration and judgment any of those more momentous subjects, which might press upon the attention of government? Would he, or could he be expected, under any such circumstances to offer to his royal consideration any of those most interesting questions, which the necessities, nay, the salvation of the empire, might render indispensible, but which the right hon. gent. is already bound, by an implied, if not a direct pledge, not to bring forward? (hear, hear, hear!) It is too much for that right hon. gent., when arguing upon the possibility or probability of the speedy recovery of his Majesty, to assert, that the House of Commons by barely doing its duty would retard his amendment or reproduce the disorder.

Much has been said of the splendour of the throne, and the right hon. gent. has even endeavoured to aid his argument by falsely representing those, who differ from him, as wishing to reduce the splendour of the throne. In looking to the Prince on one side, and on the other to the King, the right hon. gent. appears to have forgotten the throne altogether. He seems not to bestow any consideration whatever upon the office itself, and to have exhausted all his attention in looking to the person who may have to exercise the royal authority. But, I will ask, what attempt has been made to diminish the splendour of the throne? Are not all the great officers, the lord chamberlain, the master of the horse, the lord steward, the groom of the stole to remain? And is not the only question at issue now, whether the appointment and controul of these officers, shall be given to the Prince of Wales or to the Queen? The right hon. gent. says, that he is not actuated on this occasion by any thirst of power, but in proposing this Resolution is solely influenced by his anxiety as to the effect which might be produced on the King's mind by the decision of the House of Commons respecting the arrangement of his Household. But, what difference could there possibly be in the effect on the King's mind, whether the controul and patronage of these offices were left to the Queen or given to the Prince of Wales? None whatever. And then when gentlemen contended that such a difference would take place, did their argument not amount to this, that the aversion of his Majesty to his son the Prince of Wales was such and so great, that, if told that his son had nominated to these offices, the unwelcome tidings would drive reason from her seat, and consign the King's mind again to darkness and delusion?

The right hon. gent. and several of his colleagues have talked much of the ungraciousness of the power, which he holds, and of the thankless nature of the task which his duty compels him to perform—he is not actuated by a lust of power, but by a tender and conscientious solicitude for the preservation of the rights of his infirm master. Regal perturbations, Sir, and golden sorrows have long—long ago been described in finer and more pathetic language, than the right hon. gent. has employed; yet, after all we have heard, I am convinced, that there is still lurking in his mind, as there had lurked in the mind of a predecessor of his in a similar situation, (Mr. Pitt) unconsciously no doubt, that very passion of which he denies the existence. I am glad, however, to observe, that whilst I think him influenced by a love of power, he has not suffered his feelings to be blunted by his ambition: for when his hon. and learned friend behind him (Mr. Stephen) so indiscreetly and unconstitutionally contended, that the establishment of a fourth power in the state would be beneficial to its interests, I saw the right hon. gent. hide his face with his hand (a laugh). This position of the hon. and learned gent. is a strange doctrine to be broached in this House; and yet it is not more strange, nor more hostile to the principles of the constitution, than another doctrine which has been held out by the hon. member for Yorkshire (Mr. Wilberforce) whose mind, on this occasion as on almost every other, seems to waver in doubt, unconscious where it ought to rest. That hon. member has ventured to assert in this House this night, that it is fit and right to cripple the executive government in the hands of the Regent, and that it would be useful to endeavour to ascertain to a mathematical nicety, with how little of its constitutional powers, the Regent could discharge the functions of the executive. (Mr. Wilberforce disclaimed the sentiment.) In substance, if not in words, Sir, I re-assert that the hon. member did throw out such an opinion: and even upon observing the surprise it excited in the gentlemen around him at his having asserted so extraordinary a doctrine, the hon. member reverted to his declaration, and added, that he would not retract a single word he had uttered.

With respect to the right hon. gent, opposite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) I must confess, he appears to me to be no less anxious, than doubtful as to the issue of the present question. Notwithstanding the last appeal, which the right hon. gent. has dared most unconstitutionally to make to the feelings of the House, he seems to me extremely apprehensive, lest he should be left in one of those minorities in which he has sometimes found himself, and into which his hon. friend (Mr. Wilberforce) notwithstanding all his wavering and indecision has frequently contributed to plunge him, which clearly establishes the weakness of his administration, though he has not made any peers to support it.

The right hon. gent. I admit, has told us, that he is willing to give up that part of his plan, which goes to give to the Queen the power of removal from the offices of the houshold, provided that by such concession he can detain a few more votes for the general principle of this Resolution. But, I will ask that right hon. gent. what would be the situation in which her Majesty would be placed, if his Resolutions should be agreed to with such an understanding upon it? Certainly not a very respectful or satisfactory situation. The right hon. gent. could never have proposed such a course, had he not forgotten what he himself had written within the last few days in the memorable cor- respondence (his Letter to the Princes) in which he has been engaged. If the Resolution should be agreed to now, it must be communicated to her Majesty by Address, and after acquainting her Majesty by such communication, that the whole controul of the houshold is to be given to her, can it be considered consistent either with propriety, or the respect that is due to the Queen, to introduce provisions into the Bill, when it shall be brought in, for modifying and restricting that power, which we first tell her Majesty she shall have without any limitation whatever? The Resolutions, in my opinion, throughout contain many studied insults to the Prince of Wales, (No! no! no!) But what are we to think of such a proceeding as this with respect to her Majesty? Will it not amount to a deliberate and aggravated insult to her Majesty? Can we possibly hereafter discuss the propriety of restricting those powers which our Address shall apprise the Queen of our intention to grant intire, and upon the assurance of receiving which unmutilated and uncontrouled, her Majesty shall consent to accept the important trust we propose to confide to her, without violating every feeling of delicacy and respect towards her Majesty, without offering to her a cross and studied insult? Will not such conduct, if adopted by us, towards his royal consort, be likely, much more likely to produce that mischievous effect upon the King, with which we have been menaced, than the proceeding, which the right hon. gent. has so strenuously deprecated? I call upon the right hon. gent. to recollect, I desire the Committee to bear in mind, I wish it never to be forgotten, that we have heard this night for the first time of the advantages of creating a fourth estate. The opinion is novel, and has not, it is true, been followed up by any ministerial support; but the doctrine has been broached, and it becomes our duty to see, that, in the arrangements to be made for the disposal of the houshold, no foundation shall be laid for so monstrous an anomaly in the British constitution. It has been said, that the lords of the bedchamber and the other great officers of the houshold may be, and are, independent in a political sense. I do not mean to question the purity of their motives, or the sincerity of their parliamentary conduct, but I am bound to remark that, from whatever cause, it is somewhat strange that persons of this description uniformly vote with any, and every administration. Indeed if they were to act otherwise, it would be an offence punishable by ministerial vengeance. Does not the Committee know that, in the year 1788, that year from which the precedent for the present proceeding is taken, a noble duke was deprived of his commission as colonel of a regiment; that one of the gold sticks was displaced; and that the duke of Queensbury was dismissed from office as a lord of the bedchamber, for having voted on that memorable occasion against the administration of the day? Shall we then consent to separate this political influence, which is the constitutional right of the sovereign, from the person whom we shall appoint to take on him and to exercise the functions of the government? Shall we adopt the suggestion of the learned and hon. gent. (Mr. Stephen) and establish a fourth estate in this realm, lest the King on recovering from his trance should be exposed to the possibility of seeing new faces around him, and different persons in attendance? Why, Sir, if the controul of the houshold shall be given to the Queen, her Majesty will have the power of making this change by the removal of any or all of the officers composing it, and though nothing is farther from my thoughts than to insinuate, that her Majesty will be likely to abuse this power, yet I cannot be persuaded, that the danger of abuse would be greater, in granting the power to the Prince of Wales, than in granting it to the Queen—nor can I even admit that, in the event of the alteration alluded to being produced either by the legitimate exercise or the abuse of that power, the royal mind would be more likely to be materially affected or its faculties destroyed by an act of the son, than by an act of the consort of his Majesty. (Hear! hear! hear!)

A right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Canning) has disclaimed, on his part, any idea of pitiful retrenchment — all considerations of grudging or niggardly economy in the arrangement, which he has recommended, of the houshold establishment. No man, more than myself, can despise the application of any narrow and penurious principles of economy to objects essential to the true dignity of the Sovereign—to the constitutional state of the monarch—to the suitable and necessary lustre of the throne. But we must on these points, as on every other subject of our deliberations, be guided by some sound and definite principles—we must not, in our desire to provide for the splendour of the crown, forget the burdens or lose sight of the interests of the people—we must, when called upon to supply large establishments, if we have a mind to do our duty either to the King or to the country, take care to convince ourselves in the first instance of the necessity that requires and of the expediency that justifies such establishments. It is the duty of parliament when making provisions for large establishments, to take care that they shall be not only useful but be properly applied, and that no expense, however small it may be, shall be incurred for a purpose, that is not only not necessary, but must be mischievous.

And here, Sir, I cannot omit to take notice of one argument of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, adopted by many others on the opposite side, and of the manner in which that argument has been used in these discussions. Every tribute of praise and admiration has been paid to the exalted character and merits of his royal highness the Prince of Wales, by that right hon. gent. and his supporters. They have undoubtedly but done justice to both, in admitting the splendid virtues and the great and eminent qualities of that illustrious personage—in holding up to the respect and veneration of this House and of the country, the high, honourable, constitutional, manly and decorous conduct he has observed during the whole of this difficult and delicate business, which has deservedly entitled him to the admiration and unlimited confidence of the nation, and which has still more clearly illustrated the splendour of that character, which already shone so distinguished and pre-eminent amongst the brightest ornaments of the British name. But, after having thus truly recounted and recognised the transcendent virtues and unblemished and unimpeachable conduct of his Royal Highness, how have they manifested their sense of his exalted merits? How have they proved the sincerity of their praises of those qualities of head and heart, which so long and so conspicuously have assigned to that august Prince a prominent place in the estimation and affection of the public? Why, they no sooner finished their panegyric upon his character, virtues and conduct, than they have turned short round and refused to repose in him that confidence, which even their own representations prove him to be so fully entitled to—they reason thus, that we are not now engaged in providing for a temporary emergency, but in establishing a permanent principle and rule of conduct, which shall be applicable to all similar cases that may hereafter occur; and that, therefore, though every thing in the character of his Royal Highness is calculated to inspire confidence, the restrictions proposed are necessary, not from any suspicion of this Prince, but lest a bad Prince of Wales should hereafter be placed in a similar situation, to whom the parliament and the nation could not confide unrestricted powers with similar confidence. Thus then whilst admitting to their fullest extent the virtues and the claims to confidence of the Prince, they propose to punish him for the supposed vices of some future Prince of Wales—and what is still worse, they are determined to violate the constitution, upon no better grounds than the idle apprehension of imaginary but improbable dangers.

But let us examine how the right hon. gent. has maintained the principle, with which he set out as a preliminary, in the progress of his argument. When opening the matter of these Resolutions to the Committee the right hon. gent. laid it down as a rule to be observed in the discussion of them, that we should dismiss altogether from our contemplation, all consideration of the personal characters of the King and of the Prince of Wales, in any view we might take of the subject. The right hon. gent. has, I admit, observed his own principle so far as relates to the Prince of Wales, for he has undoubtedly dismissed every consideration derived from his virtues and character from the view he has taken of this question—but how has he acted with respect to the other exalted personage whose situation is the foundation of these discussions? On this part of the case the right hon. gent. soon forgot his own precept—soon abandoned the rule which he himself prescribed for our adoption, and instead of abstaining from any personal allusions to his Majesty, has exhausted all his powers of pathos and diction to impress us with a strong sympathy in his Majesty's calamitous situation, by enlarging upon the powerful claims to our commiseration and regard which spring from so direct a reference to his private virtues and personal character. After telling us with such earnestness and so- lemnity that we are now to legislate for a King and not for the King, the right hon. gent. has appealed from our sense of public duty to our individual feelings, and endeavoured to bias our independent judgment upon this great national question by bringing home to our consideration the personal sufferings of a Sovereign endeared by his many virtues to the affections of all his faithful subjects. "Consider," says the right hon, gent. "consider the numerous and exalted virtues of the King—consider the blessings of his long and happy reign—consider all the amiable and beneficent features of his personal character, and then say, whether you would think it right to curtail his rights or to bereave him of his accustomed state and splendour?" Splendour! Good God, what a word to be applied to a person in the unfortunate condition to which his Majesty is reduced! Splendour!!! Why the consolation which alone can be effectual for his Majesty's ease of mind is not to be sought in external splendour, but in internal tranquillity, and unruffled composure. Comfort and peace of mind he may find in the piety and resignation with which in the remisssions of disease, when the hand of the Almighty ceases to be heavy upon him, he may bear the calamitous visitation with which he has been afflicted; but the splendours of royalty and the parade of state would only serve to render more gloomy by contrast all the horrors of his present lamentable situation.

Every thing, that can contribute to his Majesty's convenience, or tend to afford him personal comfort, it is my opinion ought to be provided. And if I could possibly conceive any good effect likely to result from continuing around him in his bed of sickness all the state and splendour of royalty, I should be the last man to object to such an arrangement. But his melancholy condition does not admit of, nay, actually precludes, all external splendour. Comfort—real comfort on the contrary it is fully capable of. No man can doubt how consolatory it must be to his Majesty, so strongly attached as he is known to be to his old and faithful domestics, on the dawn of revived reason, to look about and find himself surrounded with soothing friends—to encounter on each successive glance faces well known to him in happier moments of mental sanity and health. But I will ask, how has this important part of the comforts of his Majesty's unhappy condition been attended to? Has every thing been hitherto done to consult his personal convenience and feelings, by placing in attendance upon him those only, who are personally acceptable to him, and whose bare presence might have the effect of alleviating the sense of any particular regimen or unavoidable restraint? Upon this subject there are certain rumours afloat, which are not creditable to those, be they who they may, who have taken upon themselves the care of his Majesty's person. The day will I trust come when this matter shall be sifted to the bottom. I asked a question upon this subject on a former night, which was rather evaded than answered. I now repeat the question. I call upon the right hon. gent. opposite to tell me, who has had hitherto the care and custody of his Majesty's person? This question may be now evaded as it has been before, but I trust and hope that the House of Commons will not let the matter rest, until the whole transaction shall be developed and exposed to the public.

The right hon. gent. has said that he was willing to give to the Regent all the splendour, which his office would require. He will give the Regent a Lord Chamberlain, a Master of the horse, &c. but as no splendour or state can at present be necessary for the sick King, why not transfer to the Regent these officers from the royal household? But it is said that the King may recover within six weeks after the passing of the Regency Bill; and if so I can the less see any necessity for a separate establishment. This may be called niggardly economy, but it is not less my decided conviction. The office of Lord Chamberlain has become vacant since the indisposition of his Majesty by the death of lord Dartmouth, a nobleman justly esteemed by his Majesty, and by all who had the happiness of knowing him. Why is not this office to be filled up? Why is not power to be given to the Regent to fill that up, as well as any other vacancies which may possibly occur? Is it fit that the Prince Regent should have only an ephemeral evanescent establishment? How are the officers of his Household to be procured? Is it by the day, the week, or the job? (a laugh) According to the plan of the right hon. gent. these officers of the Prince's Household might lie down in state, and on awaking in the morning, find the King restored and all their oc- cupation gone. I must contend, that the just splendour which surrounds the throne, has not been given for the personal gratification of the monarch, and ought not to be considered as his personal property or patrimonial inheritance, but as mainly intended for the benefit of the nation, by giving weight, stability, and splendour to the lustre that surrounds the monarch and his throne. In truth this Resolution goes to provide one establishment for the Prince, and another establishment for the Queen, but leaves none for the regal office and the crown—none for the nation. If you give the Queen one part of the royal authority, why not give her Majesty the whole? The royal authority is indivisible—let it reside somewhere undiminished and entire. Let not the very essence of royalty, which is indivisible, be thus destroyed—let it not be shorn of its beams by such a partition of the splendour, which necessarily belongs to it.

The right hon. gent. has made a pathetic appeal to the feelings of the Committee; it is my wish to appeal only to its judgment. In what I have taken the liberty to submit to your consideration, I have not spoken of an individual King, but of the office itself—of the great principle of our monarchical government. But with respect to this irregular and extraordinary appeal to our feelings, I beg it may be considered, that if such a circumstance as our vote, this night, be sufficient to overturn the structure of his Majesty's mind, whether ministers can ever hereafter offer to his Majesty's consideration, any proposition which may be likely to thwart his inclinations? Suppose now the King were to awake and find all those officers removed, for whom, according to the position of the right hon. gent. he feels such a predilection, what is to be seriously apprehended? For my own part I do not know, who those officers are, to whom his Majesty is so particularly attached. Perhaps the learned master of the royal kitchen (Mr. Kenricke) who was appointed last year, may be one of those, with whose faces the King is familiar, and at whose absence he would be likely to be uneasy and discomposed. I will suppose then, that this learned culinary officer, this legal master of the kitchen may be removed, and will ask whether his removal would be sufficient to throw the royal mind back into derangement. I will suppose even the King, conscious of being surrounded by lawyers from the top to the bottom, from the first lord of the treasury down to this master of the kitchen, to learn that my learned friend (Mr. Leach) last night made an able speech, unanswered and unanswerable, (which I hope by being given soon to the public will earn its own fame,) to which no one of them dared to attempt a refutation, and shall ask whether a removal of every and all of them could have any serious effect upon his Majesty? That speech of my hon. and learned friend is above all praise and eulogy, and having been suffered to remain without a reply, the fair inference would be, if the House did not know to the contrary, that the gentlemen on the opposite bench, though all learned members, are still no lawyers. Upon the whole I must say, that the question for the Committee now to decide on, has been fairly and manfully stated by the right hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Canning.) Though I have been often disappointed in the most sanguine expectation of what might be the vote of this House upon different occasions, yet I am persuaded I have no such disappointment to apprehend in the present instance. But whatever may be my hopes, I am sure that they must be greatly exceeded by the fears and anxieties of the right hon. gent. opposite as to the decision of this night. I shall most cordially therefore vote for the Amendment.

spoke in explanation. He utterly denied that he had recommended the creation of a fourth estate, and was surprised how the hon. gentlemen opposite could have indulged in such an extraordinary misrepresentation of his sentiments. He had only put a case of its possible existence, and imagined a situation in which that portion of power which it was proposed to entrust to the Queen, might be exercised with great satisfaction, both to the Regent and the country. Had he been a friend of that hon. member, he must have clapped both his hands to his face when he heard him give way to such groundless misrepresentation.

also spoke in explanation. He was at a loss to conceive to what part of his speech the hon. gent. had alluded. He had merely said that the appointments of the household were by no means essential to the power of a Recent.

contended that the ex- planation of the learned gent. had even gone to justify the meaning he had affixed to his words.

said, he did not mean to argue, but to state the mode, in which he should vote on the propositions then before the Committee. The original motion as proposed by his right hon. friend, and the Amendment as moved by the noble lord (Gower) concurred in declaring that the extent of the household should not, beyond a time to be limited, be placed in the Queen. They differed in as much as the original motion proposed, that the whole should be vested in the Queen for a time certain, whereas by the Amendment, only such parts of it as were necessary to the due care and dignity of his Majesty's sacred person were to be so entrusted.—The reasons lord Castlereagh had urged on a former occasion must determine his vote in favour of the Amendment, both because he had great objections to having even this branch of the question unnecessarily revived in another session, and also deeming it material to have the Regency Bill, for the sake of precedent, rendered in the first instance as perfect as possible. His objections to a different course, as implying a distrust and consequently a double household, both on the score of public economy, and unconstitutional influence, remained unchanged, but what weighed more than any other consideration in deciding his vote was, that high importance he attached to the state and splendour of the Regent being wholly derived, as his power was, immediately from the crown, and that every thing attendant on his person should recal to the minds of the people the power and state of the King, and not of the Regent.—Lord Castlereagh said, no one would go further than himself to demonstrate his veneration and attachment for the monarch, but viewing the interests of the monarchy as he did, he could not consent to invest the entire of the household, even for the shortest period in the Queen, such an arrangement as he conceived being unconstitutional; in so far as it did not necessarily belong to the due execution of the particular trust, which it was proposed to confide to her Majesty.

rose, amidst loud cries for the question. It appeared to him, that the modification to which his right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acceded, of taking away from the Queen the power of removal, would remove every thing that seemed unconstitutional in the proposed restrictions. It would completely do away the objections founded on the political influence, which the entire management of the household might be supposed to create.

The question being loudly called for from all sides of the House, a division took place, when there appeared

The following Gentlemen, who have voted against Restrictions, were not present at the above division.