expressed his wish to offer a few observations before the Speaker left the chair. After considerable deliberation upon his part, and an attentive consideration of the arguments adduced upon the former occasion by two illustrious gentlemen now no more, it was with the greatest difficulty he could make up his mind on this subject. As to the existence of any right in the Heir Apparent to the office of Regent, it was a proposition to which he could not accede; for a case might be conceived in which the Heir Apparent would be the most unfit person in the world for the situation. In the reign of Henry 2, his own son, the then Heir Apparent, was in actual rebellion against the government; would any one contend that in that case the application of such a doctrine would not produce the worst of consequences? As to the two modes of proceeding by Address or by Bill, he was induced, after much doubt and reflection, to prefer the latter under all the circumstances of the case. If the Prince of Wales were an only son, and if the Queen were not living, he would then have preferred the Address; but situated as things are at present, he thought that the proceeding by Bill was the least objectionable. With respect to limitations upon the power of the Regent, he approved of all those which went to provide for the full and immediate return of his Majesty to the throne, as soon as his health was restored, and he should be in a situation, to undertake the personal exercise of his Royal functions; but at a moment of such importance as the present; when every thing seemed to require that the power of the executive should be as complete as possible, he would not consent to lay further limitations upon the prerogative of the Crown. He was the more inclined to grant these prerogatives in this instance, from the past conduct of the Prince of Wales, who had never been known to assume a power to which he was not entitled, but, on the contrary, had conducted himself with the greatest humility. It was a notorious fact, that he was now only a Colonel in the army, and that at a former period his application for greater rank had been refused. Why it should have been refused was to him unaccountable. He knew of no case, from the days of Henry 3, in which any Prince of Wales was prohibited from great rank in the army. Henry the Fifth, when Prince of Wales, had high command; and Charles the Second, though very young at the time, was intrusted with high command in that situation also. From the view which he had taken of the character of his Royal Highness, the present Prince of Wales, it appeared to him, that the functions and attributes of royalty might with perfect security be trusted in his hands, subject only to such provisions as might be deemed expedient to provide for their resumption by his Majesty, when capable of the fatigues of Government. He concluded with expressing his agreement in the principle of the Bill.

asked, whether it was the intention of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer to refer the Resolutions, upon which the Bill was founded, to the Committee? It appeared to him, that the Bill in some instances differed from those Resolutions, and he thought it of importance that the Committee should have an opportunity of comparing them, and ascertaining that fact. With this view be should move, if the right hon. gent. had no objection, That the Committee should be empowered to take into its consideration the joint Resolutions of the two Houses of Parliament, upon the subject of the Regency.—The motion was agreed to.

The House having resolved itself into a Committee on the Regency Bill, Mr. Lushington in the Chair, the first clauses were immediately agreed to.

On that part of the third clause respecting the signature to be substituted for the Sign-Manual being read,

, as this clause had not made a part of the former Bill, felt it necessary to explain to the Committee the grounds upon which it had been introduced into this. As the former Bill was worded, it was doubtful how the Regent was to sign any instruments to give them validity: whether he was to sign in the King's name, in his own name, or in the King's name by his own. The former Bill, too, required the signature to be in words at length. This clause, then, was introduced for the purpose of removing any doubt on the former head: and as there were many and multifarious documents waiting to be signed, it was thought desirable that the labour of the Regent, in applying the royal signature, should be as much abridged as possible, and consequently the initials G. R. by G. P. R. were substituted for the names at length. It was deemed necessary, too, to provide in the act itself for the validity of such signature, in order that no doubt on the subject should operate upon minds such as Mr. Larpent's, or others. These were the grounds for the introduction of the clause; but he should be happy to attend to any suggestion or amendment which might come from the quarter most interested in the provision.

had no objection to the course pointed out by his right hon. friend, for the reasons he had stated; subject, however, to an understanding, that if any thing should occur afterwards to render any alteration in the clause desirable, the amendment might be made in the report.—The clause was then agreed to, and a small t. after the last R. was ordered to be omitted.

The Fourth Clause, providing for the continuance of persons holding offices or places by appointment or authority from his Majesty in office or place, until the Regent should signify his pleasure to the contrary, being read,

wishing to know why such a clause was introduced?

said, that as it was thought necessary to provide that the appointments made by the Regent should be continued until countermanded, so it appeared right to make a similar provision in the case of these appointments.

had no doubt that the clause was unnecessary. Besides, it would have the effect of making an impression, that the incapacity of the Sovereign would have the same effect as his natural demise upon all offices of that description. The Bill, be thought, would stand better without the clause.

agreed that the clause was unnecessary, and it was then negatived.

The Fifth Clause, providing for the resumption of the personal exercise of the royal authority by his Majesty, being read,

objected to the commencing expressions as too loose and general. The words he noticed were, "When his Majesty shall be restored to such a state of health as to be capable of resuming the personal exercise of the royal authority, and shall have declared his royal will and pleasure thereupon." Those he believed were not exactly the words adopted in 1789; but if they were, the House and the country did not stand in the same situation with respect to his Majesty now as then. If those were the words adopted at that period, undoubtedly the meaning was, that his Majesty would not resume the functions of royalty, until he was restored to a state of mental health. But what was the fact now? They had it in evidence from the physicians, that the functions of government were carried on when his mental health was not restored. He hoped that the Committee would be prevailed upon by this circumstance to adopt words more distinct and definite. He therefore would propose, that the expressions as they now stood, should be omitted for the purpose of introducing the following: "When his Majesty shall be restored to a full state of mental health, so as to be capable of undertaking the personal exercise of the royal authority."

said, that he was not at all convinced by the arguments of the hon. gent. of the necessity of his amendment. He had first said that the words were new; but in that he was mistaken, having probably looked at the printed bill, and not at the bill as it was passed. He believed that it went out of that House with other words in the clause, but was amended by the Lords, in the manner in which he had now introduced it. The period for discussing this question, would, as he apprehended, be that when the clauses were brought forward, directing the circumstances of his Majesty's resumption of the royal authority, and regulating the mode. The hon. gent. had said that the House and the country were placed in a different situation now from that in which it stood in the year 1789. He would deny that proposition; they stood now as they stood then, upon the law and constitution of the country; and that law and constitution provided, that if his Majesty was restored to a state of health, he was King. It was right to prescribe something as to the form in which the notification of his Majesty's recovery should be made known to the public; but when he was restored to health he was King to all intents and purposes. They were precisely in the same situation as in 1789. As to what had been said upon the evidence of the physicians, that evidence might furnish an objection to the conduct of ministers, but could in no way affect the principle of his Majesty's resumption of his prerogatives on recovering from his illness. Such resumption was a matter of course.

said he did not deny that when his Majesty was restored to mental health, he should be restored to his authority; but he would say, that he ought not to be restored to authority until he was restored to health. When he considered the conduct of ministers, from the year 1789 down to the present moment, he saw the necessity that existed for speaking plainly and explicitly upon this occasion. Did the hon. gentleman mean to say, that from the year 1789 down to the present moment, the kingly functions were not exercised when his Majesty was not in a state of mental health? The Bill which he had seen was not the printed bill, not the bill as it was first brought into the House, but the amended one, as it had passed both Houses; and he rather thought the words introduced by the right hon. gentleman were not to be found in it.

The question being then put, the Amendment was negatived without a division.

proposed that the word "resumption" should be substituted in the place of "declaration," in the same clause; but said he only threw it out as a suggestion.

thought it better that the word resumption should be adopted, and wished the right hon. gent. would consider of it.

said, that the words were easily intelligible without any such alteration. The clause stated, "when his Majesty shall be restored to such a state of health, as to be capable of resuming the personal exercise of his royal authority, and shall have declared his royal will and pleasure thereupon, as hereinafter provided." The provision to which this referred, was the calling of a Privy Council by his Majesty, to whom the declaration was to be made, and not the Queen's Council.

doubted whether the clause was worded according to the meaning it was intended to convey. He therefore wished, that the consideration of it should be postponed, that they might have an opportunity of considering it more maturely.

did not think such postponement necessary, especially when it was considered what inconvenience it would occasion.

said, that the clause referred to an authority which was not yet determined on; the Regent's powers were not yet decided, and the introduction of such a clause in such an order, was rather singular, if not improper.

agreed, that the postponement of clauses was attended with great inconvenience, but if the present clause was postponed to another part of the bill, that would be no reason for their doing it in another instance. It was now proposed for the sake of perspicuity. When his Majesty was in a situation to resume his functions, he should do so; but it was premature to introduce a declaration to that effect there, when the clauses prescribing the form of resumption were not yet decided on. Upon these grounds he agreed in the suggestion of postponement.

maintained that great inconvenience would necessarily follow from the postponement of the clause, nor did he see any weight in the arguments advanced in favour of it. The words referred distinctly to a subsequent clause, so that the objection as to the order in which it stood was not conclusive. The bill itself contained four heads of provision, and this came properly under the head of the powers to be given to the Regent.

The Clause was then agreed to.

The Sixth Clause, providing, That all persons holding offices or places under the appointment or authority of the Regent, should continue to hold them, notwithstanding the resumption of his royal functions by his Majesty, until his Majesty should declare his royal pleasure to the contrary, being read,

moved, that the word "Pensions" should be inserted after the word "places," which was agreed to.

suggested the introduction of the words, "her Majesty" in the beginning of the second section of the fifth clause, to correspond with the wording of the latter part of the same section, where the words were actually inserted. The amendment was agreed to.

The Seventh and Eighth Clauses were agreed to.

The Ninth Clause, declaring, "That the said Regent shall be deemed and taken to be a person having and executing an office and place of trust within England, and shall take and subscribe such oaths, and make and subscribe such declaration, and do all such acts as are required by the laws and statutes of that part of the United kingdom called England, to qualify persons to hold offices and places of trust; and to continue in the same in such manner as in and by the said laws and statutes are required, and under such pains, penalties, forfeitures, and disabilities, as are therein and thereby appointed and ordained," being read,

rose and stated, that he considered this as the most objectionable part of the whole Bill. The effect of this clause—an effect which he did not suppose was in the contemplation of the framers of it—would be to make the Resent a responsible officer. If the Regent were, as stated in the clause, to be taken and deemed to be executing an office of trust, he must be equally liable to responsibility for the due discharge of such trust as any individual appointed to execute any trust in the community. It was unnecessary to oblige the Regent to take such oaths and declarations respecting his religious principles, &c. which must be sufficiently well known, as subordinate officers in the state. If the Committee were to agree to this clause, they would, in effect, alter the government. The supreme executive magistrate of this country was responsible only by his advisers; and to make the person filling that exalted station personally responsible, however it might appear a better form of government to theorists, would be to subvert the constitution of this country. He felt it necessary to draw the attention of the Committee to this clause, because he remembered the right hon. gentleman opposite on a former evening adverting to the maxim, "that the King could do no wrong;" and an hon. friend near him immediately adding, that neither King nor Regent could be constitutionally responsible. It would be a monstrous circumstance, if the Regent, on the recovery of his Majesty, were to be liable to an information by his Majesty's Attorney-General for not having properly executed the trust confided to him. The Sovereign held an office of trust, but he was not responsible; the Regent should be placed upon the same conditions in his office. The Committee would, he trusted, excuse him for calling their attention to this clause, upon which he felt so strongly as to the effect it would have in making the Regent personally responsible. He had not received a copy of the Bill till about an hour previous to his entering the House, or he should have made a communication of his sentiments upon this clause to several members. He had felt it his duty to state his opinion, and he left it to the Committee to decide how far it was well-founded.

said, that he had been studious to preserve as much as possible the words adopted in the bill of 1788, not from any partiality to those particular words, but that it might not be said he wished to introduce any alteration. With respect to the clause now objected to, he must say, the same qualification of the Regent for an office of trust was introduced in the 5th of Geo. 2. section 12, and also in the 24th of Geo. 3. The question of responsibility ought to be made the subject of a future particular enactment, but, for the present, he must deny that there was any clause in the bill, as had been stated, which had the monstrous tendency of taking responsibility off the ministers of the Regent. They were considered precisely in the light of the King's ministers, and of course liable to the same responsibility. It might be a question, whether any subject raised to the rank of Regent should be responsible; but the solution of this question certainly did not go to free the ministers of the Regent.

thought the hon. and learned gent. who objected to this clause to be perfectly right. He could not avoid here alluding to an assertion of an hon. and learned gent. opposite, who had said, that in the history of England there was no such name as that of Regent; when in the 12th and in the 19th of Edward III. mention was made of two Regents unrestricted. He stated this to shew that we were not, as had been said, creating a new office.

was of opinion, that there should be a distinct clause concerning the responsibility or irresponsibility of the Regent.

thought the clause was directly different from the Resolutions of the two Houses. In the Resolution it was stated, that the Regent was to have the prerogatives of the King; and they were now by the Bill imposing oaths on him: [here sir Samuel Romilly whispered 'Excise Oaths,'] aye, oaths which placed him in the station of an Exciseman (Hear! Hear!) If they really meant to do this, they had better at once frame a new Address to his Royal Highness, declaring their intention, and stating the terms on which he was to accept the Regency. The Resolution spoke to him in pompous, high sounding terms, and then the Bill went to level him with the lowest office in the land. The Regent was mentioned in the clause merely as "a person;" a phrase which no man could have supposed would have been applied to the Prince of Wales, Heir Apparent to the throne and a Privy Counsellor. He thought it would be well if the right hon. gent. considered, before he introduced this clause dwindling the Regent down to the holder of a mere office of trust.

rose with some warmth. He very little expected, copying (as he had done) the words of the clause from the Bill of 1788, that he should be accused of attempting to degrade the Prince of Wales, or level the office of Regent with that of an exciseman. Surely, no unprejudiced person who heard him could possibly think of branding him with such an imputation. The right hon. gent. had said, that it would be well if he had not introduced oaths into the clause, which went to dwindle down the Regent into the mere holder of an office of trust. It would be well, however, if the right hon. gent. was to read the clause upon which he chose to comment! it would be well, also, if he would form an opinion upon considering what he had read! and it would be well, also, if he did not thus expose himself, by censuring as performed what never was even intended. (Hear! hear!) The clause was introduced into this Bill because it was found in the Bill of 1788, and not with any particular idea of making the Regent an officer of trust. The right hon. gent. had also thought proper to declare that the oath of such an high officer as the Regent ought to be dispensed with. "Oh, says he, it is degrading the Regent;" and then, with an hint from the learned gentleman beside him, "it is making an Exciseman of him." Why, was this candid? Was this fair? Because the low officers of the nation took oaths, was it therefore to be stated that an oath had been imposed upon an higher one merely to degrade him? The King himself took oaths, and it could not possibly be considered as a degradation to the present Prince of Wales, in tendering him an office, to do as our ancestors had always done in similar circumstances. He had no idea whatever of degrading the Regent; he must, at once, disclaim it; and he was sure that every one who had been attentive must see that his disclaimer was well founded (Hear! hear!) If the wording of the clause was supposed to throw any responsibility on the Regent, he was willing to use other words; but he had merely used the form which had been adopted over and over again.

thought all the objections might be remedied by the omission of certain words of the proposed clause; and he was certain, if such words might be omitted out of a clause relating to any Regent at any time to be appointed in this country, they might safely be omitted in this case, where the person proposed to be appointed was the Heir Apparent to the crown, and of full age. The words he should propose to omit were the following—"shall be deemed and taken to be a person having and executing an office and place of trust within England, and—."The omission of those words would do away the inference of responsibility, as applicable to the person of the Regent, which they were calculated, while they remained in the clause, to produce. The right hon. gent. seemed to impute consequence to those words, and even to allege that they must be proper, because they had appeared in a bill introduced in the year 1789. But, perhaps, these words might have escaped observation at that time, in consequence of there not being then in parliament any person possessed of the acuteness, and of the legal and professional knowledge of his hon. and learned friend (sir S. Romilly.)—(Murmurs on the ministerial side of the House.) Gentlemen might murmur; but he did not esteem it a disparagement to any man, to say that it might so happen that there might not be in the House of Commons, at the period to which he alluded, a man of the same acuteness, and of the same general and extensive professional skill and knowledge, as his hon. and learned friend; and that it might be owing to this circumstance that the clause appeared in that bill in the objectionable shape in which it now stood, and in which it had been introduced into the present bill. As to taking the necessary oaths, he was satisfied the Prince of Wales would have no objection, and he (Mr. Ponsonby) should have had the less objection to the introduction of such clause, had the Regent proposed to be appointed been any other than the Heir Apparent. He should propose to omit the words he had before read, by which they would leave the question of responsibility untouched.

. In the time of Henry VI, the act restricting the duke of York did impose the same Restrictions on the Prince of Wales, in case he came to years sufficient to take upon himself the Regency. The right hon. gent. denied this.

. I denied no such thing. I said that there never was an instance in this country where the Regency fell upon a Prince of Wales, of full years, resident in the country. In the time of Henry VI. the Prince of Wales never was Regent; and those restrictions were imposed by his competitor for the crown: a man who involved England many years in blood and desolation. Are those times whence the right hon. gent. wishes to draw a precedent?

. Even with an army at his back, the duke of York was obliged to submit to the Restrictions. This shews the jealousy of our ancestors with respect to our Regents.

. No such oaths as these were introduced into the Regency bill of Henry VI.

said, as he could not distinctly see the sense and meaning of the words proposed to be left out, he was for agreeing to the omission of them.

assured the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he did not mean seriously to impute to him any desire of insulting his royal highness. He had referred to the exciseman's oath, simply with the view of pointing out of what description the proposed oaths were, and which, in his opinion, it was not desirable that the Prince of Wales should be required to take. It was well known that they were become useless; that the one half of those to whom it was already prescribed to take them did not take them; and that an act was passed annually, indemnifying all who omitted to do so. Were they, then, to impose this oath on the Regent without cause, and to tell him that the omission of taking it subjected him to the forfeiture of his office? He could not suffer, however, that any doubt should remain as to the nature of the constitution under which we lived; which must be the case if it was left in uncertainty, whether the Regent was to be a responsible or an irresponsible person. Was not the first Clause in the Bill conclusive on this subject? Did they not commit the administration of the royal authority, during his Majesty's indisposition, to be exercised in his name by the Regent? And was that not a part of the prerogative, the most important in itself and in its consequences to the country, that the King can do no wrong? He was surprised to have heard it questioned, that this should equally apply to any person invested with the royal prerogatives; and he thought it essential that the House should learn the sentiments of the King's law officers on the subject, and if this was their opinion. His own opinion was decided, that the King could do no wrong; he was, of consequence, also of opinion, that some person or other must be responsible for any act which might be done; and, if this Clause now objected to should be struck out, he had no doubt that the responsibility could not be supposed to attach to the Regent, but to those servants who might be employed under him. If others should be of a contrary opinion, according to his view of the Importance of the question, he thought the best thing the Committee could do, would be to postpone the Clause, to give them more time to reflect before they sanctioned a doctrine quite new, and unknown to the constitution.

should have been of opinion with the hon. and learned gent., that the words proposed to be omitted should be left out of the Clause; but when he heard it contended, that, to the whole extent of his acts, the Regent must be held completely irresponsible, he must declare that he was of a very different opinion, and it would give him great uneasiness to see such a doctrine lightly treated in the Committee. He admitted that a chief magistrate could not be punished while he continued in office; and that, as in the case of a governor of a colony, he was irreponsible till the dissolution of his trust. But was it ever heard that he was irresponsible at the time of his leaving his government? So, he was of opinion that a Regent would become responsible for his acts, at the termination of the Regency. That after the sovereign authority was reinvested in his Majesty, the Regent would not be responsible for abuse of his power during the time of his Regency, was what he could not admit.

, encouraged by the dispassionateness of the Committee, hoped he should be excused for offering another mode of amending this Clause, or rather of amending the Bill itself; and that was, by omitting the Clause altogether. He should submit, that that was the only proper mode of getting rid of the important question which it involved. However absurd, indecorous, unfit, or misplaced, it might be in the Bill of 1788, there could be no impropriety in throwing it out of the present one. Immediately preceding this Clause, the oath of office prescribed to the Regent before he entered upon his office was stated; but here it was said, "that he shall take and subscribe such oaths, and make and subscribe such declarations, and do all such acts as are required by the laws and statutes to qualify persons to hold offices and places of trust, under certain pains and penalties, forfeitures, and disabilities." These words coming after the oath of office prescribed, he thought, were totally unnecessary, and he would recommend to introduce in the preceding Clause the words "And to take before his Majesty's most honourable privy council all such oaths, and subscribe all such declarations as are introduced into this Clause;" stating previously the particular oaths and declarations which the Regent shall be required to take and subscribe. What were the particular oaths and declarations required of the Regent did not appear from any of these Clauses. Was it intended that the Prince should take advice upon this subject, in order that he might not incur pains and penalties? Was this a proper way to hold up that public officer to public notice? Surely the Regent ought not to be so dealt with. He was not against introducing any or all of the usual oaths, such as the oath of allegiance, abjuration, affirmation of the King's supremacy, and the declaration of transubstantiation; but only he wished them to be introduced and particularly specified and taken before the Regent assumed the office. Instead of this, only one oath was particularized and prescribed; and he would wish to know whether, if the Prince did omit to take the others, which were only hinted at, they meant that a Qui tam action was to be brought against him by any common informer? or if they meant any thing, did they mean that he was to be disabled, or incur forfeitures; should he by any accident omit taking oaths mentioned in some other acts not specified? He did not impute the mode of wording this Clause to any disrespect to the Regent, for he did not think it was above any person to take oaths. Even the King took oaths that were specified in a statute: but if they were to give to the heir apparent the power of a Regent under restrictions, they ought not to treat him this way, and subject him to forfeiture. He apprehended, therefore that the true way of treating this subject was to tear out this clause, and to specify in the preceding one the particular oaths which ought to be taken. All the oaths incumbent on the King were taken at one and the same time, and previous to his being invested with his office. These being his sentiments of what ought to be done, it would be necessary, in point of form, that he should move "That the whole of this clause be left out."

said, he was perfectly ready to agree to the first Amendment; but he should regret much if they should leave out the whole of a clause which had uniformly pervaded our statutes upon this subject.—If from what had fallen out upon this clause there should exist much doubt upon the subject, he should have no hesitation to postpone its further consideration to another occasion; but he should feel very great reluctance in departing from the principles laid down in former statutes upon similar subjects.

observed, that it would be better first to negative the Amendment, and then propose to leave out such words as related to pains and penalties. When these were struck out, he should propose to postpone the clause, for the purpose of considering whether or not it should substantially stand as it then was, or to adopt the specification of oaths, as suggested by his right hon. and learned friend.

said, he should rather agree to the clause being left out at present, in order that the House might have an opportunity of re-considering it, as what had been said upon the subject of it had had considerable weight upon his mind. It appeared desirable that they should not come to any party decision upon this point, but consider it in a more solemn manner. If they left out this clause, then they must prescribe the oaths to be taken, and these oaths must be such as qualify persons to hold offices in trust. If the Regent be a person who holds an office in trust, there was reason in stating that he should take such oaths as those alluded to; and he thought it would be better that the oaths should be specified; but he should not propose to accompany them with penalties, for the oaths being prescribed would be sufficient.

This Clause and the following were then postponed.

The Tenth Clause fixing the period of the duration of the Limitations and Restrictions being read,

moved, That the first blank be filled up, with the words "first of February, 1812."

said, that if he understood the object of the right hon. gent. the blanks to be filled up were of two kinds, the one fixing a time for the continuance of the Restrictions, and the other a prolongation of that period after the time first fixed should have expired. He begged the right hon. gent. would give the Committee to know how the clause would stand after all the blanks had been filled up?

stated, that agreeably to what he had formerly intimated, he should propose that the Restrictions specified in this clause should continue for the space of a twelvemonth after the 1st day of February next, and therefore the first blank should be filled up with the words "1st February 1812," if Parliament shall be then assembled, and shall have been sitting for "six weeks" immediately previous to the said first of February 1812. This was not for the purpose of giving an addition to the time, but in order to secure the sitting of Parliament six weeks previous to the expiration of twelve months. He had stated his object on this point, and he had no objection to do it again. He had shewn from a reference to what were the durations of his Majesty's former illnesses, and the examinations of the physicians, that the period of twelve months should be given as a reasonable time for his Majesty's recovery; and he trusted that from all these considerations the Committee would not think that period too long. He thought it expedient that six weeks should be secured for Parliament sifting, that they might have an opportunity of giving some consideration to this subject before the expiration of the Limitations, as his Majesty might happen at that very period to be so near a state of recovery, as only to require a little further time to complete his capacity of resuming the reins of government himself.

observed, that it was extremely natural that the right hon. gent. should endeavour to induce the Committee to agree to fill up this clause in the manner he proposed, because that right hon. gent. thought it would be improper to intrust the Regent with the Royal Authority without Restrictions and Limitations; but to those who thought there would be no danger in intrusting the Prince of Wales with the full powers of the crown, this mode of filling up the blanks would not be thought beneficial or advisable. In his apprehension, there was no necessity that the period should expire when Parliament was sitting. Did the right hon. gent. conceive that the Regent was to exercise his authority for the purpose of embarrassing his Majesty's government, or to make his Majesty's resumption of his authority difficult? If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the Prince of Wales capable of such base practices as these, he ought also to consider that it would be wholly out of his power to accomplish it.—For his part he should feel the strongest reluctance in agreeing to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed, because in his judgment, to make Parliament re-consider the subject and deliberate upon it, would be to expose the government in the hands of the Regent to difficulties which he should not describe at this period. Although he felt a very strong indisposition now to enter again into the general argument as to Restrictions, yet he entertained a confidence that the Committee would not impose them for so long a period as was now specified by that right hon. gent. and he should therefore move an Amendment, that after the word "until," down to "the Regent," should be left out, for the purpose of inserting these words—"Expiration of six calendar months from the day of the passing of this Act."—Upon the question being put "That these words stand part of the clause"—

stated, that he agreed with that right hon. gent., that the subject of Restrictions had been already so much discussed, that no novelty could be now introduced upon the subject in debate: but he would state very shortly why the Amendment proposed could not be agreed to. He united with the right hon. gent. also in thinking that those who were against any Restrictions at all, would wish the time to be as short as possible; but those who thought it would be proper to impose Restrictions would be for a longer period: then it followed, that those who had voted for imposing any Restrictions at all, would be for adopting a reasonable period for their continuance. The House had that clause now in a narrower state than when they first adopted it: they had now the opinion of the House of Lords that the Restric- tions should be unqualified, which shewed that the Restrictions should operate in their full force. This could be for no other purpose than that the King should be enabled to resume the government as he left it; and if so, the restrictive clause must be introduced in a manner and upon a principle that would cover this fond and reasonable hope, that his Majesty would be able to resume his functions. As for his own hopes upon this point, he confessed they were much more ardent and sanguine for a shorter period than that which the right hon. gentleman had stated as his opinion upon it. Was it or was it not decent or respectful, or even delicate, he would ask, to run to a mere measure of days, weeks, or months, upon the subject, as to what time it might please God to restore his Majesty from his severe affliction? Were they to adopt the period now suggested, they would fall short of the period to which they had already known his Majesty's calamity to have formerly lasted. They were taking into the account the period that was already passed, namely, nearly three months of his Majesty's indisposition, added to the six months during which his Majesty formerly continued indisposed; but although the physicians were of opinion that the radical strength of his Majesty's constitution was not impaired in consequence of his age, yet he might rather be longer on that account in repelling his calamity than he was twenty-two years ago. Allowing that to be the case, would they not take that circumstance into view, since parliament had thought it proper to impose restrictions. Add to this, they had not yet experienced what effect the establishment of a Regency might produce upon his Majesty's feelings, when by the interference of Providence his health might be re-established. Formerly his Majesty had recovered before he had found his government altered by any legislative provision. He trusted in God that it would have no such effect as to retard his recovery. Upon his Majesty's recovering his mind, still there might be difficulty in comprehending what had been done, and by what means he was to resume his powers; and, indeed, it might reasonably be supposed impossible that those things would not retard his progress, when once reason had re-established itself. Then, if under other circumstances, and without any change in the constitution of his kingdom, they had found his Majesty's dis- order lasted for the period they knew it to have lasted, was it not material that they should allow a more extended period than that which the right hon. gent. proposed? The expiration of six months would bring them to the beginning of August, a period when parliament would not be sitting; although on account of the shortness of the period, there was the greater necessity for parliament being sitting at its expiration. If the limitation had been for three years, as in the former bill, there might not be this necessity. Were the right hon. gent. to propose three months, instead of six, would any, man say that there was no occasion that parliament should be sitting, but that that period should be final? He thought that were it to be for six months, it would be particularly necessary that parliament should be sitting at the expiration; but would it not be most inconvenient to keep parliament sitting in the month of August in expectation of that expiration? Upon the whole, he trusted the Committee, considering all the circumstances attending his Majesty's melancholy disorder, would not consider the period of a twelve-month too long for the continuance of these Restrictions; and that the period of six weeks during the sitting of parliament was absolutely necessary to enable them to determine what ought to be done, according to the circumstances existing at the expiration of the period he proposed.

agreed that much new light could hardly be expected to be now thrown on the subject; but at the same time, when the right hon. gent. had made a warm appeal to the feelings of the Committee, in his usual way, he thought it right again to appeal to its judgment. The right hon. gent. had fallen into his common error of using an argument which proved too much; for if the appointment of a Regent would endanger the King's recovery, this would go to prevent any proceeding upon the subject at all. The right hon. gent. would propose to allow matters to remain quiet while he and his colleagues exercised the Royal powers which they had assumed, without any steps to supply the defect in any other manner. If they took the first step, where were they to stop? The King's recovery might be retarded by their proceedings, and, according to the argument of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they ought to sit still and do nothing. He talked of the two Houses having agreed upon the question of Restriction; why he must know very well that the Restrictions were at first negatived in the House of Lords; and that as to Peerages only carried, at last, in consequence of the exception in the case of Naval and Military affairs having been given up. The right hon. gent, had treated that exception, while the Resolutions remained in the House of Commons, as a point of the most vital importance; but now, when he had failed in carrying it he affected to think lightly of the matter. This reminded him of the fable of the Fox and the Grapes. The right hon. gent had repelled the charge of insulting the Prince of Wales; but what had he been doing that night? He talked of protecting the King; against whom was he to be protected? Against the Prince. Why then it was assumed that the Prince intended to embarrass the government of his father, and to abuse the prerogative entrusted to him in such a way as to retard or prevent his Majesty's recovery. The parliament, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to be sitting at the time when the limitations expired. Why? He (Mr. W.) contended that, if the subject was again to be brought under review, it would expose his Royal Highness to the additional mortification of hearing again of the necessity of these degrading restrictions. Did he think it desirable to have this subject again discussed in parliament? If the period of three months were proposed, the same parliament, said the right hon. gent would probably have to take up the matter again. Did not the right hon. gent. recollect that the Regent would have the power of dissolving the parliament? He trusted that neither he nor his ministers, whoever they might be, would resort to that expedient; but there was a man in the House, who would not scruple to dissolve parliament if it happened not to suit his purpose (hear! hear!) Why, then it would not follow as a matter of necessity that the subject should come before the same parliament. But he talked of the protection afforded to the King by the restriction as to peerages; why did he not extend his restriction to the creation of baronets? His principle would go that length; and though he himself had created baronets in great numbers, yet this power might be turned against the King as well as the creation of peers. The right hon. gent had not convinced him that any restriction was necessary; he could not conceive how protection should be wanted: but if there were to be restrictions at all, it was desirable that their duration should be as short as possible.

observed, that if the Restriction as to Peers had a reference to the time when no hopes could be entertained of his Majesty's recovery, he should consider the longest period proposed as not long enough. If that was the light in which the Restriction as to peerages was regarded, why not pass the Bill without any limitation in point of time? But the precedent of 1789, for a Restriction of three years, had no reference to the duration of his Majesty's illness, but its object was to prevent the House of Peers from obstructing any alteration in the Bill that might be found necessary. He could now more confidently speak on that point, after having had the advantage, which the ministers might also have had, of conversing with a member of the then cabinet, the nearest in blood to the author of that Bill. If then the creation of Peers by the Regent was to be suspended, till all hope of his Majesty's recovery was lost, he said that a year was not the proper period, that no limitation of time at all ought to be fixed, but that the matter should be left to future Parliaments to act as the necessity of the case might require. But he was aware that many felt it to be right that there should be some difference between the case of a devolution of the Royal dignity and that of a Regent created by Act of Parliament; between a demise of the Sovereign and that of a temporary incapacity: and that for a time, therefore, this splendid prerogative of creating peers should be withheld. He had already given it as his opinion that the power ought not to be suspended at all in the present circumstances; but if there was to be a suspension he thought the shortest period the best.—But he was adverse to the longer period, accompanied with the six weeks, on another principle, for then the matter would again become subject to parliamentary investigation. Now he did think that one of the main arguments in favour of the proceeding by Bill was, that the exercise of the royal functions would thus be settled once for all. If the Regent was subjected to the disadvantages of this course of proceeding, he ought also to have the advantages, without having the onus put upon him of contending about the termination of the period of the Restrictions. Such an argument might be held invidious in him and his ministers, and they ought to avoid placing them in such a situation. He objected then to the longer period; but if the Restriction could be supposed to refer to the duration of the King's illness, it ought to extend through the whole of his Majesty's life. The Restriction in 1789 had no such reference, nor ought this to be regarded in that view. He thought it desirable to avoid any future parliamentary investigation, and concluded by declaring his preference of the Amendment, as fixing a shorter period for the duration of the Restriction.

said, that what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, did not shew that the present mode of proceeding militated against the precedent of 1788 itself, but against the view taken of it by one who was at that time occupied in the production of that measure. But he (Mr. B.) thought it necessary to form his opinion on the circumstances of that time. His Majesty was then afflicted with a malady new to his person; and the circumstances were new to the constitution. It was then determined that restrictions should be imposed on the Regent; but the great man then at the head of the government did not introduce any limitation as to time. He left it intirely to Parliament to act under all the circumstances of the case. And it was then observed, that the House would depart from its original intention, if it imposed restrictions, without also specifying a limitation. The reason assigned for this was, that, at a future period, the House of Lords might refuse to give up that which the act had conceded to them unlimitedly, and which was a point greatly desired by them; namely, the preventing an increase of their numbers. It was afterwards stated that some definite term should be appointed, and then three years were mentioned. But no one contended that that time should be the ultimate period: no, it was left to the wisdom of Parliament: and if, at any time, the physicians had come forward, as medical men, and declared that his Majesty's situation did not admit of any hope, Mr. Pitt, without doubt, would have been obliged to have provided for such an occurrence. They had, in the present instance, the experience of former illnesses; and that experience had taught them, that the longest period during which his Majesty had been afflicted by this species of malady, had not exceeded six months. On that principle he thought it right that the limitation should be for at least a year. It had been said, "if a limitation be at all introduced, let it terminate only with his Majesty's life;" but he could see no necessity for such a proceeding, since it was always in the power of Parliament to provide for any emergency. Some members had asserted, that the House exercised this power of imposing restrictions, merely for the purpose of shewing that they possessed such a power; but he thought the assertion extremely absurd. He had always understood, that the true motives which influenced them were, to keep the regal authority entire, so that his Majesty, on his recovery, should find his prerogatives whole and undiminished. The only novelty which he had observed in the speech of an hon. gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) was, his remark relative to the peerage: to place baronets in the ranks of the peerage, he thought so contrary to common sense, that the observation scarcely deserved notice. With respect to any jealousy entertained of the Prince, although much had been spoken on the subject, he had heard no argument proving any such thing: nor did he believe a feeling of the kind existed. He objected to the Amendment for a limitation of six months; because at the expiration of that time it was very unlikely that Parliament would be sitting, and ready to take cognizance of what had been done. In speaking of the term to which the Limitation should extend, it was impossible to point out a time to which some objection might not be applied; but looking at the business in a general point of view, he thought 12 months a very proper period for its termination; particularly as provision had been made for the sitting of Parliament at or about that time.

, in explanation, said, he was very well aware that the rank of a baronet was inferior to that of a peer. It had been said, that restriction on the prerogative of the peerage went to prevent its being made use of for the purpose of procuring Parliamentary influence. And he was sure the right hon. gentleman had too much knowledge of the world not to be perfectly aware, that Parliamentary influence was sometimes purchased by a Baronetcy; nay, he believed, even the rank of Privy Counsellor was at times found a sufficient remuneration for a portion of such influence—

did not conceive the latter remark applied to him as a Privy Coun- sellor, and he hoped the hon. gentleman had not intended to make such an application.

stated, that, at the moment he spoke, it was not in his contemplation that the right hon. gentleman was a Privy Counsellor. He certainly did not intend any personal allusion; the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, was worthy of the honour which had been conferred on him; and his advice, he sincerely believed, would be of great benefit to the council.

wished to make one observation. There was no security against the Regent in this long period of Restriction that might not be attained by the ordinary forms of the House. The right hon. gent had said, that if the Limitation of six months was agreed to, it would expire at a period when parliament would not be sitting, and, that the Prince might then create peers before parliament could determine, whether or not the Restriction ought to be continued. This certainly did convey an improper imputation on the Prince: but the parliament would probably sit for four or five months, and if at the close, any member should think that the Restrictions ought to be continued for a longer period than six months, he might move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend their duration. This would be the best course, if consistent with the forms of the House.

said, that no other bill could be admitted on this subject in the present session, without a special clause in this bill to authorise it. But he begged of the Committee to consider how this proposal clashed with the argument of the right hon. gent under the gallery (Mr. Canning.) The one deprecated all future parliamentary investigation on this subject; the other made a proposal which almost necessarily led to a reconsideration. Was this the way in which they agreed in their opposition to the limitations which he had suggested? So much had been said on the subject of disrespectful conduct towards the Prince, that he must again repeat, it was not constitutional to suppose, that the Restrictions were imposed and aimed against the person of the Prince, but as of necessity on the Regent. What had been proposed by ministers, was proposed on general principles, not at all with the intention of reflecting on the character of the illustrious person. It was unjust and unfair to use the sort of argument which gentlemen on the other side had used.

said, the opinions given by his Majesty's physicians, were distinctly these; that at the end of twelve months they might consider the King's recovery hopeless, and he would then, and not till then, look upon it as a lost case. He did not care who heard him speak, or who doubted what he felt; but he would support his King, although afflicted with insanity—that his crown might be restored to him in safety. He would stand by his sovereign to the last.

The cry of "Question" now became general, and strangers were ordered to withdraw. The House then divided, when there appeared—

On our re-admission into the gallery, we found Mr. Tierney on his legs, inquiring whether it was intended to restrict the Regent from granting an additional step in the peerage, to a person already a peer, as well as from creating new peers?

thought the clause was in conformity with the Resolutions of the two Houses; and he was sure it would not be contended, that the altering the rank of individuals in the upper House would not have the effect of placing that House in a state different from what it was at the period of his Majesty's being attacked by his unfortunate malady. He could not see the slightest necessity for granting such a power, for certainly his incapacity to raise an individual, already a peer, to a higher rank in the peerage, could not annoy the Regent's administration.

, after observing that this prerogative, like all the other powers of the crown, were given in trust only for the general benefit of the people, reminded the right hon. gent that he had on one occasion found it expedient to raise a noble baron (lord Harrowby) to an earldom. Why was this done, but because it was advantageous to the crown to do so? If it was necessary to strengthen the hands of government at one period, the same necessity might recur at another. The right hon. gent might tell them indeed, that "it was thus in the Bill;" but, with his opinions on the whole of the Bill, this was not an argument to which he was disposed to pay much respect.

The Clause was then read and passed.

The 11th Clause, relative to the grant of any Office in Reversion, or of any office, employment, salary, or pension, except those in possession, for the term of the natural life, or during good behaviour, was then read. The blanks, on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were filled up, as in the preceding clause.

said, that no inconvenience could certainly arise from imposing some general restrictions on the gift of sinecures, yet he believed the right hon. gent would hardly say that these were things of which the distribution was personal to the monarch, or that the power of bestowing them existed merely for the purposes of self-gratification to the sovereign. Nothing more strikingly displayed that marked distrust in his royal highness which pervaded the whole measure, than this distinction which it was proposed to draw by the clause then under the consideration of the Committee. The right hon. gent had indeed assumed as the pretext or ground for all his reservations, the probability of the Regent being surrounded by dangerous advisers. For his own part, he could see no reason why any one should suppose the Prince would have any worse advisers than King George 3, had met with. If he should, he feared the country would be in an unfortunate situation. If the right hon. gent meant to argue, that pensions should be done away altogether, let him say so; but he could not agree that the Regent should have all the trouble and responsibility, without any of those supports from the prerogative which were to enable him to contend with the various difficulties of the situation.

said, that as long as the assertions or insinuations respecting any distrust, or any suspicions entertained on the part of the framers of the Bill against his royal highness the Prince of Wales were repeated, so long and so constantly would he continue to deny them. He felt confident that those who used them had no fair end in contemplation, which such means were calculated to attain. He himself was of opinion that his royal highness, under a full consideration of the situation of ministers, and of the arduous duties which they had to perform, could not be inclined to put a harsh construction on the motives by which they were actuated. If, indeed, it were possible that he could be mean enough to wish to recommend himself to the favour of the Prince by studying the modes of ingratiation, the course that appeared to him most eligible with such a view, would be that he was then engaged in pursuing. If he could reconcile it to his mind to act upon such a principle as he had described, he would still persevere in the measures he had proposed, because he felt convinced that the Regent, if employed in searching for a minister on whose firmness and integrity he might rely, could not be bester directed in his choice than to those who had preserved unshaken their fidelity to his father (hear! hear!). If he wanted a faithful servant, where could he look more properly than to those who had done well in a former service (hear! hear!)? This would be the line of conduct to which he would adhere, and in so doing he should act upon the persuasion that the Prince's favour would be his ultimate reward, and that the impression which it must make on a benevolent heart and an enlarged understanding, would be to conciliate esteem, not to inspire aversion.—The observation of the right hon. gent sprang from an argument founded on the Civil List. The revenue of the Civil List was disposable only for the term of the King's natural life. This, therefore, was a direct limitation on the King himself; and was it to be argued that there was any impropriety in imposing temporary exceptions on the authority of the Regent? The principle was here the same; the limitation referred in either case merely to time, and could not be discussed on different grounds. It was true that in the four and a half per cent. provision was made to enable the crown to grant further pensions, but the funds thus appropriated were at present so burdened, as to render it impossible to have recourse to them. And as no aid could at present be derived from that source, he conceived it unnecessary to accede to any alteration in the Clause.

said, that as to the first part of what had fallen from the right hon. gent., he had heard it without surprise. As the right hon. gent. had gone so much on precedent through the whole of the proceeding, he did not wonder that he had looked to precedent for a speech to make. The speech which he had just favoured the House with was the same that Mr. Pitt had made in 1789; and any body might find it in the Parliamentary Register. He could not, however, see any reason why the Regent, acting in behalf of the King, should not have the power equally of granting pensions. The Civil List was limited in its amount by law, and the four and half per cents. were, as the right hon. gent stated, much burdened; but if some of those burthens should fall off; he could not see why the Regent should not have the power of conferring pensions upon them. However the right hon. gent. might flourish away upon his independence, the public would believe that this most flourishing and disinterested gentleman might have something lurking in his mind, which merely aimed at depriving the Prince from giving away any of the good things during his Regency, in order that he might have more to dispose of, if the King should recover. They might think, that when he made such a flourish about standing by his beloved soverign, he really meant the standing up for his beloved self and his beloved colleagues. He thought, however, that those who really stood up for the country, would wish the Regent to have the power of so rewarding services, that meritorious servants of the state should not find themselves deserted in their old age.

wished to know whether the Regent would be permitted to grant any pensions on the Irish List?

answered, No.

then stated, that the law expressly said not more than 1200l. should be granted on the Irish Pension List in one year. Now he wished to know, if no pensions were granted for a twelve-month, supposing his Majesty's illness to continue so long, would the King have the power, in the ensuing year, to grant 2400l. on the Irish Pension List?

answered, that his Majesty, in that event, would, no doubt, exercise a proper discretion.

The blanks in the Clause before the Committee were then filled up according to the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the Clause requiring the residence of the Regent to be "in Great Britain" an Amendment was agreed to, on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, substituting the words "in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

proceeded to call the attention of the Committee to the Clause respecting the Household. It having been impossible exactly to collect the sentiments of the House upon this subject, he had drawn the clause in such a manner as to leave it open for the intro- duction of any Amendments that the present Committee might think expedient. Having first quoted the words of the Resolution, he had stated that the general power over the Household should be vested in the Queen with certain exceptions to be afterwards introduced. This statement was accompanied with a proviso that the officers to be left under the controul of her Majesty should not be removable; and that of those officers not employed about the person of his Majesty, no re-appointment should take place in case of death. He meant to except from her Majesty's appointment the office of Lord Chamberlain of his Majesty's Household, which was now vacant; but as it was necessary that there should be some officer at the head of the department which had been hitherto under the Lord Chamberlain, he meant to propose that the Vice-chamberlain should execute the duties of the Chamberlain. It was his intention also to propose, to except from her Majesty's appointment the Gentlemen and Grooms of his Majesty's Bed-chamber; and also the Captain of the Yeomen of his Majesty's guard, and the Captain of the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners. He excepted the two latter, because he conceived that these officers were necessary only to his Majesty's personal appearance in State; and that, therefore, the appointment and controul of them might, with great propriety, be transferred to the Regent. The Equerries, he thought, might be left as they were; but if any vacancies occurred, that they should not be filled up. He should be induced also to introduce into the clause the same limitation of time, namely, twelve months, that had been introduced into the other clauses. It certainly would not be right in providing for a period, which there was every reason to expect might be shorter than three months, to limit the portion of the Household to be placed under her Majesty's controul so narrowly as it might be expedient to limit it, were that period to be of a more extended nature. With this view he should propose that her Majesty should have the power of appointing the Vice Chamberlain; that the Steward of the Household should be under the controul of her Majesty, who should not have the power of removing that officer, but of re-appointing to the office in the event of his death; that the Master of the Horse and the Groom of the Stole should be also under the controul of her Majesty though not removable by her, and that her Majesty should have the power of re-appointing to those offices in the event of the death of the present possessors. These officers were at the head of large departments of the Household, and if it was intended that her Majesty should have the controul over the domestic household, it was necessary that these great officers should be placed under her controul. A right hon. friend of his (Mr. Canning) had intimated on a former night, that, in his opinion these higher offices might with propriety be transferred to the Regent. But it was evident that unless a minute detail was entered into by which, for a short period perhaps, the present arrangement of the Household would be broken in upon, and a new arrangement substituted; the various departments must be left in a most defective state, if deprived of the great officers by whom they were at present superintended. With respect to the degree of state that would be necessary for his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, as Regent, he was sure that his right hon. friend, although he did not under-rate economy, would despise that sort of economy which forbad to grant the means of surrounding the Regent for twelve months only with a suitable establishment. The non-appointment of a Lord Chamberlain of his Majesty's Household would afford a fund for the appointment of a Lord Chamberlain for the Regent. He would also propose to give the Regent a Master of the Horse, a Steward of the Household, five or six Lords of the Bed-chamber, and twice as many Gentlemen of the Bed-chamber; the salaries of all which officers added together would not amount (exclusively of the salary of the Lord Chamberlain) to a sum exceeding 10 or 12,000l. Now really, that appeared to him to be a consideration so comparatively unimportant, that he did not conceive that the Committee would hesitate a moment in appropriating such a sum to the purposes which he had described. He concluded by moving, That the blanks in the clause should be filled up in conformity to the propositions which he had just submitted to the Committee.

contended, that nothing could be more opposite to the sense of the former Committee, by whom the Resolution respecting the Household was passed, than the plan of the right hon. gent. by which every office of importance in the Household was to be transferred to her Majesty, with the exception of those of Captain of the Yeomen of his Majesty's Guard, and Captain of the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners. Among others, even the office of Master of the King's Buck Hounds was so transferred. All this was in direct contradiction to the sense of the former Committee, which, in his opinion, was, that all those officers which were necessary to the public and splendid exercise of the kingly power, should be placed at the disposal of the Regent, and that all those officers who were necessary to the comfort and accommodation of his Majesty, should be placed at the disposal of the Queen. A course directly the reverse of that suggested by the right hon. gent. ought to have been proposed: instead of vesting the power over the Household generally in her Majesty, and excepting for the Regent the few offices which the right hon. gent. had excepted; the general authority ought to have been vested in the Regent, and the necessary exceptions made in favour of the Queen. In his opinion, the Groom of the Stole was one of the officers who ought to be placed under the controul of the Queen, and who indeed might stand at the head of her Majesty's Household establishment. He would add a certain number of the Lords and Grooms of the Bed-chamber; he would add the Equerries; he would add the inferior-officers who were necessarily attendant on the person of his Majesty during his residence in any of his palaces; and when he had done all this, he should think that he had fairly excuted the intentions of the Committee by which the Resolution on this subject was passed. Of what avail was the Master of the Horse, or the Lord Steward of the Household, or the Lord Chamberlain to his Majesty in his present situation. Yet the right hon. gent. was desirous, that by the deprivation of these officers, the Regent should be dispossessed of all that pomp and splendour, which the constitution contemplated as necessary for the execution of the regal functions, and for the maintenance of the dignity of the throne. His Majesty's indisposition prevented him from appearing in public—from meeting his Parliament—from holding a court—from receiving foreign, ambassadors—all these royal functions must be performed by his Majesty's representative, the Regent, and he ought to be enabled to perform them with suitable dignity. What was the opinion of the people on this subject? As far as it had been expressed, in the Petition of the city of London; in the Petition of the town of Nottingham, and in every other Petition that had been presented—it declared that the kingly power ought to be conferred on the Regent, unfettered by any restriction, or limitation, or diminution whatever. He objected to that part of the clause which precluded her Majesty from removing any of the officers which might be left under her controul; contending that such a prohibition would not carry into effect the intention of Parliament, in giving her Majesty authority over those officers. The Amendment which he should propose to the proposition of the right hon. gent. would be in substance as fellows:—"That a portion of his Majesty's Household shall be placed under the controul of her Majesty, viz. the Groom of the Stole, the Master of the Horse, the Keeper of the Privy Purse, such Lords and Gentlemen Of the Bedchamber as her Majesty may please to select, his Majesty's Equerries, and all other officers as may be personally attendant upon his Majesty in the palace in which he is actually resident.—That the Groom of the Stole shall have jurisdiction and authority over all such officers, similar to the jurisdiction and authority that might have been lawfully exercised over them by the late Lord Chamberlain, and that may be lawfully exercised over them at present by the Steward of his Majesty's Household and the Master of the Horse. That the Groom of the Stole shall provide every thing that may be necessary for his Majesty during his indisposition; and that, for that purpose, he shall have money appropriated to his use, as has been heretofore done to the use of the Lord Chamberlain, the Steward of his Majesty's Household, and the Master of the Horse."—Such a plan appeared to him to be perfectly plain and simple, and to carry the principle of the Resolution of the former Committee into exact execution. The right hon. gent. might perhaps again attempt to appeal to the passions of the House with respect to the feelings of his Majesty, when he should awaken from his trance, and find that he had been deprived by the present Parliament of that, of which the Parliament of 1789 did not mean to deprive him. If he conceived that such would be the feelings of his Majesty, he should be as reluctant as the right hon. gent. to ex- cite such feelings; but he was incapable of understanding how a man arrived at rationality should be distressed at finding that Parliament had bestowed on his heir apparent, that authority which the constitution considered to be inseparable from the royal office; when he found also that the same Parliament had made careful provision for his immediate resumption of power on his restoration to health. Never would he believe that his Majesty entertained such a bad opinion of his faithful Commons as to conceive that in what they did, they had disregarded his rights; nor could he believe it possible, that should his Majesty happily recover, the contemplation of the proceedings of Parliament would again plunge him into the melancholy situation in which he was at present.

spoke to the following effect: Sir, it may appear somewhat singular that professing, as we all do, and I have no doubt truly, to come to the consideration of this most delicate and important subject with feelings exactly similar, we should nevertheless arrive at conclusions so widely different. I certainly have no right to be much surprised, that the views of my right hon. friend, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and those taken by the right hon. gent. who has just sat down, (Mr. Ponsonby) upon the question now under the consideration of the Committee, should not exactly correspond with each other, when I find that I cannot myself entirely concur with either. I trust, however, that I shall not be considered as unnecessarily objecting to the original motion of my right hon. friend, or as undervaluing the amendment of the right hon. gent., if I shall take the liberty of submitting, more in detail than I have hitherto done, my sentiments, differing in many respects from both their propositions, with respect to the arrangement and distribution of his Majesty's household. To find objections to any plan that can be proposed on a subject so intricate, and involving considerations at once so new and so interesting, is easy. I am far from presuming to think, that I shall myself be more fortunate than those, who have preceded me, in suggesting any thing, to which no objection is to be made. But having once stated my inability to agree in any thing, that has yet been proposed. I think, I owe it to myself, to my right hon. friend, and to the right hon. gent. opposite, to lay fairly before the Committee my own views of the subject in the best shape, to which I have been able to reduce them; and to prove that I, at least, do not object captiously to all that is offered by others, without having framed, in my own mind, something that appears to me, at least, to approximate more nearly to the plan which we ought to adopt. In the first place, then, there are certain principles which appear to be admitted on all sides. The first is that, during the lamented illness of his Majesty, every thing should be done, not only to denote the tender care and solicitude of his subjects for his situation, and to afford to his Majesty every possible personal comfort and convenience, but to surround him, at the same time, with all the dignity and splendour, of which his melancholy state is susceptible; to mark, amidst the sufferings of mortality, that the sufferer is still our King. Another principle, which I conceive to be universally admitted, is, that whatever of fair, constitutional, political influence can, without trenching upon the comfort or impairing the dignity of the King, be transferred to him, by whom the executive authority is to be exercised during his Majesty's incapacity, ought to be lodged in the Regent's hands.—These are the two leading principles, upon which I conceive that we are all agreed; but here our diversity of opinion begins. To these admitted principles I am inclined to add another, which my right hon. friend appears to have in part adopted, but not to the extent to which I wish to carry it, that whatever portion of political influence connected with the King's household cannot (for whatever reason) be transferred to the Regent, ought rather to be left altogether in abeyance, than exercised by any other individual. On this principle, my right hon. friend has consented to strike out the power of "removal," which, by his first project, her Majesty the Queen was to have possessed over all the officers of the household; and to make the lords of the bed-chamber and others irremoveable during the continuance of his Majesty's illness: whether in this instance, doing me the honour to adopt the suggestion which I took the liberty of throwing out, when last this subject was under consideration; or convinced of the propriety of the change upon his own reflection on his original plan, is, in the result, wholly immaterial. I equally admit the alteration to be a great improvement in that plan, and to do away much of my objec- tion to it,—much; but not all: for the detail of his distribution of the household between the Regent and the Queen, appears to me liable to great objection; and further I object mainly to that main feature of his plan, by which it is made temporary and reviseable; conceiving that, whatever settlement we make, we ought to take this opportunity of fixing it once for all on a just and satisfactory basis. I agree with my right hon. friend, that no considerations of pitiful œconomy should prevail with us, when weighed against considerations of so much greater importance, as many of those, which belong to the present question. But I cannot equally concur in the proposition, that the Regent should have a new and separate establishment altogether unconnected with that of his Majesty. It is my opinion, on grounds not of œconomy, but of propriety, that the Regent should rather appear in the splendour of his father, than with an independent establishment of his own. I confess, however, that this part of the subject is not without great difficulties. I am ready to admit, that I have not found it an easy task to reduce my own view of the question to any thing like a satisfactory shape; and I am not much surprised, that the diversity of the views, of which the subject is susceptible, should have led to various and opposite projects of modification. — It is clear, I think, that, if the care of his Majesty's person shall be confided to the Queen, (and upon that point we are perfectly, unanimous,) her Majesty ought not to be without some controul over the household;—on the other hand it appears to me neither right nor necessary to embarrass her Majesty with that species of controul, to which considerable political power attaches. The Queen ought to possess all that influence in the household, which may be essential for enabling her Majesty to discharge effectually the sacred trust committed to her:—but for this purpose I do not think, that her power need extend to those great officers, whose situations partake more of a political than of a domestic nature; and whose duties do not call them to a personal attendance about the King. Such officers should, in my opinion, belong to the Regent, as part of the state of the crown, whose functions are devolved upon him.—Upon these grounds it is, that in the amendment, which I have to submit to the Committee, I propose that the Lord Chamberlain and the Master of the Horse, to whom after the best consideration that I have been able to give the subject, I shall also add the Lord Steward of the Household, shall, by being placed at the disposal of the Regent, make the foundation of his representative state. I should never have thought of offering such a proposition, if I were not fully satisfied that the sacred and important trust, which is to be confided to the Queen, may be fully and perfectly administered by placing the remainder of the household, comprehending all the persons, whose attendance is necessary for the personal comfort and convenience of his Majesty, including all those in the departments of the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse, under the controul of the Queen. This would ensure a due respect to the partialities, which the Sovereign may entertain towards any of the domestics more immediately employed about his person—and when his Majesty shall happily awake from his "trance of reason," he would find himself still surrounded by the same attendants, to whom he had been accustomed. If such a distinction as I have described can be drawn between the part of the household, necessary to be given to the Queen, and that, which may without inconvenience be left at the disposal of the Regent, it seems to me incumbent upon us to draw it now, rather than leave so delicate a partition to be made hereafter at the suggestion of the Regent. With this view, therefore, I submit the Committee an Amendment to the proposition of my right hon. friend, which appears to me to define this partition more correctly than that of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Ponsonby) to which I feel many objections, but feel none more strongly than that it goes to diminish in too great a degree the portion of the household to be left under the controul of the Queen, for the personal comfort and convenience of his Majesty. In the first place then I would propose, that, after the words "during the continuance of his Majesty's indisposition," the following words be inserted,—"And that the Master of the Robes to his Majesty, the Keeper of his Majesty's Privy Purse, the Groom of the Stole, the Gentlemen and Grooms of the Bedchamber, his Majesty's Equerries, and generally all officers in the several departments of the Lord Steward of his Majesty's Household, the Lord Chamberlain of his Majesty's Household, and the Master of the Horse, whose attendance is or shall be deemed by her Majesty the Queen to be necessary for enabling her Majesty to discharge the sacred trust by this act committed to her Majesty, shall be under the direction and controul of her Majesty, and shall give such attendance, either at the place of his Majesty's royal residence, or elsewhere, as her Majesty may think fit to require."—In this list I had inserted the offices of the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, and of the Band of Gentlemen Pensioners: but as I find my right hon. friend gives them up as untenable, I have no hopes of being able to retain them, and therefore I strike them out.—I conceive, Sir, that the officers who are named in the list, which I have just read, are more immediately necessary to the personal convenience of his Majesty, in consequence of their constant attendance near his person, than any other officers of the household. I propose to place them intirely at the disposal of the Queen, as to the mode, the manner, the time and place of their attendance. When I state that this attendance should be liable to be commanded "elsewhere," that is at any other place, than that of his Majesty's royal residence, as well as at the place of that residence, I have in view the continuance of that communication, which is now daily made to the public of the state of his Majesty's health. The Bill I see provides for a statement to be made public every three months in the gazette. But I do not think that sufficient. I do not think it altogether respectful to his Majesty. I think there ought to be means of access afforded to all his Majesty's subjects, at stated and not distant intervals, I should say once a week at the least, where they may learn tidings of their Sovereign's situation, from some competent and satisfactory authority. It would be unseemly, that this custom should be discontinued.—In order to render the controul necessary to be thus vested in the Queen as innoxious, and as little liable to be converted to purposes of political influence as possible, my Amendment proceeds to enact, that the officers to be thus placed under the controul of her Majesty, shall be exempted generally from removal from office; and that in case of vacancy in any of these offices by death or resignation, her Majesty is not to have the power of filling it up; with a particular exception, however, in the cases of the Groom of the Stole, and of the Keeper of his Majesty's Privy Purse: of the latter, because the nature of his functions is such, as not to admit of their suspension, and being intirely of the private and personal service of his Majesty, and not in the smallest degree connected with political objects, the filling up that office may most probably be left to the nomination of the Queen. The Groom of the Stole, I had, not so much on my own opinion, as to fall in with the proposition of the right hon. gent. opposite, who seems to have framed his Amendment on the notion, that the Groom of the Stole ought to be at the head of the whole of that portion of the Household, which is to be left to the management of the Queen, and to controul and regulate it for her Majesty. If that be so, the office must be filled up, should it fall vacant; and can only be filled up by her Majesty's nomination. The clause would run thus;—"And that it shall not be lawful, during the continuance of this Act, to remove from their offices the said Master of the Robes, Keeper of the Privy Purse, or Groom of the Stole, or any of the said Gentlemen or Grooms of his Majesty's Bedchamber, or of his Majesty's Equerries, except upon an Address of parliament, or upon a representation from her Majesty the Queen, under her Majesty's hand and seal; and that no vacancy arising in any of the said offices, whether by such removal as aforesaid, or by death or resignation, shall be supplied or filled up, or any appointment or nomination made to supply any such vacancy; excepting only in the case of the Groom of the Stole, or of the Keeper of his Majesty's Privy Purse, in either of which offices, if a vacancy shall arise, such vacancies shall be supplied and filled up by the appointment and nomination of her Majesty."—It seemed expedient, when providing generally against the removal of these officers during the term of his Majesty's illness, to take care at the same time, that they shall not be withdrawn from animadversion in case of neglect or omission of duty, or from the possibility of dismissal for misconduct. With respect to the higher officers, the course pointed out for effecting their removal in case of delinquency is, in one alternative, similar to that provided in the like case with respect to the King's judges or other officers holding situations "quamdiu se bene gesserint:"—in whom the possibility of an abuse of trust is supposed by the wholesome jealousy of the constitution. It is no want of respect for those noble persons, that I would thus provide a check upon any possible, though most improbable misconduct on their part, at a time when I am proposing to exempt them from liability to discretionary removal. The same check to which the judges of the land are amenable, cannot be considered as rigorous when applied to the highest officers of his Majesty's Household. The other mode of removal, that of a representation from the Queen to the Regent, is provided to meet other possible cases of a sort not grave enough for the cognisance of parliament: but in this mode by lodging the right of representation in the Queen, and the right of acting upon it in the Regent, and giving to neither the right of appointment to the vacancy, while on the one hand every provision is made against misbehaviour by leaving this limited and regulated power of removal, on the other every security is taken against a capricious exercise of that power.—As to the inferior officers of the household in the departments of the Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, and Master of the Horse, whom I would place under the direction and controul of her Majesty, I propose, that they shall not, during their continuance under such direction and controul, be answerable also to the controul, of those great officers, or liable to be removed by them at their pleasure as in ordinary times:—but that they shall be removeable only on the representation or with the concurrence of the Queen, and that her Majesty's sanction shall be necessary to give validity to any new appointment in these departments. Upon this point I offer the following clause in my amendment; "And that with respect to the officers or others in the departments of the Lord Steward of his Majesty's Household, the Lord Chamberlain of his Majesty's Household, and the Master of the Horse, whose nomination, appointment, and removal, have heretofore usually been made by the said Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Horse, and whose attendance is, or shall be deemed by her Majesty the Queen to be necessary for the purpose aforesaid, it shall not be lawful during the continuance of this Act, for the said Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, or Master of the Horse, respectively, to remove any such persons from their said offices; excepting only upon a representation from her Majesty the Queen, or with her Majes- ty's previous concurrence and approbation, and under her Majesty's hand and seal; nor to supply and fill up any such office, vacant by such removal, or by death or resignation, without her Majesty's previous concurrence and approbation; and that no appointment or nomination to any such vacancy shall be valid, unless so approved by her Majesty."—I do not mean, however, to extend the operation of this clause to such offices in these several departments, as are not connected with the personal service of his Majesty. There are many situations in the Lord Chamberlain's department particularly, the holders of which have duties totally distinct from any thing that relates to the attendance upon his Majesty's person, or to the service of his household,—Secretaries—Clerks, and others over whom the head of the department must necessarily preserve his controul, being responsible for their conduct in matters of business and (in some cases) of pecuniary trust. With respect to them I would provide as follows: "Provided nevertheless that nothing in this Act shall extend or be construed to extend to prevent the said Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, Master of the Horse, from removing from, and nominating and appointing to any such offices in their respective departments, as are not, or shall not be deemed by her Majesty the Queen to be connected with the purposes of the trust by this act committed to her Majesty; but the said Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, and Master of the Horse, respectively, shall, and they are hereby required and directed to notify to her Majesty the Queen, in such manner as her Majesty may direct, any such intended removal or appointment, in their respective departments; and, upon receipt of a certificate from her Majesty, that such removal or appointment is not likely to be attended with any inconvenience to her Majesty, in the execution of the trust committed to her Majesty by this act, it shall be lawful for the said Lord Steward, Lord Chamberlain, or Master of the Horse, respectively, to make such removal or appointment in the same manner as heretofore: any thing in this act to the contrary notwithstanding."—I have now, Sir, submitted to the Committee the substance of the Amendments which, it is my intention to propose. I am Confident, that no hon. gent. will feel, that by this arrangement any offices will he vested in the Queen or subjected to her controul, which would give to her Majesty any dangerous political influence in the State. It will, I trust, be equally clear on the other hand, that, with the portion of the household thus to be placed at the disposal of the Queen, there will be no deficiency of establishment for the comfort and dignity of the royal person and state of the Sovereign: while, at the same time, the transferring to the Regent the three great officers at the head of the several departments of the household, in addition to those whom my right hon. friend proposes to transfer to him, a sufficient foundation would be laid for that state and splendour, in which the representative of the monarchy ought to appear;—a splendour and state the more suitable, as they are, like his authority, not separate to himself, but derived immediately from his father.—Of the two propositions, which have already been submitted to the House, if I were obliged to choose between them, I confess, I incline more to that of my right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) than to that proposed by the right hon. gent. on the other side, (Mr. Ponsonby.) I feel, however, a very great objection to leaving the office of Lord Chamberlain vacant, as proposed by my right hon. friend. It is clear, that the Regent must have an officer of that description. By omitting to fill up the existing vacancy, therefore, no saving is to be expected in point of economy; and in a constitutional point of view, as I have already observed, it appears to me far more desirable, that the Regent, who is to possess not a substantive but a representative power, should be attended by the King's Lord Chamberlain, than that a new office should be created for his service.—But I have another and more insuperable objection to my right hon. friend's plan; and that is, its being professedly calculated for revisal and alteration at the end of a certain period of time. I have already said, that I dislike (I know not whether it be a fanciful and unseasonable dislike only) the dividing the King's illness into two periods, the one of hope and the other of despair. Would to God, that we could have avoided the necessity of these discussions altogether—or that we might, even yet, have no occasion to complete the provisions, which we are considering! But, if we must complete them, I could wish it to be done, once for all, for the duration of the Regency. I would not studiously lay the foundation of future debates and discussions. I would not impose upon the Regent the necessity of himself proposing an alteration in the terms on which he holds his power. I have stated this argument, and feel it strongly with respect to the Restrictions. But I feel it infinitely more strongly with respect to the arrangement of the Household. It has been confessedly a matter of no small difficulty for his Majesty's ministers, and certainly no less so for others, who have endeavoured to digest their opinions upon this subject, to hit upon any mode of proceeding, which would be likely to meet all the different considerations growing out of the exigency of the occasion. I appeal then to the good sense of the Committee whether a much greater difficulty will not be imposed upon the Regent and his ministers, if they shall have all these points to settle and all these interests to adjust, in the distribution of the Household, which are proposed to be left undecided by this Committee? We may now decide impartially between conflicting claims: but the Regent once established, the task of his ministers, whoever they may be, will be very difficult, and the conduct of parliament itself much embarrassed. It surely will be no auspicious opening of a hew session, for the Regent to call upon us for an augmentation of his state at the expence of his father's Household as now established, in consideration of the King's protracted indisposition and the consequent hopelessness of his recovery. Yet this is what we create for him the necessity of doing, by adopting the proposition of my right hon. friend. Do not let my right hon. friend suppose, that I object to the extent of his arrangement for the King, provided it be intended by him to be so settled once for all. Let the provision for the personal comfort and convenience of our Sovereign be as ample as possible—let it be even still more ample than that proposed by my right hon. friend—but if it be a principle that the Regent, exercising a borrowed power, should also shine with the borrowed lustre of his Father's Majesty, let that precise portion of the splendour of the royal Household, which may be thought necessary for this purpose, be allotted to him now.—Let him not be under the invidious necessity of himself calling upon parliament for a new partition hereafter. Having thus, Sir, taken the liberty of explaining the grounds of my opinions in a detail, which I am afraid must have been tiresome to the Committee, I have only to add that I shall vote for omitting the words of my right hon. friend's motion, for the sake of obtaining an opportunity to submit my Amendment to their decision.

concurred with the right hon. gent. who had just spoken, that whatever might be the difficulty of the question, it ought to be disposed of before the Regent assumed the government. He did not conceive that the controul proposed to be given to her Majesty over those officers who were to be allotted to her, was sufficient. Charged with such a delicate trust, her Majesty ought to be put in possession of all the means necessary to enable her to execute it. It was not enough to provide that the Officers under her controul should be removable on a representation to the Regent. Many cases might occur in which an Officer might render himself sufficiently obnoxious without affording grounds for a formal charge. He was, therefore, decidedly of opinion, that whatever portion of the Household might be appropriated to the Queen, her Majesty should enjoy as absolute a controul over it as the King would. He objected also to the proposition of his right hon. friend, that some of the Officers of the Household should not be removable by any authority. If the malady with which his Majesty was at present afflicted had occurred soon after he ascended the throne, had parliament at that period acceded to such a proposition as that made by his right hon. friend, and had his Majesty's malady continued during his life, those officers, among whom were twenty-two Peers and members of parliament, would have continued in office for that long period, and by attaching themselves to a political party, might have possessed a very undue influence. He disapproved strongly of any special Household for the Regent, whom he wished to see accompanied by royal, but not by peculiar state. On the other hand, he objected to the project of giving to the Groom of the Stole such an extensive controul over the various departments of the Household. He was convinced that it would introduce a confusion into the service, from which it could never be extricated. It was, however, by no means necessary that those departments should be administered by the heads of then, so as to deprive the Regent of their services. His right hon. friend had admitted, that the business of the Lord Chamberlain might be transacted by the Vice-Chamberlain. There was no Vice-Steward, or Vice-Master of the Horse; but it would be very easy to vest the controul of those departments in the second Officer of each department, having the chief Officer to contribute to the state of the Regent.

begged leave to state what appeared to him to be the nature and form of the question, and in doing so he hoped he might hit upon that course which would extricate the Committee out of their present difficulties. The Amendment intended to be proposed by his right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby) had been superseded by the Amendment of the right hon. gentleman, which was on the original clause. Disposed as he was to adopt the Amendment of his right hon. friend in preference, he thought that the best means of clearing the way before them, and of enabling the Committee to come to a vote, would be to move, that after the words "his Majesty's indisposition," all the rest of the words to the end of the Clause, should be left out. Then if the Committee agreed to that, the way would be cleared for the introduction of any of the Amendments upon which the Committee might be called upon to pass a judgment. With respect to the confusion apprehended by the noble lord, as to the different offices in the Household, they had all their respective duties: The Master of the Horse had one duty, the Chamberlain another; the Steward of the Household a third; the Groom of the Stole a fourth. Their duties were to be severally done, and placing them all under one general and efficient government, would rather lead to order than confusion. At the same time he thought that his Majesty's Equerries, and such other of the Household immediately connected with his Majesty, ought to be under the controul of the Groom of the Stole. With respect to the suspension of the office of Chamberlain, it appeared to him to be an innovation of a most serious kind—one that the department of the Household had never undergone since the institution of the office of Chamberlain; and he begged leave to give notice, in case that part of the clause should that night be carried, he should take a subsequent opportunity of delivering his sentiments upon it fully and freely.

objected to the mode proposed by the honourable and learned gent., of leaving out all the words of one Amendment for the purpose of coming to a vote on the question of substituting in their place the words of another. He confessed that he had not a clear conception of the distinct measure proposed, and was apprehensive that more members than himself were in the dark upon the subject. A great impression had been made on his mind by the reflection of what might be the King's feelings upon the subject; and he thought the House might be justified in making such arrangements as would be most grateful to those feelings. The statements made on that subject, they had reason to believe—had been made by those to whom his Majesty's feelings were best known.

said, that in offering himself to the Committee, nothing could be farther from his intention than to enter into a review of the cold details of the different plans that had been submitted to its considerations, and especially of the complicated machinery of that which had been proposed by the right hon. gent. opposite to him (Mr. Canning). He did not knew whether many gentlemen present sympathised with him in the painful impression made on his mind by the whole of the discussion—a discussion the most abhorrent from his feelings of any that he had recollected, during a long parliamentary life, within these walls. The unfortunate predicament in which the House was placed was the result, not difficult to be anticipated at the time, of what he must call the hasty and ill-judged adoption of the Amendment which had been moved by a noble lord (Gower) on a former occasion. Posterity would scarcely believe, that a British House of Commons should, after a few weeks illness of a revered and beloved Sovereign, have been found gravely debating on the quantum of comfort and of necessary splendour, which they, the constitutional guardians of the rights of their Monarch under his affliction, should be pleased to dole out to him, or rather to permit him to retain, till it might please Providence to listen to the united prayers of his people in restoring to him his health.

He had taken the liberty on a former occasion, of submitting to the House the propriety of adhering to the proceedings as applied to this point, which had been acted upon 22 years ago; and by the adoption of which the House must now practically discover, that the complicated difficulties in which we were now entangled would have been avoided. We had before us no less than five plans of arrangement, brought forward by as many leading members of the House, and all totally differing from each other; indeed, he doubted whether any two gentlemen could be found who agreed on the specific course which it would be prudent to pursue. Of these five propositions, he would almost defy any member honestly to declare that he distinctly understood any one of them.

It had been asked by a right hon. gent. early in the debate; what would the people say, if they were to be told what and what powers were to be withheld from the Regent? He would ask on the other hand, what would be the sentiments of the people, generous and loyal as they are, if it was possible to take their opinions as to the quantity of enjoyment, of ease, and even of splendour that should be left to their King in his distress?—They would answer with acclamation—leave it all—act as men no less wise than yourselves acted 22 years ago, and protect to the utmost your Sovereign, who is disabled by the hand of Heaven from protecting himself. He (Mr. A.) had heard it too asked that night, and he was ashamed of the question, what had a King to do with splendour, who was reduced by illness to a state of incapacity? He would refer such gentlemen for an answer to the never-to-be-forgotten opinions expressed on this subject, of a noble lord (lord Grenville) 22 years ago. He had stated, and most justly, that the very incapacity from such a cause was an additional reason, so long as it continued, for maintaining the splendour of Royalty. Why? because his Majesty being withdrawn from the eyes of his subjects, the pageantry with which he was surrounded presented to them a constant reminder that they had still a king on the throne who might shortly be restored to the exercise of his authority.

If, said Mr. Addington, I had a mind so vulgar, as I am sure belongs to no man in this House, if I had an intellect so poor and so degraded, as to be caught by the novelty, or dazzled by the possible splendour of an approaching Regency; if I was one of those, if any such here are, who, wearied and satiated with the tiresome, monotonous uniformity of the unvaried blessings of a most paternal reign of more than 50 years, even panted for a change, still, as a Member of Parliament, sitting in deliberation on this most afflicting occasion, I should be ashamed to be found shrinking from any atom of the sacred duty imposed upon me to maintain inviolate the rights, to secure an unembarrassed restoration to the exercise of the Royal functions; and, above all, to cherish and preserve the comforts and all the external means which command respect, of our beloved Sovereign: I would give liberally to the representative; but would be no party to any measure that tended to diminish the ease, or to abate the lustre of the principal.—Mr. A. could only add, that in the present perplexed state of the question, if he was asked how he should vote, his short answer must be—that he really could not tell. He believed there were but few gentlemen in the House who were not at that time in the same predicament. He warmly approved of the suggestion of his hon. friend behind him (Mr. Wilberforce) to take a few hours to weigh more fully the several propositions before the Committee, in which there would be no inconvenience, as the House must necessarily meet the following day. For his own part he should certainly be a supporter of that, which should be found to trench the least on the comforts, to be the least likely to affect the peace of mind, and to leave the most of the trappings of Royalty to the Sovereign, which were given for the most beneficial purposes; and the diminution of which might be attended with more serious consequences than the House might perhaps be aware of.

thought the difference of opinion which existed among those gentlemen who had spoke, must be felt as furnishing some excuse for his failing to frame the clause so as to please every one. He begged to correct a mistake of a right hon. gent. (Mr. Ponsonby) who had understood him to say that his proposition was what he conceived was desired by the Committee. What he had said was, that he had left a blank in which gentlemen might insert what should be right in the eye of the Committee; but when he came to propose with what that blank should be filled up, he stated what he himself thought it ought to be filled up with, still keeping in view the former decision of the Committee. It had been said that the proposition he had submitted to them was at variance with the arguments he had made use of. This he could not help. He had been driven to it by the sentiments of the majority of a former night; and after the decisions to which he alluded, he could not think of bringing a proposition exactly the same. He begged to assure his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Adam,) that when he had laughed in the course of his speech, that it was out of no disrespect to him, but he acknowledged his proposition did excite in him some mirth when he talked of clearing the way, as his plan went to clear his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) plan quite out of the way, without giving it its turn in common with the other propositions before the House. This, too, was to be effected in a very convenient way; to make two right hon. gentlemen meet, who differed quite as much from each other as he did from both. He then proceeded to take a view of the proposition of the right hon. gent. than which, he really thought one more extravagant could hardly be submitted to them. They all knew there were three great officers in his Majesty's Household, the Lord Steward, the Master of the Horse, and the Groom of the Stole, could any thing be more extravagant than a proposition to place the Groom of the Stole at the head of the whole? Could any thing that could be proposed be more unlikely to produce the effect which he desired, than a proposition which went to make the Groom of the Stole responsible for the acts of the servants of the Lord Chamberlain? Nothing could be more extravagant, and he confidently hoped his own proposition would be preferred to one so impracticable in itself. His right hon. friend's plan appeared to him more reasonable, though he could not agree to that. He thought it unfair to place the Queen in a situation in which she must carve out part of the establishment as she desired for herself. According to his own plan, the Lords and Gentlemen of the Bedchamber would remain as they were, and the same statements would be made to the public respecting the state of his Majesty's health as at present. It was not his intention that there should be but three monthly accounts of his Majesty's health. If they looked at the Bill, it would be seen, that the Council were, to be assembled so often to inquire into the real state of the King's health. The sentiments of his noble friend under the gallery had great weight with him as to principle. On a permanent establishment, the evils likely to result from her Majesty's not having power to remove any Officer, might be great, but the evils which they anticipated might be borne under a temporary arrangement. If the arrangement proposed were for her Majesty's life, he should certainly think that the power of removing the Officers of the Household ought to be given, though he did not feel it necessary at present. The plan of the noble lord was, that the inferior officers should be attached to her Majesty, while the superior ones were transferred to the Regent. Of all the plans beside his own he thought that the best. There was, however, a great difference between him and his noble friend, a difference which he was of opinion could never be done away. The noble lord thought it was expedient and necessary to come now to a final arrangement. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought they ought not at present to give any power which was to be permanent. At present they wanted information on the subject; which want must be felt throughout the period of their sitting, and therefore their decision on the subject ought not to be final. On these grounds he came round to his original proposition, which was, that her Majesty should controul over those parts of the Household which had a controul over the inferior parts. On this question he now left the Committee to decide, giving it as his opinion that the words proposed to be left out for the Amendment, ought not to be omitted.

said that the right hon. gent. had very naturally bestowed his approbation, first upon his own plan, and next upon that which most resembled it, namely, that of the noble lord. The right hon. gent. said, that the proposition submitted by him (Mr. Ponsonby) would have the effect of overturning and disordering the whole of the Household. It did not do this. If the right hon. gentleman's plan should be adopted, the whole patronage of the Household would be transferred to the Queen, with the exception of two offices. This plan gave the Queen what by the Resolutions of the two Houses she was not entitled to have. He himself, on the contrary, contended that this patronage should be divided between the Regent and the Queen. The question before the Committee was, whether the House was prepared to give the Queen the whole Household, with the exception of the two offices, or whether they will adhere to the spirit of the Resolution; that was the question; there was no blinking it; and, therefore, should even a length of two days be taken up in penning proper enactments for that purpose, the time would not be ill bestowed.

had no intention of troubling the House farther on the subject, but there was such a radical misconception of his proposition in what the right hon. gent. had stated, that he could not let it pass without remark. The right hon. gant. said, that with the exception of the two offices, the whole patronage of the Household was in her Majesty. The right hon. gent. forgot the Lord Chamberlain, the Master of the Horse, the Equerries, &c.; and how could it be said that her Majesty had the controul over those, whom she had no power to turn out from any of these offices.

said, that he would take the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own explanation. He had himself used patronage too vaguely, and he might have added controul; for the Bill gave the whole controul to her Majesty; so that between patronage and controul she had the whole management of the Household.

The question being loudly called for, strangers were excluded. The Committee divided on Mr. Canning's Amendment, when there appeared, for it,

A second division took place on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Amendment, in the way he wished to have the blanks filled up in the Clause, when there appeared,

Mr. Ponsonby then moved, "That the Lord Steward of the Houshold be under the direction of the Prince Regent:"

Mr. Ponsonby then moved, "That the Master of his Majesty's Buck-hounds be under the direction of the Prince Regent:" which was also negatived by 22; the numbers being,

The House then resumed, and the Chair- man reported progress, and asked leave to sit again,—Adjourned at half past two o'clock.