rose and stated, that before he proceeded to name the persons as fit and proper to be appointed on the Council of her Majesty, it would be necessary that he should say a few words in explanation of the former proceedings in this particular respect. On the occasion of the Regency in 1788, it had been judged expedient to name the councillors; not designating simply their official capacity, but with the prediction of their names. In this manner were named the two archbishops of Canterbury and York, lord Thurlow, then Chancellor, lord Kenyon, then Chief Justice of the King's Bench; together with the Lord Chamberlain of the Houshold for the time being, and also the Master of the Horse, and the Groom of the Stole. With reference therefore to that precedent, he should propose, that the two archbishops of Canterbury and York, by name; John lord Eldon, Lord High Chancellor; Edward lord Ellenborough, Chief Justice of King's Bench, should be of her Majesty's Council. With respect to the Lord Chamberlain for the time being, the Committee must be aware that the office was at present vacant, and that it had been settled yesterday that it should remain so; therefore it became necessary (on the supposition that the former plan would meet with the concurrence of the Committee) that the deficiency occasioned by the absence of this person should be supplied. The right hon. gent. conceived that the bill of 1788 was defective in this particular: that in the appointment of the Council, the Committee of that day had not nominated any one of that Council who held a seat in this House. To remedy the defect in the present instance, he thought would be wise, by introducing a member of parliament. Without meaning to throw any imputation or blame upon the future councillors of her Majesty, it would be obvious to the Committee that the having some person who could, from time to time, state to the House, if necessary, an account of the proceedings of the Council, would be a desirable object. With this view he should propose the Master of the Rolls, an individual whom the Committee, he was satisfied, could not object to, either on account of his station, or the respectability of his character. In making these appointments, it must be observed, that the Council would be constituted from the names of the persons composing the same, and not from their official situations, because it was very possible that the duties of the Queen, in regard to the care of his Majesty, might continue for a longer period than the Houshold, and it was necessary that the arrangement made in the first instance with respect to the Council should not be disannulled. The names of the other councillors would be the earl of Winchelsea, the duke of Montrose, and the earl of Aylesford.

wished the right hon. gent. to inform the Committee, why he proposed that the Council should be constituted rather by names than by official signatures?

replied, that with reference to the arrangement in the Houshold under her Majesty, that was only to continue for twelve months; therefore, if any alteration should take place at the end of that time, and the officers should not be continued, of course the Council of her Majesty would be disarranged, and incomplete. It was better, therefore, that it should be as proposed by him, until it was seen whether parliament would fix the limitation permanently.

said, it appeared to him extraordinary that the right hon. gent. had not nominated any one of the royal family on that Council, Did he mean to name any one? If not, he wished to name one.

had followed the precedent of 1788, in which he did not find any of the royal family. Nor did it occur to him for that reason to ask any of the royal persons his wishes on the subject.

conceived that many persons thought it right that some one of the royal family should be of the Council, and as his royal highness the duke of York was the next in succession to the Regent, he should propose that royal person to be one of her Majesty's councillors. He knew of no reason why his royal highness should be excluded.

observed, that if it was proper to introduce that royal person, his name should precede those he had proposed. The Chairman then put the question, "That the blank be filled up with the name of his royal highness the duke of York?"

perfectly agreed that, if it was proper to have the duke of York on her Majesty's Council, the name of his royal highness should precede all the others; but feeling, as he did, that it was extremely objectionable to have any of the royal family on that Council, he should vote against the motion. It was almost needless, the right hon. Secretary observed, for him to state the grounds of his objection. It was certainly very natural that her Majesty should wish to have the advice of those next in blood to her; but it was unnecessary that they should be on the Council, for her Majesty was in the daily habit of seeing them, and might consequently receive any advice out of the Council which they were inclined to give. In the first place, it was improper that the duke of York should be on the Council, because he had a strong constitutional objection that any of the royal family should hold an office of trust or responsibility unless strong and valid reasons were adduced to the House for it. (Hear! hear!) Would any man deny that circumstances might occur in which a member of the Council of the royal family might be called upon for advice in which his own interest was concerned. That was a strong reason for the objection. It was desirable that the Council should be composed of persons ready to give the most impartial and unbiassed advice. And was not the duke of York admitted to have a most affectionate and dutiful regard for his royal Father? Had it not been already decided that the Regent was the most improper person to have the care of the King's person? That objection was upon parliamentary grounds: the objection equally applied to the duke of York or any of the branches of the royal family entitled to the succession to the throne. The right hon. Secretary stated, that a similar motion had been made in 1788, and rejected.

did not think that the right hon. gent. was correct in the last statement he had made. He did not think that any Committee would have rejected a proposition similar to the one made by the noble lord. The right hon. gent. had stated, that it was objectionable to appoint any of the royal family to offices of trust or responsibility; he (Mr. Ponsonby), however, could not forget that this same royal person held an office of great trust and responsibility, and yet the right hon. gent. at that time raised no sort of objection, on constitutional or other grounds. With respect to the objection on account of the affectionate regard and duty of the royal duke to his Majesty, why, his Majesty must indeed be in a very unfortunate situation, and different from all other fathers, if the affectionate attentions and regards of his children were to operate as bars to seclude them from the care of his royal person. If the advice of any of the royal family might be obtained by her Majesty, without their being appointed on the council, she would have it where it could be of no effect or consequence. He flattered himseif the Committee would not see any just grounds for excluding the royal duke; on the contrary, he thought it would be most proper and politic to have all his Majesty's sons (with the exception of the Regent) on the council, as affording to the eyes of Europe a proof of the unanimity between them and the nation. To reject the motion would be doing little less than holding them out as deficient in those virtues which the nation knew they possessed.

denied that he had said that it was not desirable to have any of the royal family in places of trust or responsibility gratuitously. When the royal person, the object of the motion, was in power, he had not forborne to bear his humble testimony to the admirable qualities and extreme industry of the Commander in Chief. He had from various military quarters gained the knowledge of the very handsome conduct of his royal highness, and of the respect which the army entertained for him. He hardly expected such an attack from the right hon. gent.

Mr. C. Wynn conceived the objection now urged, could not apply to the Duke of York.

The motion was then put and negatived.

then proposed to fill up the first blank with the name of "Charles Manners, Archbishop of Canterbury."

objected to the introduction of the first name. Notwithstanding all that the right hon. gent. had before described of the structure of the precedent of 1788, of which he was so fond, as being all that human wisdom could devise, he did not imagine that the right hon. gent. could have ventured to carry his attachment so far, as to propose the insertion of names rather than official situations. The right hon. gent. had now, it seemed, discovered, that in addition to the clerical errors in this famous Bill, it was not that grand structure which his imagination had fondly pictured—there was some more nonsense in it. Among other defects, it was discovered that there was no member of parliament in the council, and in order to remedy that defect, the right hon. gent. proposed his honour the Master of the Rolls, wishing, no doubt, to have a superabundance of law in the councils of her Majesty. Without meaning to speak in terms of disrespect of the Master of the Rolls, whom all must allow was a person of the most exalted character, he must be allowed to say, that in his opinion, there was too much of law already in the councils of her Majesty, and it could not be denied that law was an ingredient the least necessary there. It would have been more respectful to the House of Commons, if the right hon. gent. had named the Speaker of the House to fill the chasm. Looking to the precedent of 1788, he must say, that the whole of that proceeding was applicable to persons and not principles, and consequently highly objectionable. He would not speak with disrespect of the memory of Mr. Pitt, but he must declare that persons were the objects of that minister for appointing his Majesty's Councils, and not principles. There was this monstrous absurdity in the Bill of 1788, that the King's recovery might be announced or not. He could not avoid noticing the rapturous applause with which the gentlemen behind the right hon. gent. cheered the recommendation which that right hon. gent. gave himself, in order to fill the Prince Regent with the idea that he was the best minister he could have. He could not help admiring the very handsome character for honesty, ability, and fidelity which he, was entitled to from serving his royal father; and he could not avoid in consequence, observing that the ambition of the right hon. gent. was to remain in the service of his royal highness. "Take me," said the right hon. gent., "I am the fittest person to manage your affairs; select me as your minister." The cheering, therefore, was not extraordinary, considering that the right hon. gent. had made so brisk and eloquent a canvass. He would bring the right hon. gent. to the test of his sincerity of attachment to the Prince. Would the right hon. gent. agree to the motion he should conclude with, and instead of names insert the titles of the officers? If he would not consent, then he must declare that the right hon. gent. was casting the most foul and unmerited reproach and suspicion on the Prince. Was the Prince so profligate as not to be trusted? Did the right hon. gent. suppose, that in case any of these great persons, viz. the Archbishops, or the Chancellor, or Chief Justice of the Bench, should die, that his royal highness would appoint successors not of the most distinguished character in point of talents and virtues? The right hon. gent. concluded with moving, to leave out the name of "Charles Manners." It then was to stand, "the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being."

said, he should consider himself very unfortunate if he could not defend himself on the new ground upon which he was attacked. In expressing his approbation of the precedent of 1788, he had never stated his intention of following it with a degrading, and servile adherence. The right hon. gent. had recently given a highly-coloured description of the state of parties at that period, but had since somewhat altered the picture. But although the candour of the right hon. gent. in condemning both sides was to be admired, and although his account of that party, "quorum pars magna fuit," must be considered as coming from authority, it did not follow that the same credit was due to his description of the other. With respect to the question before the Committee, the principle on which the Prince was excluded from the custody of the King, was equally applicable to the Duke of York, though not precisely in the same degree. The test, as the right hon. gentleman termed it, which he had put him to, he disregarded; and trusted, that it would never impeach the sincerity of that respect which he felt for the dignified and reserved manner in which his royal highness had conducted himself on this melancholy occasion. But if it was proper that he himself (the Prince) should not have the custody of his Majesty, he did not see how it was proper that he should have the right of nomination to that trust.

denied, that he had uttered any accusation against the persons with whom he had long acted. He had merely observed, that there had been in 1788 too much intemperance of debate on all sides; but with respect to the conduct of the minister of that day, his opinion had always been clear and decisive. Mr. Pitt openly declared that his measure was built upon principles applicable to persons, and that it was the Prince's probable advisers against whom he desired to establish barriers. The right hon. gent. had, in effect, admitted his argument, he had stated the measure to be one of precaution, and he (Mr. S.) would not scruple to pronounce it a wanton suspicion, and a foul distrust of his royal highness.

observed, that the attempt of the minister was one that might have appalled a mind of a smaller size. He had brought the charge against his right hon. friend of having attacked and betrayed those with whom he had for many years concurred in public life. The right hon. gent. seemed to forget, that he, himself, on a former day had described the proceedings of 1788 as having been disgraced by 'factious heat,' and endeavoured to take advantage of a similar expression coming from that side of the House. He had thought proper to turn his arms against the conciliating neutrals, in preference to the hostile belligerent.—Now, to come to the question at issue, which was, whether the appointment to the situation of one of the council to the Queen should apply to the place or to the person? Taking this as applied to lord Ellenborough, for instance, he should say, that he did not think that the appointment should apply to him nominatim, but to the office. If he was worthy of being Chief Justice, he was equally worthy of the trust; and it was to attribute unworthy motives and unworthy conduct to the Prince of Wales, to imagine that he would appoint to such an office, any other person but one fully qualified from his character and previous situation and respectability, to assure the public that he should also be worthy of such a trust as that of member of the Queen's council. Gentlemen talked of the duke of York, or any of the royal family, being interested persons, and therefore not fit to be appointed of the council; but must not lords Aylesford, Winchelsea, &c. not feel themselves more interested if to be irremovable? When such a bill as this appeared on the Statute book, must it not be esteemed an imputation on the Prince of Wales, that such clauses as the present were deemed necessary to be introduced before any trust could be reposed in him?

conceived this to be one of the most important parts of the Bill, except that clause which had been already objected to by his hon. and learned friend (sir S. Romilly). It did not go so much to what should be the rights of the Regent, but what they should put on record, as to what was their opinion of the Prince of Wales, signifying it to be this, that he would not appoint proper persons to fill the highest legal and religious situations in the country, but would select those who would be subservient to his own vile purposes. It would go to infer, that his royal highness would not select men to fill those important situations on account of the excellency of their character, but for the purpose of a job. When a person was to be appointed to fill the situation of Chief Justice of the King's Bench, was it not natural to suppose that the fittest person was to be selected? Was it not natural that the same course would be observed in the church? And if the members of this council were to be composed of the persons holding those situations for the time being, was it not naturally to be inferred that such were the fittest persons of whom this council could possibly consist? To infer that, though in general this might be the case, it would not be so in the present instance, was to throw out a suspicion against those who might be the Regent's advisers, or against the Regent himself.

supported the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

thought the House justified in guarding against the Regent having the appointment of any of the members of the council of Regency. The Chancellor, however, being an officer removeable at pleasure, he saw no objection to the omission of the name of the present Lord Chancellor, as well as of that of the Lord Chancellor for the time being.

agreed, that there was a difference between the Lord Chancellor and the other officers mentioned, who were not removeable. By naming as members of the council those high officers who were not removeable, the question would be taken out of the public observation; and it would not appear on record as it now did, that there was a suspicion that the Regent could be supposed capable of ap- pointing counsellors from the basest of all motives, or of not dismissing such, if he should unhappily have the misfortune once to appoint them.

supported the original motion, on the grounds stated by the right hon. mover—that it had been deemed inexpedient to place the guardianship of the sovereign in the Regent; that this was a contingency on that appointment, and consequently must be supported in the same way.

observed, that the gentleman opposite seemed to suppose that the Regent, in the event of any of the four great offices mentioned in the clause becoming vacant, would, in filling them up, overlook all the great qualities which were necessary in the individuals to be appointed to them, and would consider only whether those individuals would be subservient to his wishes in her Majesty's council. If his right hon. friend persisted in following precedents, let him follow the precedents of the 24th of George II. and the 5th of George III. and not the inchoate precedent of 1789. In the two former cases, the members of the council of Regency were appointed not by name but by office. He was sure that it was not the intention of his right hon. friend to insult the Prince of Wales; but it was the interest of all to take care that his royal highness's character should be supported. If the clause should pass, as it originally stood, the public would suppose that the legislature suspected his royal highness of being capable of raising an individual to the rank of an Archbishop, or a Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench, not because he was eminent for his piety or his learning, but because he was capable of prostituting himself to the most scandalous purposes. He repeated his recommendation to his right hon. friend to be guided by the spirit of the precedent which he had described.

could not refrain from disclaiming on his own part the calumny, that it was intended to do any thing disrespectful by his royal highness the Prince of Wales. It was impossible that any man who deliberately considered the provisions of the bill could be of that opinion. The principle on which the present clause proceeded was founded on the original principle, and admitted by all, that the Regent ought not to be the guardian of the King's person. It necessarily followed as an extension of that principle, that the Regent ought not to appoint those who were to be the guardians of the King's person. This proposition did not arise from the slightest distrust of his royal, highness personally, but from the principle that no Regent should ever possess such a power. As to the precedents adduced by his hon. and learned friend, they were not at all applicable in the present instance, for those precedents referred to councils of Regency, who were invested with political powers, and who had nothing whatever to do with the care of the royal person.

said he had been misunderstood by his hon. and learned friend. He did, not say that in two instances alluded to by him, the councils had the custody of the royal person entrusted to them. He only cited them to shew that there the councils were trusted officially, not individually, and that the whole security the country had in appointing them who had been selected by the Regent himself to fill the first offices in the state, was merely because they were persons in high official situations; and because it was less probable there should be found such servile minions in the hands of a Regent, than if they were individuals holding no official situations of trust in the country.

It was then moved as an Amendment to the question, That the first part of the blank be filled up with the name of "Charles lord archbishop of Canterbury," that the word "Charles" be omitted, and the words "for the time being," be added. The original motion, however, was put and carried without a division—Similar amendments were moved on putting the other names, Edward archbishop of York, James duke of Montrose, George earl of Winchelsea, Heneage lord Aylesford, Edward lord Ellenborough, and Sir William Grant; but the original motions were all agreed to.—Mr. Sheridan withdrew his opposition to the name of John lord Eldon, which was accordingly agreed to. He submitted that once every three months was not sufficiently frequent for the meetings of the council.

said, these were only meant to be stated meetings. The council themselves might meet at other times when they found it convenient.

observed, that the acts to be done by the Prince as Regent were to be signed G. R. per G. P. Rt. but the ap- pointments even of members of the council were to be made in the name of the Queen herself. Would it not be more proper that she should also seem to act for the King, and to sign the appointments as per R. pro R.?

thought this unnecessary, or rather absurd, as these were appointments which could only be made by the Queen, and never could be made by the King, becoming unnecessary the moment of his Majesty's recovery.

Upon the reading of the Clause making provision for filling up the Queen's Council, in case any of those named in the Bill should decline the trust, or resign,

observed, that as one great cause of the appointment of these persons, was the security for the due performance of the trust derived from their high official situations, it appeared objectionable that they should be allowed to decline or resign at their pleasure.

said, that it might possibly happen that some of then might find this charge inconvenient, with respect to their other duties, and therefore it would be rather harsh to make the charge imperative upon them.

suggested, that as the Queen had the power of supplying vacancies in the council, as well as in the offices of the household, the signature should be G. R. by C. R. in order to preserve the appearance of doing every thing in the name of his Majesty.

, reverting to the signature of the Prince of Wales as Regent, stated that he had communicated to his royal highness the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Lord Chancellor, that any signature which would answer the purpose, and would be agreeable to his royal highness, would be willingly agreed to. In consequence of this he had to mention, that it would be desirable that the signature should be as short as possible.

said, that if effectual, the shorter the better; but they must take care to obviate scruples, such as those of Mr. Larpent.

hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not mean to speak slightingly of Mr. Larpent for his conduct with regard to the Seal.—(Mr. Perceval—Certainly not). There was no doubt, however, that the act of the legislature must obviate every scruple.

thought, that according to the act, as it stood at present, the Prince would have to sign "G. R. by G. P. R." This would be very inconvenient, considering the numerous papers which the Prince would have to sign. He presumed that G. P. R. would be sufficient.

acquiesced.

remarked, that though the Queen was empowered to fill up the vacancies in her council, there was nothing to render this obligatory.

agreed, that after the words" it shall be lawful for the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty," there should be inserted the words, "and her Majesty is hereby required."

The Clause, as amended, was agreed to.

On the Clause containing the Oath to be taken by the members of the Queen's council. Mr. Sheridan proposed, that in addition to the matters on which they were to advise her Majesty, the words "and as to the resumption of the personal exercise of the royal authority by his Majesty," should be inserted in the Oath.—This was agreed to, and the Clause passed, as amended.

In the next Clause, touching, the duty of the Queen and Council to declare the state of his Majesty's health, Mr. Whitbread proposed, that they should be empowered to examine the Physicians on oath. Mr. Perceval thought that they should not only have that power, but that they should have the power of ascertaining the state of his Majesty's health, by every other means. Mr. Whitbread thought that the duty of examining the Physicians on oath, should be mandatory. Mr. Perceval thought this unnecessary. They were responsible, and would not neglect it. The Clause, thus amended, was agreed to.

Upon the Clauses regulating the mode by which his Majesty should resume the personal exercise of the royal authority,

felt it his duty to state his objections to the proposed mode. However ungracious such an assertion might be considered, he declared, that, in his opinion, a more solemn mode of determining his Majesty's restoration to health, and one more public and more satisfactory to the country, ought to be adopted. If it was necessary that his Majesty's illness should be substantiated in the most solemn manner before the measure now in progress was instituted, he thought it equally necessary that his Majesty's recovery should be substantiated in as solemn a manner before the operation of the mea- sure should determine. By the Bill it appeared to him, that his Majesty was put completely into the hands of her Majesty and the Council, and however unbounded the confidence which he might entertain in those persons, he thought the tranquillity of the public mind required that they should not be vested with such extensive powers. By the three clauses of the Bill, it was impossible that his Majesty could resume the royal authority until the restoration of his health was certified by the Queen and Council to the Privy Council. His Majesty was then authorised under his royal Sign Manual, to call together a portion (chosen by himself) of the Privy Council, for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the recovery was complete. He objected, first, to the power given to the Queen and Council; and then to the provision that his Majesty should summon only a part of the Privy Council. To the whole of this complicated machinery he had a great dislike, and he thought that the ultimate investigation by which the complete recovery of his Majesty was to be ascertained, had better take place in Parliament.

did not know what the noble lord meant by machinery. What would the noble lord have done? What did he wish? Did not the bill go on in all its stages, according to the rule by which it had been so accurately and nicely debated on a former occasion? If the bill was founded on the precedent established by one of the wisest men that ever lived, why not keep it regulated by his understanding, and by his comprehensive mind? He should, perhaps, have thought with the noble lord that an examination of the physicians by parliament would be better than an examination of them by the Privy Council, were it, not that in the latter case they would be examined on oath, which in the former they would not. It might be said that by this observation he imputed to those gentlemen a disposition to say that to which they would not swear. Far from it; but in this case the House ought to be governed by great philosophical principles (A laugh). Gentlemen might laugh at that, but those were the principles on which the measure proceeded. It was a philosophical principle which restrained the House from appointing the Heir Apparent to the Crown as the guardian of the King's person, and which induced them to prefer the appointment of persons who could not beunduly influenced.

, in reply to the noble lord, observed that the noble lord seemed to think that because the present measure originated in a parliamentary inquiry, the Regency ought not to be suspended but on a parliamentary inquiry. But there was a considerable difference in the two cases. That which was easy in the one would be difficult in the other. The Committee must recollect this important distinction, namely, that the measure proposed to the two Houses of Parliament, was to divest his Majesty, for a time, of the whole of the royal authority. It was impossible that they could consent to this, without ascertaining in the most complete manner, that the case was one which authorised their interference. But with regard to the resumption, his Majesty was entitled to resume the royal authority the moment that his health was re-established. It was his intention, however, to propose an Amendment to the clause, which, in his opinion, was defective, insomuch as it did not contain any provision, authorising his Majesty to interpose himself on the subject, and to institute an inquiry, into the state of his health. By the clause, the Queen had the power of assembling the Council—by the Amendment introduced at the suggestion of the right hon. gent. opposite, the Council had the power of assembling themselves—to these provisions he thought ought to be added one by which the Council should be directed to assemble on the requisition of his Majesty. He stated this on principle, and not from the slightest doubt of the readiness of her Majesty to assemble the Council, or of the readiness of the Council to assemble themselves, should happily an occasion demand such a proceeding. Nor was it by any means his intention by this Amendment, to give his Majesty the means of getting rid of the Regency in any other way than by an investigation by the Privy Council; but only to enable his Majesty himself to put in motion that investigation. With respect to the resumption being founded on a parliamentary inquiry, such a provision would be attended with great inconveniences. If parliament were not assembled, they must be called together. A considerable time must intervene, before they could meet. He allowed, that in point of form, parliament, if prorogued, might be summoned in 14 days on a pressing emergency; but would 14 days suffice for assembling such a parliament as would satisfy the object of the noble lord? The bill provided, that the circumstances of the resumption of the royal authority should be submitted to parliament, immediately after the resumption had taken place. It looked so anxiously to that subject, as to provide that, in the event of a dissolution having taken place before the resumption, the members of the dissolved parliament should immediately meet, for the purpose of taking into consideration the circumstances of that resumption. He meant to fill up the blank respecting the number of the Queen's Council, by whose opinion, in coincidence with their own, her Majesty should be authorised to notify to the Privy Council, that his Majesty was restored to such a state of health as to be capable of resuming the personal exercise of the royal authority, with the word "Four." And he proposed to introduce as an Amendmant, words to the following effect, "That her Majesty's Council should assemble in the presence of her Majesty, on his Majesty's royal will and pleasure being signified for that purpose."

repeated his objections to the word "machinery," used by the noble lord, and declared that he would not lend his hand to any machinery whatever. His idea was, that the House was to appoint a Regent, and that a Regent was not a king; and he contended that the precedent of the Revolution had been strictly followed in the present instance, and was infinitely preferable to the numerous precedents which an hon. and learned member (whom he allowed to be a very accurate and sensible man), had on a recent occasion heaped together like strings of red herrings at the door of an oil shop.

contended that the judgment of both Houses of Parliament ought to be the sole ground on which his Majesty should resume the sovereign authority. In point of utility and propriety, it was impossible that a parliamentary investigation, after the resumption of the royal authority by his Majesty, could be justly compared to the parliamentary investigation before that resumption. He did not object to the proceeding originating in the Council. His objection was to the subsequent stage of it; and he maintained that the two Houses of Parliament ought to exercise the same discretion on the resumption of the royal authority as they had done on the suspension of it. He admitted that a parliamentary investigation might occasion some little delay, but he was per- suaded that the inconvenience would be much more than counterbalanced by the advantages which must result from such a proceeding, and the impression that it would make on the mind of every man in the country that his Majesty was actually restored to perfect health. Such a mode of proceeding would also, he was convinced, be more congenial to his Majesty's own feelings. How was the fact to be ascertained in the Privy Council? The declaration of his Majesty could not be considered as sufficient. Was his Majesty himself to be examined by the Privy Council? In every point of view it was evident to him, that his Majesty would be placed in a much more mortifying and degrading situation, by an inquiry into the state of his health before the Privy Council, than by such an inquiry before the two Houses of Parliament? At the same time, he must unaffectedly say, that he was aware the general sense of the House was not with him in this opinion; he should therefore abstain from moving any Amendment, lest that Amendment should be rejected, and a precedent be thus recorded on the Journals, in his opinion, of the most mischievous nature.

was rather at a loss to conceive what was the exact nature of the proposition which his noble friend, and his hon. and learned friend who had just spoken, meant to support. If they contended that his Majesty ought not to resume the exercise of the royal functions until parliament had examined into the state of his health, and if they at the same time proposed to leave in another quarter the power of proroguing or dissolving parliament, then, unquestionably, such a proposition would not, on principle, be the best mode of paving the way for the easy and certain resumption of the royal authority by his Majesty. He perfectly approved of the Amendment of the right hon. gent. opposite, by which his Majesty was empowered to originate the inquiry into his state of health; but he contended strongly against the power given to his Majesty to nominate the persons who were to enter upon the inquiry. Her Majesty, with the concurrence of four of her Council, when they conceived his Majesty's health so far recovered as to be capable of resuming the personal exercise of the royal authority, were to notify that opinion to the Lord President of the Council. The Lord President was to summon the Council. For what purpose? It would naturally be supposed to examine into the fact. No such thing. They were to be assembled merely to register the notification of her Majesty and her Council. A second Privy Council was then to be summoned in his Majesty's presence, consisting of any number of persons, not less than nine, "whom his Majesty shall name, and who shall be or shall have been members of his Majesty's most hon. Privy Council, and such persons so assembled shall be, and be deemed to be a Privy Council, for the purpose hereinafter mentioned." What was that purpose? To declare, if six of the nine agreed in that opinion, that his Majesty had completely recovered, and to put an immediate end to all the powers and authorities given by the Regency Act. Would such a proceeding be satisfactory to the people at large? Unquestionably not. If the state of his Majesty's health were to be investigated at all by the Privy Council, it ought to be investigated by a much greater number of that body, and his Majesty ought not to be authorised to nominate the members who were to enter on the investigation.

complimented the right hon. gent. on the fair and candid manner in which he had brought his objections forward. In the principle of the clause itself they were agreed. It was proposed that when his Majesty and four or more of the Council were of opinion his Majesty was capable of resuming the exercise of the royal authority, that they should report that opinion to the Regent, who should immediately call a Privy Council to whom such report was to be communicated. The right hon. gent. had complained of the Privy Council not being possessed of authority to inquire into the fact. He had to observe that this plan was recommended, but as a means of recording and of registering the report of the Queen's Council. They were merely providing the means of announcing to the public the recovery of the King. Every facility ought to be given for doing so, and this he was convinced would be felt by no one more than the right hon. gent. opposite. They were then to decide on the mode, in which the King should resume the royal power. As the King could do no wrong, some other responsible person must be found. It was therefore thought proper that six of the Privy Council should take upon themselves the responsibility of declaring his Majesty competent to discharge the functions of royalty. Those members of the Privy Council were to be regarded as pledging themselves to the people, that his Majesty was capable of again administering the government of the country. It was certain that there should be some form laid down for the resumption of power on the part of his Majesty, but that form ought to be the most simple and easy that could possibly be devised. Upon the whole, the provision as it stood was, in his opinion, as unexceptionable as it could be.

The question was then put, and the Amendment carried.

stated that in the bill of 1789, the members of the Privy Council to be nominated, were not to be members of her Majesty's Council. This was omitted in the present bill.

had no objection to the introduction of the words omitted. He had omitted it from an idea that the members of the Queen's Council were most likely to be best informed on the subject of his Majesty's recovery.

The remaining clauses were gone through without opposition. The filling up of the clause relating to the pensions and salaries chargeable on the Privy Purse, was postponed at the suggestion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, till the Report of the Secret Committee should be received.—The blank left for the trustees of his Majesty's private property, was filled up with the names of the Queen, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse.

brought in a clause respecting the Droits of Admiralty, to enable the Regent to apply them as they were applied by the King in ordinary cases, from time to time, namely, by giving a portion of them to the captors of vessels, and applying certain sums to the relief of cases of hardship, with the advice and approbation of the Lords of the Treasury.—The clause was carried without opposition.

observed, that the right hon. gent. seemed to think the bill would experience no further opposition. In this he was deceived, as he might expect the sense of the House would be again taken on its merits, on the bringing up of the Report, or on the third reading.

had no objection to the sense of the House being so taken. He, however, presumed, that the right hon. gent. had no intention of taking the sense of the House that night, and he must know that the Report would be then brought up. He conceived it might be the intention of the right hon. gent. to take the sense of the House on the Report being taken into further consideration. The proceedings in the other House rendered it unnecessary for them to meet on Saturday; he intended, therefore, to propose a postponement of the further consideration of the Report to Monday, availing himself of the interval to get it printed, that it might be taken into consideration with greater ease.

intimated an intention of taking the sense of the House on the further consideration of the Report.

The House then resumed; when the Report was brought up and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Monday, and to be printed.