measure might be accomplished, those, too, having been acted on in the very best periods of our history. The right honourable gentleman (Perceval) desired to know whether, if the two houses were to vote addresses to the prince of Wales, these addresses would not confer on him the power of dis. charging the functions of the executive government, just as he proposed that power should be conferred by the proposition he had submitted to the house; and whether the address so to be voted by them would not be an act of the house? He answered, Certainly; it would give the same powers; it would be an act of that house; and he meant it should have both those effects. He went along with the right honourable gentleman in say ing that the two houses of parliament had the right, and the only right-and, in his opinion, it was also their duty to supply the deficiency in the executive. All that be contended was, that there was a consistent mode of doing this, and that the mode he had now pointed out was this consistent mode. The right honourable gentleman (Perceval), however, said, that by following his way, the house would be enabled to tell his royal highness what were the limitations they wished to impose on him, whereas in his (Mr. Ponsonby's) mode of proceeding, they would have no such opportunity. This he denied utterly. It was just as possible to adjust the limitations afterwards, when the parliament was complete by the revival of the royal functions, as it could be by the defective and unconstitutional act recommended by the right honourable gentleman. When the house should have appointed his royal highness regent, they surely meant that he should have the power of assembling or dissolving them. Did the right honourable gentleman, however, suspect that he would exercise that power without due discretion? Did the right honourable gentleman suspect, when the house should send up bills which were necessary to be passed, that his royal highness would deny them his assent? If he did not suspect any of these things, what fear was there, though the limitations should not go along with the appointment to the office of regent? Another act that he (Mr. Ponsonby) should propose, besides the address to the prince of Wales, would be, that some proceeding should immediately be taken to give validity to what the house had done while it was not complete. Did the right honourable gentleman suppose that the prince of Wales, or any other person who should be appointed regent, would refuse to comply with the reasonable wishes of the two houses of parliament? He (Mr. Ponsonby) could not believe that the right honourable gen. tleman could entertain such an idea of a person whom he himself proposed to appoint regent of these kingdoms. He could not conceive so monstrous a proposition. deficiency in the executive power must be supplied in some manner; and in the present calamity, there was no other source from whence the right to discharge the affairs of the state could be derived, but the two houses of parliament. The question now was, in what manner this deficiency was to be supplied. The right honourable gentleman proposed to follow the course pursued in the year 1789 The a course contrary to the constitution, and a fraud on the country. If, in proposing this mode, of pro ceeding, ceeding, the right honourable gentleman thought, that because one house of comnions having acted so wild a part, and one so contrary to the constitution, he was bound to follow it, he must confess that the present was the first occasion on which he recollected to have been told, that because a sensible man, twenty years ago, did a wrong act, therefore that wrong act should now be followed by another of the same kind. What the right honourable gentleman proposed amounted exactly to this. He did not defend the measure. He said he would not argue it. He himself regarded it as a perfect measure, and asked of the house to determine on its merits, without telling them in what those merits consisted. The right honourable gentleman had said, that what should be the limitations was not here the question, as they would come to be discussed in the bill. For his own part, to any restrictions on his royal highness at this time of day, he should highly object. He was come to that time of life seldom attained by kings when they mounted their thrones. If at the age of 48 years he was not fit to be trusted with power, he should be afraid he never would be fit; and if it was necessary for the house to look to every part of his conduct with so suspicious an eye, he should doubt much how far it would not be an act of prudence to make such inquiries as should enable them to take mea sures for entirely excluding a person so unworthy of trust from the throne. The honourable gentleman concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his royal highness the prince of Wales, requesting that his royal highness will be pleased to take upon him, during the indis position of the king, and no longer, the government of this realm; and administer the same in the name and in the behalf his majesty, under the style and title of Regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Mr. Canning said, after parlia ment had waited so long in the hope of his majesty's recovery, he thought that without any further unnecessary delay the royal functions should be conferred on the prince of Wales, and without much limitation or restriction. He how、 ever believed, that in the mode by which those powers were to be conferred on his royal highness, it would be much better to follow the path which was traced out in the precedent of 1788. He would not contend that this precedent was ab. solutely free from all objections; but he saw no evil that could result from following it, and therefore he must vote for proceeding by bill, and against the amendment of the right honourable gentleman. Lord Temple and lord Jocelyn' were for proceeding by bill, but they were against clogging the regent with restrictions. Mr. Adam spoke in defence of Mr. Ponsonby's motion; who was replied to by the attorney-general. Sir S. Romilly said, it appeared to him that the first resolution contained an absolute contradiction to the method which was proposed in those resolutions that followed. We had already resolved that it was the right and duty of the lords and commons to supply the vacancy in the executive, occasioned by the lamented incapacity of his majesty; and yet we were afterwards to pro. ceed to procure the royal assent to a bill which should pass the two houses, without the possibility of his majesty assenting at all. Un der der such unfortunate circumstances, how can we devise any means of getting the assent of his majesty, but by the most palpable fiction? Was the will of the lords and commons the will of the king, or how could any such construction be given to it? His right honourable friend, in proposing the present resolutions, had relied on one precedent alone: but he had said nothing at all of the two houses of parliament taking upon themselves to legislate; and not only so, but to pass a measure, under the fictitious semblance of its being an act of all the branches of the legislature. He could not look upon that precedent in any other light but as a fraudulent trick, and altogether inconsistent with the open and manly manner in which every act of legislation should be performed. In matters of civil life, what would be said of a set of men joining to gether and making a contract for another in a state of insanity, and employing a person as his solicitor to affix his seal or his signature to such a deed? Should we not say that such a deed was a gross imposture, and absolutely null and void? The application to the present case was easy and obvious. Undoubtedly there was a distinction between the natural and political capacity of the sovereign. It proceeded from the latter, that in his courts of justice all writs and acts proceeded in his name, though his presence there was by no means necessary. But here we were extending the political capacity of the sovereign to cases of a very different sort; to acts of legislation where either his personal assent, or his assent by commission, was absolutely essential to their validity, and could not be dispensed with. There was not the smallest necessity for a bill in order to render valid the restric tions or regulations under which the regency was to be held. These might be introduced into an address with perfect propriety, and the very acceptance of that address would be also an acceptance of the conditions by which it was accompanied. Several other members spoke upon the question; and on the division there were, Against the amendment 259 Majority for ministers - 112 The original motion was then agreed to. On the 21 st, the report on the state of the nation being brought up, the resolutions passed on the preceding evening were read; of these, the first was unanimously agreed to. On the second, lord William Russell moved the previous question; which occasioned a very animated debate, in which the wisdom and propriety of the second and third resolutions were fully canvassed. Sir Francis Burdett renewed his arguments against the second resolution, protesting against the right about to be assumed by the two houses. Mr. Lambe said he was ready to allow every deference to delicacy within the bounds of discretionhe was willing to do it abstractedly as well as individually. It was impossible not to see this desire in the general sympathy of the country it was impossible not to see the great bulwark raised round the monarch by the universal respect and compassion which he excited. Abstractedly, indeed, every deli cacy was due to kings. It was the misfortune of their high station, that every act they did was the source of observation-their lives, their errors, their failings, their misfortunes, even their very maladies, were subject to an inquisition. The proceeding by bill he deprecated altogether. As to its having more weight than an address,' he confessed himself incapable of conceiving. He could not see how a commission executed by a body could possibly have more efficiency than the act of the body itself whence that commission emanated. The proceeding by bill he thought illegal: but even supposing it was equally legal with that by address, still could not every object be as well attained by the latter? Could not every limitation be as effectually imposed? Could not any provisions be as well engrafted on the address as they were in a former instance on the declaration of rights? He did not wish, constitutionally speaking, to trust to the discretion of any regent, or of any king-it was right to suspect them, not personally, but politically-it was right to watch over them with a vigilance, which, without suppos. ing them unjust, might prevent their being so. To those who would say that the mode of address freed the regent from this suspicion, he would ask, did not the mode by bill rather tend to throw that suspicion upon parliament? Did it not go to say, that the moment the prince came into power he might influence the house, and fritter away the limitations? The mode by address was adopt ed at the Revolution, and yet king William did not escape from the limitations. It was true he wished to evade some of them, as in the instance of the triennial act and another; but still in the end he was obliged to assent, and parliament was finally triumphant. The act of the prince or regent in a greeing to the address would be vo luntary; whereas he might deem the imposition by bill as compulsory. It was better, in his opinion, to trust to the honour of the prince; and on this account, as well as others, he preferred the proceeding by address rather than bill. Mr. Stephen, in a very pathetic speech, argued in behalf of proceeding by a bill. He was ably answered by Mr. Wynne. Mr. Wilberforce, upon the fullest consideration he could give the question, remained of the same opinion as formerly. It was the more necessary, though the right was not now claimed, to follow the former precedent, lest a departure from it, in this instance, might lead to an assertion of the right again on the part of some future prince of Wales, if the same calamitous incapacity should unfortunately befal a future sovereign. The value of the precedent was, that it would settle the question; and if they were to depart from it, there was no saying what difficulties and ill consequences might follow. It was of great importance for them to pursue a course which was defined and settled. They must bear in mind, that on this occasion they were legislating for all successive generations. It was therefore the more incumbent upon them to settle finally a question, which, if left open, might be attended hereafter with the most alarming conse quences. As to the particular restrictions proposed, he should not think it right to give a hasty opinion, but should reserve what he had to say respecting the subordi nate part of the measure, till it should be before the house. Mr. Grattan, Mr. Yorke, sir John Newport, Mr. Elliot, Mr. H. Ad dington, dington, and lord Porchester took part in the debate: after which The chancellor of the exchequer rose, and replied to the leading arguments opposed to the resolutions. He said that he and his colleagues had been unfairly accused of delay, for sinister purposes, in the measure of providing for the present exigency. Whatever delay had been interposed, proceeded from no other motive than the strong hopes, founded in former experience, that his majesty's recovery would be so speedy and complete, as to preclude the necessity of appointing a regent. He had acted upon open and avowed grounds; collecting the sense of parliament from their conduct in 1801 and 1804, at both which periods his majesty was afflicted with a similar malady, without that circumstance appearing to excite any wish in parliament for the appointment of a regent. He always conceived that the house were strongly averse, except upon the most imperious necessity, to agitate a measure, the effect of which must be to suspend the authority of the crown. So soon, however, as he was convinced of the necessity to appoint a regency, he did not hesitate a moment to urge it, and to take such measures as depended on him to produce its adoption. Amongst the principal accusations brought against him upon the ground of this supposed delay was, that he had thereby paralysed all the functions of government civil and military, abroad and at home: and that pending the incapacity of the king, and the non-appointment of a regent to supply his place, no troops could be sent to Portugal, nor elsewhere, nor withdrawn from any foreign station. No commander, it was urged, could be appoint ed or superseded-that lord Wellington, or any other general, so soon as informed of the resolution of the house of commons respecting the king's incapacity, might refuse to obey the orders of the . king's ministers executing the government that no commission could be issued for holding a courtmartial, or for criminal trials---that no money could be issued from the treasury-nor any one transaction executed in the business of government, without orders under the royal sign manual, which, during his majesty's ir capacity, could not be obtained. But could any honourable gentleman, on the other side of the house really suppose him and his colleagues such fools, in the important situations they held, as, under such exigency, to hesitate in giving orders to the officer who usually countersigned the orders under the royal signature, to affix that signature to such orders as required it, taking upon themselves the responsibility for such acts? Did they suppose that he himself, in the department he had the honour to fill, would sooner risk a mutiny in the army or navy, than use the king's name to order an issue of money from the exchequer to pay them, merely to screen himself from responsibility? Did they imagine that the officers of the exchequer would refuse to obey such orders under his responsibility, although they knew the royal signature was not really affixed? He was confident they would no more refuse to comply with such orders, than the officers of the customs would refuse to obey the orders of the treasury. For his own part, he should think himself bound by the severest responsibility, not to risk a serious injury to the public service by declining an |