history uniformly support this doctrine, and prove that when, from the personal incapacity of the king, a regency was rendered necessary, parliament was invariably consi. dered the power from whence the right to the regency was to be derived. Thus we find that when, on the succession of Henry the Sixth to the crown, who was an infant, the duke of Gloucester claimed the regency, the parliament searched for precedents; and, after a full consideration of the question, decided that he had no right to it except through them, and they ap. pointed him regent under certain restrictions. The precedents in our history are uniformly of this description, with the exception of the case of the duke of York, in the reign of Henry the Sixth, who acted with a view to his claim upon the throne; and that of Richard the Third, The fourth principle to which I wish to call your lordships' attention is, that whenever a regent has been appointed, it has been under certain restrictions. Thus, then, the precedents in our history tend uniformly to prove that no individual has a claim to the regency, except through parliament; and that the regency, when appointed, has been accompanied by restrictions, I come now, my lords, to the mode by which it is proposed to constitute the regency. All are agreed that the individual to be constituted regent ought to be the prince of Wales. The two modes proposed are, by bill or by address, I have before stated that by bill to be the most proper and constitutional mode, and, I must add, the only mode by which the desired object can be effected. The office of regent is unknown to the law. For the courts below to take notice of

the appointment of a regent, there must be some record of his appointment which those courts can legally recognise. An address would be only a record of parliament, but would not be a record which the courts below could recognise. An address may request the exercise of powers already legally vested; but how can the prince of Wales, in consequence of an address, exercise powers which are not legally vested in him? A legislative measure, with the great seal attached to it, must be recognised by the courts below, and will necessarily confer all those powers which it is wished to vest in the regent. The two houses of parliament must act in this instance from the necessity of the case, in directing the great seal to be affixed to a commission for giving the royal assent to such a legislative measure. By that alone can it be recognised in the courts below. The great seal may be illegally affixed to an instrument, but such an act can only be questioned in parliament; the courts below must recognise the instrument; there can be no averment there against the great seal." His lordship, after a speech of considerable length, moved the resolutions sent from the commons. He concluded by saying, "The doctrine which I have maintained this night has been recognised, not only at several antecedent periods of our history, but most clearly and decidedly by the precedent of 1789. Founded in justice and reason, it stands supported by the voice of parliament

it appears arrayed in all the gravity and authority which the most venerable of our institutions cán bestow-confirmed and sanctioned by bodies, comprehending all that

is sacred in religion, illustrious in birth, and eminent in character and talent and finally, it is ratified by the approbation of the third branch of the legislature, whose absence it was intended to supply. I am, therefore, naturally anxious that this great precedent should be placed in its true light, that it should be regarded not as a single example, but as forming another great link in a chain of instances, all tending to uphold the same principles. And it is obvious that, whether the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authority proceed from the weakness of infancy, or originate in the infirmities of manhood, the same principles are equally applicable, equally important to the rights of the people, and the legitimate interests of the monarch.-Thus considering the question, I trust these precedents will long remain, and that their force and authority will be submitted to by posterity."

Earl Stanhope begged it to be understood, that if he voted for the second resolution, it was not on the grounds stated by the noble lord, but for reasons of a very different nature; he was ready to say that he agreed to the second resolution, which claimed it as the right of the two houses to appoint a regent, because he found no act of parliament which gave the regency to any one in case of the king's illness or incapacity; no one, therefore, had a right to take it, and consequently none but the representatives of the people could supply the deficiency in the executive that was thus occasioned. This was his short and plain reason for agreeing to the second resolution. But, in his opinion, that resolution was incomplete, and he should therefore, before he sat down,

propose an amendment to it in the way of addition. That amend. ment he should now read to the house, and it was this:

"That the powers of the regent should continue until the lords and commons, on sufficient and satis factory proof of the fact, shall declare his majesty so completely recovered as to be competent to resume the various and weighty func tions of his royal office." This was negatived without a division.

Lord Holland objected entirely to the second resolution, but was unwilling to enter into any long dis cussion concerning it. He should content himself, after a very few observations, with moving the previous question upon it; which was put, and negatived without a division.

The third resolution being read,

Lord Holland rose, and made a most luminous reply to all the arguments advanced by the earl of Liverpool. He combated likewise the doctrines and precedents relied upon by the noble earl, and said, "At the Revolution, a period to which I can never look but with that reverence and respect due to the sense of those blessings we have derived from the exertions of the illustrious men who took a lead at that great æra--on that occasion our ancestors proceeded in the line most advantageous and convenient, which was both recommended by the proceedings and precedents of our parliamentary history, and the analogy of our laws. They ad dressed the prince of Orange at once. But,' says the noble earl, the case of the Revolution does not now apply, inasmuch as the throne was at that period declared vacant.' Where has the noble earl learned the history of these times? Does

he

he not know that the address was agreed to by the estates of the realm, before the question of vacancy was ever even discussed; that the prince of Orange had actually begun to administer the functions of the government before the vacancy of the throne was declared? The noble earl must indeed trust mach to our want of knowledge or of diligence, when he can fancy that your lordships can be deluded by an objection so refuted by the very events of that period; when every one of your lordships is aware that at the time the address was voted, the question of abdication was kept out of sight,-and for this reason, that on that very question of vacancy a considerable contrariety of opinion was known to prevail. But if it should be granted to me that against an address there exist only the same objections as apply to the proceeding by bill, surely then it becomes the duty of your lordships to take the course most respectful and equally advantageous. Let us act as our ancestors did towards our gracious deliverer. King William, in an open and undisguised manner. Why not, in our address, do as they did, namely, state the provisions upon which we address him, and the expectations we form of his future conduct? Of all modes, that by bill I pronounce to be mort odious and disgusting to the royal personage; and as to the va lue of it, let us reflect upon where the violation of its provisions would ultimately rest. If a prince of Wales, whom you agree in some way to constitute regent, be a personage of a generous and noble nature, address is the mode most compatible with your sentiments of his high character, while it best corresponds with the dignity of his station. If, on the other hand, he

be of a description totally different, the object of suspicion and disre gard-an individual whom no engagements can bind-would he not have the power of dissolving the parliament, of adding sooner or later to your lordships' numbers, and ultimately of bringing to pu nishment those who had the teine. rity to put the great seal to an act sanctioned by only two branches of the legislature? Now, my lords, it remains to advert to the prece dent of 1788-to which so much allusion has been made, and on which so much stress has been fixed, in order to decide your lordships as to the propriety of a similar proceeding in the present emergency. I contend, however, that it is not a constitutional precedent, because such a precedent cannot rest upon incomplete proceeding. It is not reconcilable with those which the wisdom of our ancestors recognised. And, my lords, when we appeal to the wisdom of those who have preceded us, it is not from any imaginary belief, that because they have lived three or four hundred years before us, they are entitled to our implicit confidence; that we their descendants are in a progressive state of degeneracy. Such a speculation may suit with the classical thought

'Nos nequiores, mox daturos Progeniem vitiosiorem ;* but ill accords with constitutional doctrine. When we appeal to the precedents of former times, it is because we have the authority of the persons who were contempora neous with its adoption, and supported it, together with the expe rience which posterity have had of its advantages. Trying the prece dent of 1788 by that definition, and it must fail-it has only the autho

C4

rity

rity of those who recommended it. It has the authority of lords Camden, Thurlow, and Mr. Pitt. Of the great men who resisted that very transaction for reasons which your lordships can easily appreciate, I will not trust myself with the recital. In 1788 you were at peace-had there existed at that moment the very important interests now pressing upon this country, I am persuaded, notwithstanding the height of political animosity at that period, no such length of time would have been spent in its discussion. Yet with our knowledge of the crisis in which we stand--with the variety of public duties which force themselves upon our consideration, we have suffered a period of double the extent to that admitted by our ancestors to pass with out having proceeded to do that which constitutes only the groundwork of our proceeding. I conjure you, my lords, exhausted as I am, to consult, this night, what is due to the interests of the monarchy-to your own dignityand to the critical state of the public concerns. If every man but examine his heart, he must feel, that if on the first and second adjournments he was in possession of those facts with which we are now acquainted, it would be impossible for us to have allowed the delay that has been so studiously sought. It is impossible but that your lord. ships must feel that we have been deceived and entrapped by the delusive expectations held out to us. A time for the most deep scrutiny of all these proceedings must quick ly arrive. The facts with which we are acquainted, at length compel us to the duty. It is now stated on evidence, taken upon oath before your lordships, that there have been periods when his majesty was

labouring under that infirmity which subjects the human mind to the ascendancy of others, and yet the royal assent was given in this house, and many other equally impo: tant functions of the sovereign exercised in his name. If that information had been in our possession weeks ago, would it be possible for us to have assented to successive postponements? Is it possible that, with that knowledge now, we are not impressed with the necessity of adopting means to prevent a recurrence of such a state of things? It is indeed to the discredit of former administrations, that this remedy has not been heretofore provided. As a humble member of the late one, I take shame to myself that no measures were taken against the recurrence of such an awful exigency, and to prevent the country from being, in the midst of its dangers and difficulties, cut short, as it were, of all legal authority. This duty, delicate as it is, my lords, must be done; and the conse quences of any dereliction must be on your lordships and the other house of parliament. I have to move, as an amendment to the third resolution, that after the word resolved,' the following words be substituted:

"That his royal highness the prince of Wales, being of mature age, be requested to take upon himself the exercise of the powers and authorities of the crown, in the name and on the behalf of the king, during the continuance of his majesty's present indisposition, and no longer.

"That an address, founded on this resolution, be presented to his royal highness the prince of Wales, requesting him to take upon himself the government aforesaid; and that it be at the same time, and inthe

same

same manner, communicated to his royal highness the prince of Wales, that it is further the opinion of this committee, that it will be expedient to abstain from the exercise of all such powers as the immediate exigencies of the state shall not call into action, until parliament shall have passed a bill or bills for the future care of his majesty's royal person during his majesty's present indisposition, and the securing to his majesty, whenever it shall please Divine Providence to restore his heath, the resumption of his royal authority.'"

The duke of Norfolk spoke on the same side. After which,

The duke of Sussex:-"My lords, I rise not merely to approve of the amendment, but likewise to caution your lordships to listen with suspicion to any suggestion coming from that side of the house, upon a matter of so high importance, as to be equalled only by the magnitude of the calamity with which we are visited, and which gives rise to this momentous discussion.-Upwards of eight weeks have now elapsed, during which immense period, either the magistracy of royalty has been suspended, or the functions of that authority have been assumed by a committee of persons who have no right to exercise them.

"My lords, if I understand any thing of the constitution of my country, the ministers of the sovereign are a set of men whom the king calls to his councils, and therefore are they styled his confidential servants. They are to take the pleasure of their sovereign, to advise him upon all matters wherein the welfare and interests of his people are concerned, to the best of their knowledge and judgement, for which they are responsible to par

liament. In consequence of their representations, his majesty commands them how to act; and for the execution of these royal commands, they are equally amenable to the grand tribunal of the empire.

"Now then, my lords, are we to allow ourselves to be persuaded, dare those ministers assert, that they have acted as they would have advised their royal master, whom they have not seen for these last eight weeks, with whom they have had no personal communication, who has no free will of his own, and who is separated from all the tenderest ties of nature? My lords, if these late courageous ministers have acted, they have usurped a power which they have no right to exercise. If they have been frightened-if they have besitated-if they have stumbled, and not acted, why then, my lords, they are equally treasonable for allowing the magistracy of royalty to be suspended for such a length of time; which is a situation the constitution can never know, and, of course, can never acknowledge. It is a shock the most dreadful, the most deadly, the constitution has ever received since the period of the Revolution.

"My lords, the sovereign is a sole corporation; he never dies; he enjoys a political immortality. In attempting, therefore, the destruction of this grand constitutional principle, these late ministers of his majesty have committed a regicide act against the magistracy of royalty.

"We have been led into an apathy for these last eight weeks. We have been cheered, amused, and disappointed, with the welcome but unfortunately fallacious reports of the speedy recovery of our beloved sovereign. We have been unmanned, my lords, by their work