tions of the original contract with the people forfeited his crownwhen the throne became vacantand when the right of filling that vacancy devolved upon the people. He could not allow that any house of commons, still less a house of commons collected together by such means as it was notorious that assembly was, could have any right to supply the deficiency in the functions of the crown. All that had been said respecting delicacy, had to his mind been introduced unfairly, in order to influence the feelings of members on the question in discussion. It was absurd to talk of delicacy upon great public occasions. Delicacy might well suit the conversation of a tea-table; it might be very fit to be entertained towards the other sex ; but in private life, when in ordinary transactions delicacy was talked of, it was only another name for roguery; and in state matters the law and the constitution of this country had broken in upon it. Every one knew that several great officers were required to be present at the lying-in of the queen, a circumstance which in private families would be in the last degree indelicate. He hoped he should never hear more of this delicacy. The crown and the person of the king were wholly distinct. The laws of England knew nothing of the personal infirmities of the king. The king, by our constitution, can do no wrong; never dies; and if ever the house were to suffer themselves to be influenced by considerations derived from his personal infirmities upon great questions of state, there would be an end of the constitution. As to the precedent of 1788, it was a precedent to be avoided, not imitated, and founded upon analogy, or with out reason. When he found the 1811.

right hon. gentlemen taking only so much of this precedent as suited their present purpose, he could not give them much credit for their candour, or their motives. As to who should be regent, he would not pretend to dictate to this part of the nation, or to the nation at large: but he should never lend his sanction to the mischievous practice which had so long existed. Besides, the times had been greatly altered since 1788. Then we were at peace with all the world, now we are at war with nearly the whole world; then France was impotent, now she was nearly omnipotent; then our revenue exceeded our expenditure one million and a half, now our expenditure exceeds our revenue twenty millions; then our debt was not more than three hundred millions, now it is eight hundred millions; then we had recently concluded an advantageous commercial treaty with France, now our commerce is nearly annihilated; then all was quiet, peace, tranquillity, and prosperity; and how different is our situation at present! How, then, could they dare to tell the people, that after a month of anarchy they would desert their duty, and omit to take the necessary measures to save their falling country!

General Matthew, lord Milton, sir T. Turton, and Mr. Wynne spoke on the same side: Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Fuller were for the adjournment: and on the question, that at its rising the house adjourn to this day fortnight, there were

Ayes - 233 Noes 129. Another division took place upon Mr. Ponsonby's motion, to appoint a committee to examine the physicians:

Ayes 137 Noes - 230.
B

On the 13th of December it was agreed by both houses, "That a select committee of 21 members be appointed to examine the physicians who have attended his majesty during his illness, touching the state of his health, and that they report the same to the house." An account of this examination will be found in the chapter and volume already referred to. The report of it was laid before the two houses, which afterwards formed themselves into committees to inquire into the state of the nation.

House of commons, Dec. 20. After the house had been called over, the order of the day, for the house resolving itself into a committee of the whole, on the state of the nation, being read-the speaker left the chair.

The chancellor of the exchequer rose, and spoke to the following effect:-"Mr. Lushington, the house, in compliance with the order now read, having resolved itself into a committee of the whole, it becomes my duty to call its attention to the disastrous state in which this nation is plunged, in consequence of the indisposition of our sovereign-an indisposition which is as sincerely lamented as it is unfortunate, and which has excited universal feelings of regret and sorrow. Feeling, as I do, such to be the impression, both of this house and of the country, it is wholly unnecessary on my part to take any course for the purpose of awakening such sensations, or to excite your attention upon the importance of the melancholy subject for the discussion of which we are this night assembled. When we contemplate the extent of that calamity, which in the person of our sovereign has befallen the country-when we view it under all the aggravated circumstances in

which, afflicting such a personage, it must present itself to our consideration, there exists little necessity for an appeal to the common sympathies of our nature. Had one of the humblest of our fellow-beings been visited with such a calamity, though wholly unconnected with any one of us, either by relation, friendship, duty, or dependence, in the view which would at once present itself to our minds, we should feel it as a duty imperative upon us all, to consign him under such circumstances to the protection and guardianship of his most affectionate relatives. If such would be our duty even to the humblest, how would our obligations be increased towards those dearly connected with us! and if with them, how much more does that duty increase, when applied in the present instance-in the instance of our sovereign and king-of him who for more than half a century has been a blessing to his people! who, during his benign reign, has watched with a parental tenderness and regard over the rights and happiness of his subjects-and whose private as well as public virtues have been the universal theme of our praises, and the objects of our admiration! Indeed, when I contem plate his reign, so marked and il lustrated, I feel a confidence that, neither in this house, nor in this country, exists that individual who does not sympathize in the distress of his sovereign. But whilst these motives, both private and public in their nature, impel us to feel the great calamity with which we are visited; there are also other reasons, wholly of a public nature, which render it the duty of this house to take the due and constitutional course of guarding the country from any greater aggrava

tion of the calamity. We are now aware that the functions of the executive magistrate are by his indisposition suspended, and we must know that by such suspension the interests of the country are materially impaired. The question for our consideration is, therefore, the propriety of taking the means of supplying the deficiency. We are now, in my conception, precisely in the same situation in which the house was at the close of the year 1788. The proceedings therefore adopted in that case, if the cases shall appear to be similar, point out the propriety of adhering at present to the true constitutional mode of acting, then decided on by the wisdom of parliament; taking advantage, as we have now the opportunity, of all the experience and of those lights which that precedent so fully affords. It is indeed a consolation to think, that though deprived of the authority and talents which the great men who then directed the views of the estates of the realm so fully possessed, we are at this day more capable of fully perceiving, unfettered by the difficulties of that period, what our paramount duties are. The precedent of the year 1788 has, upon that point, left us in full possession of the proper course. There is also this great advantage attaching to us on the present occcasion, that since this melancholy question came first under consideration, there has not either in argument or conversation been thrown out by any individual-indeed, there has not been an expression uttered, tending to glance at the right, and at the duty which we are now called upon to discharge. We know how mach of embarrassment and of dif. ficulty was created by a contrary conduct on a former occasion. We

are aware of the momentous considerations which the assertion of a certain claim produced at that period-a claim which was most wisely disclaimed by that personage on whose part it was advanced by the individual who introduced it. There are now other grounds for hope. As far as the discussions have gone on this subject, they have been free from ail that acerbity and rancou, which, springing from party heat, characterized, disturbed, and in a certain degree disgraced the proceedings of that day. We have now the advantage of not being impeded by any such interruption; and therefore whatever decision this house shall arrive at, must be received by the country with the greatest satisfaction, from the manner, the temperance and the deliberation which have marked, and will, I trust, continue to mark, the debates upon this important subject. Whatever difference of opinion may exist as to the postponements that have already taken place, we are all now, I conceive, unanimous that no further delay should occur. The question therefore which now arises, must be upon that course to which, in specific propositions, I felt it my duty to direct the attention of the house on a former night. I then offered to your notice three distinct propositions.

"1. That it is the opinion of this house, That his majesty is prevented by indisposition from coming to his parliament, and from attending to public business, and that the personal exercise of the royal authority is thereby for the present interrupted.'

"2. That it is the opinion of this house, That it is the right and duty of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, of Great Britain now assembled, and lawB 2

fully,

fully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, to provide the means of supplying the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authority, arising from his majesty's said indisposition, in such a manner as the exigency of the case may appear to require.' "3. Resolved, That for this purpose, and for maintaining entire the constitutional authority of the king, it is necessary that the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, of Great Britain, should determine on the means whereby the royal assent may be given in parliament to such bill as may be passed by the two houses of parliament respecting 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.'

"Before I enter upon this latter point-a question upon which, it is presumed, the principal part of this debate will hinge-I shall feel it both just and expedient that I should state generally what my views are of the measure which, in the shape of a bill, it is my intention to recommend to this house. With respect to the first resolution, no difference of opinion can possibly occur lest any should, it is only necessary to recur to the evidence produced before the privy council, and before the select committee of this house. Every man must see, in these examinations, sufficient proof of the melancholy fact of the king's incompetency. But though as to that fact the evidence is clear, it at the same time affords confident and sanguine hopes of ultimate recovery; and that there exist reasonable hopes, though no limits are defined, of expecting that recovery at no long distance of time. With respect to the second resolution, for

this house proceeding to supply the deficiency in the personal exercise of the royal authority, it has been intimated to me that there is some difference of opinion respecting the wording of that proposition; but from what I have learned, I can have no reason to believe that there exists any disposition to controvert the main principle which that proposition contains. It seems so supported in every part by the precedent of 1788, it is so sanctioned by every deduction which the history of the constitution and the country warrants, and is in fact impeached by nothing, that I shall leave to the objector to state his arguments, wholly abstaining, myself, from any previous discussion of it. I assume it as a principle undenied and undeniable, and therefore shall not anticipate any arguments in objection. I now come to the third and last proposition, which, for the purpose of maintaining entire the authority of the king, proposes that this house should determine on the means of giving the royal assent to a measure for supplying the deficiency in the executive authority. The great and leading principle of this resolution is, that the course of proceeding should be by bill; that course I feel it my duty to recommend to this house. On the other hand it is submitted, and most candidly I confess, that instead of proceeding by bill, which the gentlemen opposite condemn as unconstitutional, it should be by address. In this view, I apprehend the house will feel that the great object on which this night's debate turns, is narrowed to the question, whether the course of our proceedings shall be by bill as I propose, or by address as the gentlemen at the other side recommend. Before I proceed to

weigh the grounds of preference upon these two courses, I feel the propriety, as I previously stated, to lay before the house a general view of what I intend further to propose in execution of this measure. It is in my view that his royal highness the prince of Wales should be appointed to exercise the office of regent, in the name and on the behalf of his majesty, during the continuance of the king's indis. position. That, generally, all the powers of the government should be committed to his hands. That to her majesty the queen should be intrusted the care and guardianship of the king's person. I think it also necessary that due provisions should be made to notify the king's recovery, and chalk out the course of proceeding by which his majesty may be enabled to reassume his functions. These three provisions should have no limit in point of time, except what should arise from the duration of the king's indisposition. But with respect to all the powers of majesty, I do feel that, taking all the circumstances connected with the king's indisposition into consideration, a limit should be placed on the prerogatives of the crown, when in the bands of the regent. It was evident, from the evidence produced before the house, and the state of bis majesty's health in his former disorders, that we are to look at no distant period for his recovery, although no specific time was mentioned by his physicians. That the dignity of the executive office could not be impaired by any due limitation arising from such considerations, I most sincerely feel; and therefore I should think that a restriction upon the exercise of these powers in the hands of the regent for twelve months, would be most

advisable, taking care that the limitation should expire during the sitting of parliament, and at least six weeks after it was convened. It would then be open for parliament to reconsider the subject, or, if they did not think the duty necessary, the termination of the restriction would have the advantage of having occurred under the eye and superintendance of the legislature. Upon these grounds, I think that there should be a suspension for the same period of the power of granting any rank or dignity in the peerage, with certain exceptions. Also, that all pensions and offices granted should continue only during the continuance of the regent in office, unless subsequently approved and confirmed by his majesty. And lastly, that to her majesty the queen, with the care of his royal person, should be committed the appointment to the several offices connected with his majesty's household, subject to the consideration of parliament. These

are the restrictions which strike me as necessary for the due protection of his majesty's authority; and compose the provisions which, in the shape of a bill, it is my intention on a future occasion to recommend to the adoption of the house. I beg leave now to recall your attention to the distinct question before you-a question which you must now view (whatever may be your opinion as to the propriety of restriction at all, or to the extent the restrictions should be carried,) only as referring to the proper course of proceeding at this mo ment, whether by bill or address? In considering this subject it will be our first duty, whatever may b our ultimate determination, cautiously to adhere to that principle with which the two houses set out