urge a reasonable objection against his noble friend's motion. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he supposed that the side of the House on which he stood, would mention his conduct in the catalogue of disrespects imputed to him. He would not notice it as a disrespect, but as an insult to his Majesty, to the Queen, and to the Prince of Wales. Was it to be believed, that the Queen chose rather to advise with the menial servants of his Majesty, as the right hon. gentleman had stated them to be, than consult with his relations? Sure he was, that when his Majesty recovered, he would look with pleasure to the resolution of that House, which made the Prince of Wales one of his counsellors. He spoke of the comfort every man felt in being advised by his own relations. He put the case to Mr. Pitt, who had, he said, so plentifully provided for his relations. When he looked to the Board of Treasury, when he looked to the Board of Admiralty, when he looked to the Chair of that House, he saw every proof of Sir James Johnstone rose suddenly, and said, he would not suffer the Speaker to be abused. Lord Maitland said, the right hon. gentleman would not, he was sure, consider it as an inclination in him to abuse the Speaker in what he had said; and therefore he would pursue the thread of his argument. If he thought the Prince of Wales was wicked enough to wish to retain the government of the country when the King grew well, he would be the last man living to suggest his being of the council. The right hon. gentleman, when he could not produce any argument, had invented the device of calling it a question of feeling; if, therefore, the question was a question of that nature, he did not doubt but that it would revolt the feelings of all public men, when they came to hear that the Prince of Wales had been treated with so much marked insult. The right hon gentleman had said, that lord Thurlow was a fit person to be a member of the council, because the learned lord was high in his Majesty's confidence. Had not his Majesty shown as much confidence in the duke of York? Would any man so far libel her Majesty, as to suppose that she would not feel great comfort in the advice of her own son? There could exist but one opinion in the country, and that was, that the royal princes should be members of the council. Mr. Addington much doubted, if there could be but one opinion in the country, whether that opinion was as the noble lord had stated it; certain he was, that there were sufficient reasons why that ought not to be the opinion of the House. The noble lord in the blue ribbon had declared, that he conceived the principle of excluding the successor to the Crown from the council to advise her Majesty, was a principle carried to the height of barbarity. It was nevertheless, the principle which governed the practice of the first court of equity in this kingdom, in all cases concerning persons labouring under the mental malady. The rule was, never to appoint the heir apparent, nor even the heir presumptive, to have the care of the person indisposed, but to take the individual least interested in the death of that person. The Queen stood precisely in this predicament. Her Majesty, for a thousand reasons, was the most proper to have the care of the King's person, and the Prince of Wales was, for a variety of very different reasons, unfit to take any share in that concern. The noble lord had observed, that in case of her Majesty's death, the council would have the care of the King's person. If the duke of York, therefore, was to be of the council and the Prince of Wales were to die, the duke of York standing then as heir presumptive of the Crown, would have the custody of the King's person, which would be highly improper. When the death of the Queen should happen, the Bill had provided for the circumstance, The only case in which the Queen ought to act under the Bill by herself, was in regard to the resumption clause, and the Bill especially defined what was to be the line of proceeding to be adopted. Mr. Addington assigned, as an additional reason, why the princes of the blood ought not to be of the council, that their over anxious wishes for his Majesty's recovery might induce them to pronounce that his Majesty was in a state of sanity, before his restoration to health was complete. He solemnly declared, that, in regard to the measures lately pursued, he had acted from principle; he had maturely considered every part of the system; he had voted upon conviction in consequence, and he felt a pride and a pleasure in having given his feeble support to his right hon. friend. Mr. Burke said, that the Committee had now got two principles laid down, Edward was negatived without a division. The Committee divided on the duke of Gloucester's name: Yeas, 129; Noes, 178. The duke of Cumberland was negatived without a division. Mr. Dempster then proposed the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being. Mr. Pitt said, that on every account, from friendship, affection, and consanguinity, he might well be supposed to be partial to the present Speaker of that House; but he could not agree that he ought to be a member of the Queen's council. The four that had been first voted members were the heads of the church and the law; the four last were the principal officers of his Majesty's household; whereas the Speaker of that House was of neither description. The question was put, and negatived. The Lord Mayor of London for the time being was next proposed, and negatived. Feb. 11. The House being again and those as opposite to each other as light to darkness. The hon. gentleman who had spoken last had said, that the duke of York ought not to be of the council, lest his too great zeal and filial affection should prompt him to pronounce the King well previously to the re-estab lishment of his health; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, the presumption was, that from the princes of the blood being interested, his Majesty might not be restored to his government at the time of his recovery. Mr. Burke reasoned upon these contrasted disqualifications, and denied that they could both be founded. He said that gentlemen were fond of resorting to the dark and barbarous time of Henry 6; a period before our constitution was formed. He would refer them to more modern times, to the Regency Bill of the fifth of the present King; a bill brought into parliament at the instance of the King himself. In that bill, the King was enabled to nominate a regent, but disabled from naming any but in a Committee on the Regency Bill, his successor. Mr. Burke laid great stress Mr. Alderman Watson in the chair, the on the wording of that statute, and asked 26th clause was read, providing for his whether it was right to exclude all the sons Majesty's resumption of his government, of a father from having any share in the which is as follows; custody of his person? He was himself a father, and the noble lord was likewise a father. He appealed to the noble lord, and to all fathers, how they would feel, on recovering from a dangerous and severe malady, if they found that their sons had been debarred all share of the custody of their persons. For his part, he should regard that man as a murderer, who had so excluded his son. He then exclaimed against the times; they were, he said, ignorant times, not barbarous, because he really thought there was enough of urbanity and softness of manners; but ignorant, because mankind in general now drew all their information from newspapers and magazines. The learning of this day was bad learning, which was the worst sort of ignorance. The right hon. gentleman had said, "Let us have members of the church, and guardians of the laws, of the council, and officers of the house-required on the receipt thereof, to commuhold." He knew not one of the persons in office, but he knew that the Queen might change the household the next day, and then new persons would be her advisers. The Committee divdied: Yeas, 130; Noes, 177. Prince William Henry was then proposed, and the Committee divided again: Yeas, 128; Noes, 176. Prince "And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that when it shall appear to her Majesty the Queen, and to of the council appointed by this Act to assist her Majesty in the execution of the trust committed to her Majesty by this Act, that his Majesty is restored to such a state of health as to be capable of resuming the personal exercise of the royal authority, it shall and may be lawful for her said Majesty, by the advice of of her said council, to notify the same by an instrument under her Majesty's hand, and signed also by the said of her Majesty's said council, and addressed to the Lord President of his Majesty's most hon. privy council for the time being, or, in his absence, to one of his Majesty's principle secretaries of state; and the said Lord President, or secretary of state, shall and, is hereby nicate the same to the said Regent, and to or more ostensible and fit channel, through whicla he would have to communicate his act to the parliament and the people. In pro the said instrument to be entered on the books of the said privy council, and immediately thereafter to send a copy of such instrument to the lord mayor of Lon-viding such channel, they were to look to don, and likewise to cause the same to be printed in the London gazette." Mr. Pitt rose. He said, he meant to propose that the first blank should be filled up with the word "five." In reviewing this clause, it was necessary to consider the subsequent ones, they being all connected together. The general principle of the clauses he need not argue, as the provisions for his Majesty's resumption of his government, arose out of every principle of regard to the constitution, the law of the land, the allegiance they all owed to their king, and out of the resolutions themselves, which were professedly caleulated for the interval of his Majesty's indisposition alone. The general principle felt by the public was, that the whole of this measure was calculated only for the duration of that necessity; in policy also they were bound to take measures that the Regency should continue no longer than the happy moment of his Majesty's capability to resume his right. The point they were then considering was of the greatest importance. It was his Majesty's undoubted right to resume the personal exercise of the royal authority as soon as he was capable of it. They were providing for that right, and in so doing, they ought to provide according to the constitution, that they should not be thought to be trenching on royalty; and if they went any farther than the necessity of the case, they would be usurping to themselves a right of transferring the King's undoubted right to another. As long as there existed the necessity of his Majesty's remaining in the care provided for the royal person, they could not look for one royal act from him; therefore, the first preliminary was, that previous to his Majesty's resumption of the royal authority, the Queen and her council must notify that the infirmity no longer subsisted. And when the Queen and her council notified that the infirmity no longer existed, his Majesty would have a clear indisputable right to resume his government, Upon such notification of the capacity of his Majesty, he would not be able to do any act of royalty, but through some ostensible channel. When his Majesty should no longer be infirm, he must act, as a King, through some ostensible channel; it was then the duty of that House to provide for his Majesty that [VOL. XXVII.] ostensible persons, to the privy council: those who might on his Majesty's recovery be in executive departments, would by no means be fit persons to consider his Majesty's capability of returning to his government. The mode, therefore, proposed in the next clause was, that those who should be at the time, or shall have been, of his Majesty's privy council, and who should be selected by his Majesty, to any number not less than nine, should be the channel of communication, and if six of such privy council should agree with the representation of the Queen and her council, that his Majesty's infirmity no longer existed, and should have countersigned the proclamation, they would be the channel through which his Majesty would have to communicate to the public his happy recovery. The principles he went upon were, that while his Majesty's infirmity continued, he could not do one royal act that when it ceased, his Majesty would have an indisputable right to assume the reins of government that such recovery must be communicated through some ostensible channel; that those who were in executive departments at the time would be unfit persons; and that those who were, and had been of his Majesty's privy council, would be the proper channel through which his Majesty's recovery was to be communicated to the country, for which they would be responsible, and, upon such notification, the regency would immediately cease. There could not à doubt exist, under such guards, that his Majesty would prematurely be restored to his government; the Queen and her council were to make such notification, to the president of the council, and on his Majesty's requisition, under his sign manual, a privy council were to assemble, and by that responsible channel was his Majesty's proclamation to be countersigned, and the parliament were to meet immediately. He said, he could not suppose it possible that in consequence of such care, a resumption would take place under doubtful or equivocal circumstances; it would be a resumption parliament would have to meet and contemplate with joy; a resumption wished for by a people whose ardent hopes were for his Majesty's speedy recovery. Mr. Powys said, that whilst he thanked [4K] the right hon. gentleman for his full explanation of the principles of his system, he must beg leave to condemn it as novel, incongruous, and unconstitutional. He declared he wished to introduce specific amendments of a quite contrary nature to those proposed, to controvert such pernicious propositions. He trusted that the House would resist them in toto. He wished to support the honour, the dignity, and the loyalty of the two Houses of Parliament, which were grossly insulted by an attempt made to supersede the rights of parliament, and put them into the hands of a hacknied and garbled junto. He said he had viewed none of the clauses with greater surprise than this. The right hon. gentleman had declared that his Majesty, while his incapacity exists, could do no one royal act: but the clause provided for the exercise of such act, when his Majesty should be supposed not to be incapable. The right hon. gentleman had stated the great certainty of the responsibility of the Queen's council; but how were they responsible? They were to be made openly responsible for that act, of which they could not distinguish the motives. It was stated in the clause, that the moment it was made appear to the Queen, that his Majesty was recovered, she was to do so and so; but how was it to be made appear? The right hon. gentleman had shown great suspicion in this case, not of one, but of all the three branches of the legislature. Was there, in fact, a suspicion of any one branch of the legislature ? If so, there should be a suspicion of the others. But he found there was an intention to treat the legislature, as the right hon. gentleman had treated that House. Parliament had not gone on supposition to the point of his Majesty's incapacity, but had proceeded in the most solemn manner to the investigation of that fact, and in the same manner, he contended, they ought to proceed to the important point of his Majesty's recovery. When his Majesty should awake from that slumber in which be then lay, and should inquire into the transactions which had passed, and ask by what authority he had been superseded in the exercise of his own functions, he would be told, this was the act of your faithful Commons. He would hear, that by them he had been condemned to supercession, by them he had been subjected to restriction. When his Majesty should ask, have my sons, have my brothers been near me? The answer would be, no, Sire; parliament has taken care that your sons and brothers should have nothing to do with you. When he should ask, have my other great officers had the care of me? The answer must be, no, Sire; they have had nothing to do with you. You owe it to four persons, John Moore, commonly called Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; William Markham, commonly called Lord Archbishop of York: Edward lord Thurlow, and Lloyd, lord Kenyon. Did not this conduct tend to poison the royal mind, and make his Majesty think that those four individuals were the pillars of his throne? Within these two years, the House had seen a variety of extraordinary things. Gentlemen had seen the execu tive power used to degrade and disgrace the House; they had seen the Lords and Cominons made the instruments of mutilating the executive power: and that House was now called upon to be the instrument of its own humiliation, and to declare itself not fit to be trusted with the re-instatement of their sovereign. He hoped gentlemen were not so lost to a sense of their own honour, as to subscribe to such a disgraceful doctrine. He meant to propose several amendments, and to support the amendment of an hon. friend of his behind him, which he had seen and approved. For the present, he entered his protest against the whole system, as militating, to a violent excess, against the purest and most sacred principles of the constitution. Mr. Vyner supported the arguments of Mr. Powys. Sir Richard Sutton was astonished, that those who some time since contended against the right of parliament to lay any restrictions on the Regent, should now come forward to restrict their lawful sovereign. He said, his Majesty's claim was irresistible; the instant he recovered so as to be able to resume his government, their authority fell to the ground, and there was an end to the Regency. He condemned the idea of the two Houses going into an examination of the capacity of his Majesty, upon his recovery, which he considered as highly injurious to his Majesty's rights; and argued that it bore no parallel with the necessity of a parlia mentary examination to prove the incapacity; the King not meeting his parlia ment in person, or by commission, and a stop thence existing to all executive acts, it was necessary that the infirmity should be proved, to show the right of the two Houses to provide for the exercise of the royal authority; but, when his Majesty was restored, should they have an examination in parliament, to know whether they would admit him to exercise his undoubted right? On his majesty's recovery, he would recover his right, and parliament would have no power to consider of means for the exercise of the executive authority. vation. On this unquestionable truth, he founded his question; which was " Since you have admitted that the interposition and cognizance of the two Houses of Parliament was necessary to ascertain and establish the fact of the King's incapacity to peform an act of no difficulty whatever, on what rational ground of distinction do you now assert, that the interposition and cognizance of the same judgment is not Mr. Francis said, that among all the necessary to establish and ascertain the novelties which had occurred in the course fact of his recovery, an operation in which, of this business, some of them alarming, of all others, cur observation, and even and all of them surprising, nothing had our experience, is most liable to be deastonished him more, than that he should decived? And if you thought that the now, he believed for the first time, not authority of parliament was necessary to have been able to comprehend the mean- warrant the first fact to the satisfaction of ing of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. the whole kingdom, why do you think it Although he did not often assent to unnecessary to warrant the second fact, the opinions, and was seldom convinced by the same authority? Why do you by the arguments, of that right hon. gen-refer the question to the decision of an tleman, he generally, if not always, per- inferior tribunal?" fectly understood him; for, few men, he confessed, had a clearer way of stating their meaning upon any subject, or making their ideas intelligible to those who heard them: but, on the present occasion, though he had listened to him with the utmost attention, he was utterly unable to conceive what he meant. Although the question before the Committee regarded the mode of establishing, by sufficent evidence, the truth of a most important fact, the certainty of his Majesty's recovery, the right hon. gentleman had not said one word about either fact or evidence, but had rung the changes a dozen times over, upon the words channel, and the channel of information, without any apparent application to the subject, and in a way which conveyed no distinct idea whatever to his mind. Mr. Francis said he had risen to state a specific question to the gentlemen on the other side, to which he hoped some of them would condescend to give a direct answer. To every man who had had an opportunity of observing persons afflicted with a disorder of the mind, it was a truth which could admit of no dispute, that to ascertain the fact of the existence of the disorder was one of the easiest operations, on which the human judgment or observation could be employed; whereas to ascertain the fact of a real recovery, was one of the most difficult. A view of the person, or a conversation of a few minutes, might be sufficient to put the first out of all doubt; whereas, to ascertain the second, would require long, minute, and attentive obser Mr. Marsham objected to that part of the clause, enabling his Majesty to call in what privy counsellors he thought proper to decide upon his ability to resume the government. He had two clauses which he meant to submit to the House, instead of the one proposed by the right hon. gentleman. They were to provide, that on the notification by the Queen of his Majesty's recovery, parliament should, if sitting, in not less than four days, nor more than six, after 'such notification, order his Majesty's physicians to attend at the bar, and to have this single question put to each of them: Whether his Majesty was capable of resuming the reins of government? If the answers were given in the affirmative, the Houses should go up with an address to his Majesty, praying him to resume the reins of government. This mode, he conceived would be far more satisfactory to the people of England than the one proposed. Colonel Phipps urged the propriety of the examination which had taken place in the first instance, to prove the malady, and reprobated the indecency, of taking a parliamentary examination of his Majesty upon his recovery. He asserted the right of the King to resume his government the moment his infirmity ceased to exist. He wished the resumption to be brought forward in the most easy, and at the same time, in the most responsible manner, and for that reason he objected to the interference of parliament, who, not being a responsible body, were improper so to act. He wished them to |