time all the other functions of royalty unsupplied, they would be doing a thing which they had no right to do. Their right and their duty was to supply the deficiency in the monarch during the illness of the sovereign and if they did not supply the deficiency, but only what part of it they thought proper, they would be failing to discharge that which, in their own resolution, they had declared to be their duty. A right honourable gentleman had said, that the house had a right to do no more than to delegate such parts of the royal authority as were necessary for the well-being of the government. That gentleman had not, however, explained what part of the royal prerogative was not necessary for the well-being of the government; and he must say, that in the course of his studies he had never found out what was unnecessary. If any branches of the prerogative were not necessary, they ought not to exist. A power that was quite unnecessary ought not to be placed in any hands. As to the restricting the regent from making any peers, except in reward for naval or military services, he could show, by instances, that there were other cases in which the restriction might be positively injurious to the public service.

Having enlarged upon various other topics; he said, at the present time, when all the strength of majesty was necessary, he thought the executive power should not be stripped of its accustomed splendour, or diminished in its power. The question which the gentlemen on the other side seemed to wish to determine, was, with how small a portion of the regal authority the business of the country could go on? As to the splendour which ought

to surround the executive power, it must be recollected, that when there were discussions respecting unnecessary burdens from inconsiderable offices, it was always contended on the part of ministers, that those appointments were necessary for the proper splendour and influence of the throne. He hoped that they would not now try the experiment in the first office in the country-that of regent-with how small a portion of splendour and influence it would be consist ent with the public safety that the head of the government should be invested. Did the right honourable gentleman, then, suppose, that because it might be likely that the regent would encourage such measures of economy, a stop should be put to those reforms to which the people looked with so much anxiety and interest, by imposing restrictions upon the powers to be committed to the regent? He should, for his part, protest against this doctrine, as injurious to the government of the regent, and likely to be prejudicial to the interests of the public: but he was particularly averse from making an experiment upon the constitution, by the appointment of a regent with restrictions of the powers of the executive government. This experiment might be tried with much less danger in the case of a person removed, no matter how far, from the succession to the crown; but could not be put into practice without much apparent hazard in the person of an individual the heirapparent to the crown, and who would have at no distant time, perhaps, to take on him the whole powers of the executive government. To cripple, in the hands of the latter, the powers of government, whilst they may be tempora

ily intrusted to him, might have the effect of inducing men to conclude, that the restrictions imposed during the term of his regency might beneficially be continued wherever, by the course of nature, he should succeed to the entire sovereignty. Were these times for trying such an experiment? Was the present situation of this country, and of the world, when it was impossible not to foresee that in the reign of the successor to the throne the most important events must occur, the most favourable for such a trial? For himself, he should wish most sincerely that the glories of the present reign, which had been so much dwelt upon, should be enhanced in the reign of the successor of his majesty; and that the happiness of the people, which was stated to be one of the blessings of his majesty's government, should be increased under the paternal rule of his immediate heir. With this view, not only from regard to the prince, but to the sovereign and to the country, he should not consent to any of the restrictions proposed upon the regent.

Mr. Wilberforce and several other members took part in the debate; after which

Mr. Canning rose, and began by observing that in the latter part of the debate the real question had been lost sight of; and he might do some service in recalling it to the attention of the house, while he explained the ground of his own vote. The resolution now before them divided itself into three parts :First, That the custody of his majesty's person should be given to the queen.--On that point there was no doubt. Secondly, That it was expedient that, for the due admini

stration of this trust, her majesty should have a council.-On that too, as a general proposition, he presumed there was no difference of opinion. But there was an intermediate proposition between these two, which formed the question for the present discussion; namely, that a trust of considerable political power should be committed to the queen; that she should be enabled to remove not only the officers of his majesty's household, of less consequence in a political view, though of great importance with regard to his majesty's comforts, but also persons standing high in the political scale. The real question then was, whether they might not sufficiently provide for the comfort and dignity of his majesty, without committing considerable political authority to hands where political power had never before been placed. That was the whole question. Supposing he were to vote for the original resolution, he should then decide, that the queen should have the power of removing sixteen great officers sitting in the house of lords, and several sitting in the house of commons. If the amendment then went to the general words, for the purpose of taking care that a point of such importance should not be hastily decided upon; if that should be adopted, there would be nothing in it to prevent the granting of power when the bill should be brought in, even political power. But he did not wish to be pledged by the vote of this night to give all. If then he was called upon to decide in one night, that political power to so great an extent should be placed where political power was never placed before-if he had only to choose between two propo

sitions

sitions-one deciding the question at once, the other allowing time for consideration, and being neither so new in its nature nor involving such consequences-he was dispos ed rather to adopt that alternative which afforded him further time for deliberation, and vote for the amendment. He did not deny that, if he were obliged to vote for the resolution as it now stood, aye or no, he should entertain some doubt on the subject. But he could not consent to the erecting, by a vote of one night, a power which might by possibility be turned against the executive. He was far from thinking that the executive power was in a state in which it could admit of being diminished; but if it could afford to lose the power now sought to be transferred from it, then, indeed, it was in a state in which it ought to be diminished.

Mr. Perceval entreated the house to consider what the effect would be, what it might be, one way; and what could be the national inconvenience in the other way. A month or six weeks might restore his majesty to the wishes of his people; and would not every gentleman then regret that any derangement in his majesty's establishment had taken place? He again repeated that, if desired by his right honourable friend, or the house, the political power of removal might be taken away from her majesty. There must be some inconvenience under any arrangement, and a certain share of influence and power must exist in any view. He did most solemnly protest against any derangement of his majesty's household at the present moment; he dreaded such, as likely to produce the greatest calamity. He might have formed

an erroneous opinion on the subject; he trusted in God, if the amendment proposed was adopted, it might be found he had done so.

On

Mr. Whitbread said he had not intended to make any observations on the question then under discussion; but he could not suffer the extraordinary speech of the right honourable gentleman, made in a house considerably fuller than that in which a few days since he had uttered sentiments equally extraordinary, to pass by without declaring his astonishment and disapprobation. The right honourable gentleman, after having broken down the most important barriers of the constitution, after usurping all the prerogatives of the crown, had at length violated the rules which had been established for preserving the dignity and propriety of debate. any other occasion the introduction of the sovereign's name, in the manner used by the right honourable gentleman, would have imposed on the chairman the necessity of calling to order the person making such allusions. Was the house to endure that it should be said, that if they should come to a constitutional vote on the subject before them, his majesty's recovery would be retarded by that proceeding? Was the house to be induced to swerve from the conscientious discharge of its duties by the influence of such representations? If insi nuations like these were to be made, and were to produce the effect which it was proposed, it was clear that many considerations must arise in the public mind, respecting the future state of his majesty's health, that might suggest doubts as to the period and completion of his recovery. The right honourable gentleman had begun with informing

them,

them, that they ought not to look at the individual who was to fill the office of regent, but to consider themselves as engaged not merely in providing for the present emer gency, but as establishing a rule that should be applicable to similar cases hereafter. Abandoning this, his own principle, forgetful of this, his own caution, he immediately, refecting on the amiable temper of the prince of Wales, on his great and estimable qualities, and on that native dignity and delicacy of mind so conspicuous in his conduct on the present melancholy and trying occasion, turned round, and told them that the restrictions ought to be extensive; because, although every thing in the character of his royal highness tended to inspire confidence, those restrictions should be framed so as to apply to any future bad prince of Wales who might one day be intrusted with the regency. Thus the prince was to be punished for the imaginary vices of his successors, and, what was yet worse, the constitution was to be punished also. A new estate was to be created, and an authority established unknown to that constitution. "Consider," said the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer," the many and numerous virtues of the sovereign; would you curtail his rights, or bereave him of his splendour?"

Good God!" exclaimed Mr. Whitbread, "Splendour! what a word! In his majesty's situation no external splendour can yield a charm or solace to his declining years. His fature consolations must all be drawn from the inward enjoyments of a resigned and pious heart, and the happy consciousness, when restored to health by Providence, of dispensing blessings to his subjects! his prerogatives have been usurped

1811.

by those men who think no splendour, no state, no influence necessary to support the character and authority of a regent." The throne had for some time been surrounded by learned gentlemen; but among the crowd of them, not one had been found bold enough to attempt a reply to the arguments stated by an honourable and learned friend of his (Mr. Leach), last night, with such infinite force and perspicuty; and the inference of his mind was, either that those arguments were unanswerable, or that among those learned gentlemen there was not a real lawyer to be found. Mr. Whitbread concluded with stating, that he felt as much confidence in the result of that night's division, as there was evident apprehension on the other side of the house.

The question being called for, the house divided on lord Gower's amendment :

Ayes - 226

Noes - 213 Majority against ministers 13 Jan. 2. The report of the com-. mittee on the state of the nation' was presented to the house by Mr. Lushington. The resolutions being read, the question was put, that the report be received, when a long and very spirited discussion arose, in which lord Porchester, sirs S. Romilly and Thomas Turton, Messrs. Whitbread, Canning, Sheridan, Wynne, Morris, Ryder, and the master of the rolls took a part.

Lord Porchester moved, as an amendment to the first resolution, that the words " subject to such limitations and exceptions as shall hereafter be provided" be left out. Of the various able and argumentative speeches on this occasion we shall chly notice a few passages in that of Mr. Sheridan.-He said, the more he considered the transactions

E.

of

of 1788, the more he felt inclined to testify his disapprobation of them. "But, sir," said he," an endeavouris attempted to obtain a sanction for this proceeding upon the authority of his majesty's expressed approbation, when restored to his faculties and throne in 1789. Let us examine the strength of this position. That speech was either the speech of the ministers, or the personal opinion of the sovereign. If it was the personal opinion of the sovereign, it is unconstitutional in any man to quote it in this house; and if it was the speech of the ministers, what other interpretation can it bear, but that it was the expression of their own approval of their own acts? I more particularly advert to this point, because I find it to be one on which the right honourable gentleman the chancellor of the exchequer has placed the main stress in his answer to the princes of the blood; an answer with no great characteristic, unless one should observe the degree of peevishness in which it is conveyed, combined with the attempt of dividing the royal family at the same moment that they would divide the royal authority. But, recurring to the events of 1789, it was observed by the honourable member for Yorkshire, that he believed that however the leading parties differed as to the means, it was his conviction, and he was sure the conviction of those who supported the proceedings of that time, that their opponents were actuated by the most sincere motives of loyalty and duty. Does the honourable member recollect the events which followed his majesty's recovery at that period? Does he recollect the dismissals and exclusions which with such unrelenting vengeance pursued the opposition of every

man who happened to have voted against the minister? Do they also attribute these acts of persecution to their sovereign? Will they say that the sovereign, whose character has ever been so conspicuous for piety and benignity, when restored by the will of Heaven to his reason and his throne, instead of being employed in returning his God his most grateful acknowledgements for his divine favour, that he was the author of these vindictive proofs of displeasure which succeeded to the fortunate event of his recovery?— It would be a most brutal and disloyal application: but it is an ap plication that must stand on as fair ground as to make the monarch responsible for the speech of his servants. At present I feel it unnecessary to go more at large: indeed, little else remains to be answered; for all that we have heard from the gentlemen opposite refers entirely to the proceedings of 1789. They are the phantoms of my lord Thurlow, supported by the ghost of Mr. Pitt. The private virtues of my sovereign Ireverence and honour; but to make them the link and bond which connects the various branches of the state, is to libel both the sovereign and the constitution.-Has the prince no virtues?-Admitted— but we have no experience of him as a king.-What then?-We must restrict him-that is to say, We must ab:idge and deprive him of all the prerogatives and capacities of the royal authority, by the exercise of which the benefits of the sovereignty can be dispensed, until we have ascertained whether he is entitled to the character of a good king. He must reign, says a learned gentleman Mr. Stephen), fifty years. Surely he cannot mean that the energies of the monarch can

not