tion at that time, in consequence of there not being then in parliament any person possessed of the acuteness, and of the legal and professional knowledge of Sir Samuel Romilly. He proposed to omit the words which represented the regent as a person having an office of trust, by which omission the question of responsibility would be left untouched." The Master of the Rolls said, he was for agreeing to this; for the very sufficient reason that he could not distinctly see the meaning of the words. Mr Stephen did not object to the omission; "But," said he, "when I hear it contended that the regent, to the whole extent of his acts, must be held completely irresponsible, I must declare that I am of a very different opinion, and it would give me great uneasiness to see such a doctrine lightly treated in this committee A chief magistrate, I admit, cannot be punished while he continues in office; as in the case of a governor of a colony, he is irresponsible till the dissolution of his trust. But was it ever heard, that he was irresponsible at the time of his leaving his government? In like manner I am of opinion, that a regent would become responsible for his acts at the termination of the regency." Sir Arthur Piggott proposed that the whole clause should be left out. To this Mr Perceval replied, "that he should regret much if they should omit the whole of a clause which had uniformly pervaded our statutes upon this subject. He would willingly postpone its farther consideration." This mode was strongly recommended by Mr B. Bathurst, and the clause therefore stood over for farther discussion.

The next question respected the duration of the restrictions. Mr Perceval moved, that they should continue for the space of a twelvemonth, after the first of February next, if parliament, at the expiration of that time, should be assembled, and should have

been sitting for six weeks immediately previous to the day appointed. "This, he said, "was not for the purpose of giving an addition to the time, but in order that parliament might have an opportunity of considering the subject before the limitations expired, as his majesty might happen at that very time to be so near a state of recovery, that a very little farther time might be all that would be required to complete his capacity for resuming the reins of government." Mr Ponsonby opposed this, and moved that the limitations should expire at the expiration of six calendar months, from the day of the passing of the act. Mr Whitbread supported this amendment. "The right honourable gentleman," said he, "has repelled the charge of insulting the Prince of Wales; but what has he been doing this night? He talks of protecting the king! against whom is he to be protected? Against the prince. Why then it is assumed that the prince intends to embarrass the government of his father, and to abuse the prerogative intrusted to him in such a way as to retard, or prevent, his majesty's recovery!" Mr Canning argued in a better spirit for the shorter term. "Having," he said, "given it as his opinion that the power of creating peers ought not to be suspended at all, he thought that if there was to be a suspension, the shortest period was the best. And he was adverse to the longer period, accompanied with the six weeks, on another principle; for then the matter would again become subject to parliamentary investigation. Now, he thought that one of the main arguments in favour of the proceeding by bill was, that the exercise of the royal functions would thus be settled once for all. If the regent were subjected to the disadvantages of this course of proceeding, he ought also to have the advantages, without having the onus put upon him of contending about the

termination of the restrictions. And if the restrictions could be supposed to refer to the duration of the king's illness, they ought to extend then the whole of his majesty's life." The question was put to the vote, and the longer term was carried by a majority of 184 to 160.

Upon the clause which restricted the regent from granting offices in reversion, or any place or pension for a longer term than during his majesty's pleasure, except such offices as by law must be granted, Mr Tierney repeated the favourite charge of the opposition, that nothing could more strikingly display the marked distrust of the prince, which pervaded the whole measure. Mr Perceval made answer, that so long as these insinuations were repeated, so long and so constantly would he deny them, feeling confident that those who used them had no fair end in contemplation, which such means were calculated to obtain. “If, indeed," said he, "it were possible that I could be mean enough to recommend myself to the favour of the prince, by studying modes of ingratiation; if I could reconcile it to my mind to act upon such a principle, I would persevere in the measures which I have proposed; because I am convinced that if the regent searched for a minister in whose firmness and integrity he might rely, he could not be better directed in his choice than to those who had preserved unshaken their fidelity to his father.

This would be the line of conduct to which I would adhere; and in so doing, I should act upon the persuasion that the prince's favour would be my ultimate reward; and that the impression which it must make on a benevolent heart, and an enlarged understanding, would be to conciliate esteem, not to inspire aversion.

"The clause respecting the household," Mr Perceval said, "was left open for any amendments that the com

mittee might think necessary, as it had been impossible exactly to collect the sentiments of the house upon that subject. He proposed that the general power over the household should be vested in the queen, with certain exceptions, and with a proviso, that the officers to be left under her majesty's controul should not be removeable; and that, of those officers not employed about the king's person, no reappointment should take place in case of death. The office of lord chamberlain being vacant, he proposed that the vice chamberlain should execute its duties. He proposed also to except from the queen's appointment the gentlemen and grooms of the bed-chamber, the captain of the yeomen of his majesty's guard, and the captain of the band of gentlemen pensioners; as these two latter officers were necessary only to his majesty's personal appearance in state, the appointment of them might properly be transferred to the regent. The non-appointment of a lord chamberlain of his majesty's household, would afford a fund for the appointment of a lord chamberlain for the regent. He proposed also to give the regent a master of the horse, a steward of the household, five or six lords of the bed-chamber, and twice as many gentlemen of the bed-chamber, the salaries of all which, exclusively of that of the lord chamberlain, would not exceed 10 or 12,0001." Mr Ponsonby opposed this arrange. ment, arguing that it would dispos sess the regent of all that pomp and splendour which the constitution contemplated as necessary for the execution of the regal functions, and for the maintenance of the dignity of the throne. He contended, that the opinion of the people, as decidedly expressed in their petitions upon the subject, was, that the kingly power ought to be conferred upon the regent, unfettered by any restriction, limitation, or diminution whatever; and he proposed an amend

ment, placing under the queen's controul the groom of the stole, the master of the horse, the keeper of the privy purse, such lords and gentlemen of the bed-chamber as her majesty might be pleased to select, his majesties equer ries, and all other officers who might be personally attendant upon the king in the palace wherein he should actually be residing; the groom of the stole being vested with the same power over these officers which the lord chamberlain would have possessed. "Such a plan," he said, "was perfectly plain and simple, and it would carry into effect the principle of the resolution of the former committee, to which that which Mr Perceval proposed was completely opposite."

Mr Canning observed, that whatever portion of political influence, connected with the household, could not be transferred to the regent, ought rather to be left altogether in abeyance, than exercised by any other individual. "He could not," he said, "concur in the proposition that the regent should have a new and separate establishment; it was his opinion, on grounds not of economy, but of propriety, that he should rather appear in the splendour of his father, than with an independent establishment of his own; and though it was clear that the queen, having the care of his majesty's person, ought to have some controul over the household, it was neither right nor necessary to embarrass her with that species of controul, to which considerable political power attaches. Those officers, whose situations partake more of a political than of a domestic nature, and whose duties did not call them to a personal attendance about the king, ought, in his opinion, to belong to the regent, as part of the state of the crown, whose functions were devolved upon him." Mr Canning moved an amendment to this effect. Mr Addington said, "it was far from his intention to enter into

a review of the cold details of the different plans which had been submitted to the house; the whole of the discussion had been more abhorrent from his feelings, than any which he recollected during a long parliamentary life within those walls. The unfortunate predicament in which the house was placed, was the result, not difficult to be anticipated at the time, of what he must call the hasty and ill-judged adoption of the amendment moved by Lord Gower on a former occasion. Posterity would scarcely believe that a British House of Commons should, after a few weeks illness of a revered and beloved sovereign, have been found gravely debating on the quantum of comfort, and of necessary splendour, which they, the constitutional guardi ans of the rights of their monarch under his affliction, should be pleased to dole out to him, or rather to permit him to retain, till it might please Providence to listen to the united prayers of his people in restoring to him his health.

"It had been asked in the debate, what would the people say, if they were to be told what and what powers were to be withheld from the regent? He would ask on the other hand, what would be the sentiments of the people, generous and loyal as they are, if it was possible to take their opinions as to the quantity of enjoyment, of ease, and even of splendour that should be left to their king in his distress? They would answer with acclamation-Leave it all! act as men no less wise than yourselves acted twenty-two years ago, and protect to the utmost your sovereign, who is disabled by the hand of Heaven from protecting himself.' I have heard it too," said Mr Addington," asked this night, and I am ashamed of the question, what has a king to do with splendour, who is reduced by illness to a state of incapacity? I would refer for an answer to the never-to-be

forgotten opinions expressed on this subject by Lord Grenville 22 years ago. He stated, and most justly, that the very incapacity from such a cause was an additional reason, so long as it continued, for maintaining the splendour of royalty. Why? because his majesty being withdrawn from the eyes of his subjects, the pageantry with which he was surrounded presented to them a constant reminder that they had still a king on the throne, who might shortly be restored to the exercise of his authority."

Mr Canning's amendment was negatived by 184 votes to 160; and the plan, as proposed by Mr Perceval, carried by 209 to 182. Mr Ponsonby then moyed, that the lord steward of the household, and the master of the buckhounds, should be under the direction of the prince regent. Both motions were negatived by small majorities. The clause which Jan. 18. was next discussed related to the council of the queen. Mr Perceval stated, that on the former occasion it had been judged expedient to name the counsellors, and not simply to designate them by their offices; in conformity to that precedent, he should move that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York by name; John Lord Eldon, Lord High Chancellor, and Edward Lord Ellenborough, Chief Justice of the King's Bench, James, Duke of Montrose, George, Earl of Winchelsea, and Heneage Lord Aylesford, should be of her majesty's council. The office of lord chamberlain being vacant, it was necessary that the deficiency which this occasioned should be supplied; and as the bill of 1788 appeared defective, in not having nominated to the council any person who held a seat in the House of Commons, he proposed the Master of the Rolls. Mr Adam, in pursuance of that line of conduct which had been so de

cidedly taken by his party, said, it was extraordinary that Mr Perceval had not nominated one of the royal family upon the council; and Lord George Cavendish proposed the Duke of York. To this Mr Ryder replied, "It was certainly very natural that her majesty should wish to have the advice of those next in blood to her but it was unnecessary that they should be on the council, fór her majesty was in the daily habit of seeing them, and might consequently receive any advice out of the council which they were inclined to give. In the first place, it was improper that the Duke of York should be on the council, because he had a strong constitutional objection that any of the royal family should hold an office of trust or responsibility, unless strong and valid reasons were adduced to the house for it. Would any man deny, that circumstances might occur in which a member of the council of the royal family might be called upon for advice in which his own interest was concerned? Had it not been already decided, that the regent was the most improper person to have the care of the king's person? That objection was upon parliamentary grounds; the objection equally applied to the Duke of York, or any of the branches of the royal family entitled to the succession of the throne. A similar motion had been made in 1788, and rejected."

Mr Ponsonby, on the contrary, thought it would be most proper and politic to have all his majesty's sons, except the regent, in the council, as affording to Europe a proof of the unanimity between them and the nation. To reject the motion," he said, "would be doing little less than holding them out as deficient in those virtues which the nation knew they possessed." The motion, however, was rejected.

After the various clauses Jan. 21. had been gone through, Sir F. Burdett rose to oppose the further consideration of the report. "He objected," he said, "to the whole, but more particularly to that part by which the splendour of state, that should be attached to the executive power, was to be separated from it. This, in the case of a power intended to be of a temporary nature (which of itself necessarily induced weakness), was still more improper. The measure appeared to him a rash and dangerous experiment; and, highly objectionable as it was in its own nature, it was rendered still more so by the manner in which it had been argued. Gentlemen seemed to argue the question as a mere question of property; as if the king had a property in the powers of the executive branch of the constitution, instead of holding all his privileges and prerogatives in trust for the people. It was the duty of the representatives of the people to maintain the integrity and permanence of a power flowing from themselves. It was the duty of the house to put an end as soon as possible to the vacillating state in which the government had been kept for the last three months. The happiness and safety of sixteen millions of people were not to be risked by imposing restrictions upon the regent, and weakening his government. His majesty in the course of the last twenty-two years had been four times in a state of insanity. Twice within that period the government was carried on in his name, although he was utterly incapable of discharging the duties of a sovereign at the time. The king was insane with lucid intervals, the duration of which no man could calculate. Was this a state of the sovereignty in which it was advisable to cripple the powers of the regent? Nothing could be more danger. ous; and he was surprised how the Prince

of Wales could consent or be induced to accept of the regency so restricted. Instead of putting him at the head of, and making him responsible for a weak government, they should give him augmented strength. For himself, he must protest against making dangerous experiments to ascertain the minimum of understanding with which a king might carry on the executive government. The men who proposed these dangerous experiments, and who affected to call themselves the king's friends, could not adopt a more expeditious and direct mode for subverting that throne, of which they had declared themselves exclusively the supporters and defenders. What could be more calculated to degrade the kingly office in the eyes of the people, than the manner in which the ministers had thought proper_to hold out the throne to them? For years the executive government had been carried on in the name of the king, though it was notorious that his majesty was so infirm in some respects, that he neither could read the paper presented to him to be signed, nor affix his signature to it, unless his hand was held and guided for that purpose, nor hold even a levee. Now, then, when the king was labouring under an additional calamity, the issue of which was necessarily uncertain, it was most extraordinary to find the right honourable gentlemen opposite anxious only to make provisions to secure the resumption of his power by his majesty, who might perhaps never again be in a state to resume it. What would the country, what should foreign nations think of a government so circumstanced and so conducted?

"A great deal of the time and patience of the house had been abused in arguing the question upon precedents, when it was obvious that there was not one of the former precedents which bore the least analogy to the present case, except the famous pre