Paris, he affixed the great seal to acts which were the consequence of that treaty; and thus he devised means for giving the royal assent, at a time when the royal assent could not possibly be given. He prevailed on Isabeau de Bavière to ratify that treaty, to the exclusion of her own son from the government, and he was thanked for so doing by the mayor and aldermen and corporation of the city of Paris. But, what were the consequences of these transactions? That the kingdom was involved in all the miseries of a weak, mutilated, and distracted government. There was a double government, a double parliament, a double cabinet, double ministers, double officers of state, and of the household. The kingdom was betrayed to its enemies, and was afterwards rescued from those disasters, by the superior efforts of that brave and distinguished prince whom they had excluded from the government. That prince, who possessed the most interesting qualities, and the most fascinating manners, who had attached to his cause the noblest spirits, and the best abilities of his country, and afterwards, under the name of Charles the victorious, rescued this country from the misery and disgrace in which it had been involved, by those ambitious ministers, from the wretched yoke of Henry 6 of England, that unhappy monarch, whose reign had afforded such abundant subject of quotation, in the course of those debates. Col. Fullarton added, that his object had been, to show the desperate extremities to which the passions of ambitious men might hurry them, and the fatal consequences which had resulted from innovations and violations of the established government of a country; he thanked Heaven, that no such example, nor any thing like it, could as yet be found to stain the annals of England. He had only farther to remark, that the right hon. gentleman had endeavoured, with a peculiar predilection, to shelter his proceedings under the sanction of precedents and analogies of history. Now, said the colonel, I will meet the right hon. gentleman on that ground, and in direct contradiction to the uses which he has endeavoured to make of precedent and analogy, defy him to produce a single instance in the history of any country, where the established legal powers of executive government were mutilated and restrained, without producing inefficiency, counteraction, and disgrace.He was very far

from wishing to include in these observations, the necessary precautions which, at different periods, had been adopted, for preventing the encroachments of the royal power, and for preserving the liberty and safety of the subject. It was true, that instances had occurred in the English history, where the misfortunes of weak and restrained government appeared almost unavoidable. And why? To prevent the still greater calamities of disputed successions, usurpations, and civil wars, naturally to be dreaded in turbulent times, if all the powers of government were vested in the hands of one man, too nearly connected with the Grown, and possessing too much influence in the country, as in the cases of the dukes of Bedford and Gloucester, during the minority of Henry 6; Richard, duke of Gloucester, during the minority of Edward 5; and Somerset, during the minority of Edward 6. In these, and similar instances, the King, Lords, and Commons, in parliament assembled, making provision for a long minority, had judged it more expedient to expose the king to the misfortunes of a fettered and imperfect government, than to the greater calamities alluded to before. But, would any impartial man, with no such preponderating considerations of danger on his mind, with the history of this country, and the principles and practice of this constitution before his eyes; with a reference to the present circumstances of his Majesty, of the country, of the Prince of Wales, wish to involve the kingdom in the misfortunes of a weak, mutilated, and degraded government? The colonel earnestly intreated the Committee seriously to consider, before they adopted so dangerous and so desperate a resolution.

The Committee divided on Mr Powys's Amendment on the first Resolution: Yeas, 154; Noes, 227. The Resolution as originally moved, was then put, and carried without a division. When strangers were readmitted into the gallery,

Mr. Fox was speaking. He said, that if the maxim which the Solicitor-general had argued from on a former occasion, " that the power which necessity creates, necessity must limit," was true, why was there no limitation to those restrictions which the Resolution went to impose? He contended, that the spirit of the constitution was hostile to the principle; for, it was much less solicitous concerning the qualities and abilities of the person who

had failed to perform their duty; and if they had, he thought it singular that letters so indispensably necessary to the purpose of the ensuing debate should not be produced to the House.

Mr. Jolliffe contended that Mr. Pitt owed such a communication to the House, who ought to be acquainted whether the Prince would or would not, accept the Regency under such and such terms.

Mr. Pitt said, that the hon. gentleman had furnished him with a sufficient argument against giving any intimation of the kind. It would certainly be not only very unparliamentary, but presumptuous to say under what restrictions, or in what manner the Regency would be accepted, at the moment the House was deciding upon the mode of offering it.

Mr. Jolliffe conceived it would be de

Mr. M. A. Taylor begged leave to remark, that rumours had gone abroad, importing that the Prince of Wales had heard of the restrictions. The present question was a question of no common moment, but affected every thing dear to Englishmen: it went to the undermining the constitution, and overthrowing the government of this country. He there fore requested to be informed, whether his Majesty's minister had communicated the Resolutions to the Prince of Wales; and next, whether his Royal Highness had given any answer. If the latter should prove the fact, he meant to move, that the papers be laid before the House. Mr. Pitt doubted whether the hon. gentleman had any regular grounds to go upon, when he asked if ministers had communicated with the Prince of Wales, upon a subject under discussion in the House of Commons; or whether he could show to whom the House could issue orders for the production of such papers.

Mr. Taylor was well aware that no ground could be laid before the House under the present circumstances; but it must prove very easy for the House to be put in possession of the sort of information necessary, as there was a member in that House who must have knowledge of such letters passing, if any had passed. Communications ought to have been made to the Prince; if they had not, the cabinet

The House then resolved itself into the Committee.

Mr. Pitt said, that the four Resolutions he had proposed on a former night being agreed to, he should now have to trouble the Committee, by speaking more particularly, than he had before done, to the fifth Resolution, which he should have the honour to propose for their consideration. The foundation upon which he had gone, for all the measures he had proposed, was the exigency of the case; they were bound to provide the means for the dispatch of public business, and for the discharge of the executive authority: they were also equally bound to the care of the person of his Majesty, and the preservation of his dignity, which ought to be inseparable from him during his indisposition. With a view to both, but especially the latter of these points, the last resolution proceeded. On the first he would but lightly dwell, conceiving that all must agree to the care of his Majesty's person being entrusted to the Queen. He would not for a moment entertain an opinion, that to her guardianship there could exist the least objection; he would not anticipate, because he did not believe the existence of a difference of opinion on that subject; he therefore thought it unnecessary and difficult to argue, as it appeared to be like debating on a self-evident proposition: for under the character, under the virtues, and under the feelings, of that great and amiable personage, he was confident there would hardly be a heart in the

country, which, while it deplored the melancholy necessity that existed, would not at the same moment feel a considerable degree of alleviation, in the remembrance that under such guardianship, with so much propriety and safety, might be entrusted the care of the Sovereign. He would say no more upon that subject, feeling it not respectful to the Committee to argue on a propriety of conduct so selfevident, until he should hear, if it was possible to be heard, an argument against the propriety of delegating such a trust.The next point of the resolution which he should have to offer, and on which he presumed they might differ, concerned the powers given to the Queen to discharge such a trust, on the one hand, and, on the other, to maintain the dignity of his Majesty's person. The Committee would recollect, that while they were delegating part of the executive authority to be exercised in the King's name, they were bound to provide for the safety of their King, that it might appear that they had not forgotten that he was still their Sovereign; and that the representatives of a faithful and loyal people ought not to endeavour to deprive his Majesty, in his present melancholy situation, of that dig. nity which he enjoyed at the moment of health. On that ground, he submitted the principle on which he went, contending, that it was necessarily inseparable from her Majesty, in the care to be entrusted to her, to have the whole direction of all about the person of the King: the Lord Steward, the Lord Chamberlain, and the Master of the Horse, could only be considered as the great leading parts of the several divisions of the household; and, therefore, the only question that could arise, on the propriety of their being under the direction of the Queen, was, whether the alteration of circumstances rendered it a becoming point, that any alteration should be made in the expense or duty of such officers, as would render it fit or decent for parliament, in the present situation of his Majesty, which could be considered but as temporary, and which all hoped might prove of short duration, to new model his household, and render it less suitable to his dignity? and whether the management of his Majesty's domestic affairs should still remain to be carried on through the same hands to which it had been for some time entrusted; or whether a new management was to be introduced, during the present temporary interval?

The noble lord (North) in the blue ribbon, who could not help speaking with ingenuity, and who possessed much real it formation, but who on a former day, had only displayed his ingenuity, and withheld his information, had told them of the ease with which those officers might be separated from the household; but he wished to ask, whether it would be decent at such a moment, thus early, and with the well-grounded hopes of a recovery, to try the experiment, how far they might new model and limit his Majesty's household? He maintained, that it was not consistent with the affection of the people at such an anxious period, to hazard experiments, in order to introduce a new system.-A cry of hear! hear! prevailing, Mr. Pitt hoped, that the noble lord and those who noticed his assertion, would attempt to prove the contrary; but, for what he asserted, he appealed not only to the feelings, but to the reason of the Committee. It was an appeal which, the more it was considered, would be found the more to deserve the attention of that House. He wished to ask whether it was expedient to annihilate every appearance of external dignity; whether it was consistent with reason and sound policy, at the moment when the sovereign was incapacitated from exercising his authority, to separate all appearance of sovereignty from him. When these questions should be considered, he could not see how it was possible to deny the propriety of allotting the direction of the household to her Majesty; or to assert, that the preservation of the external dignity of the King, was inconsistent with the duty of the people.-The general grounds on which they had heard it objected against, was, that such power being entrusted to her Majesty, would form so large an influence, and so extensive a patronage, as to render it impossible that any government should be carried on with effect. For that, however, he should reserve his remarks until he should hear it more fully explained. He would nevertheless speak shortly on the argument upon which this principle turned. It supposed that a degree of political influence would necessarily follow patronage. He admitted, that a degree of political influence likely to be exercised, was an evil. He wished however to ask those gentlemen who contended against the power that the proposed establishment might create, whether establishments had not been created,