Prince of Wales. Nothing is farther from my thoughts. I state the argument as it strikes my mind, and strikes it so forcibly, that I cannot help stating it strongly. But no man gives more ample credit than I do to my right honourable friend, for being actuated by the best and purest motives. I am convinced that, in what he proposes to the house, he is conscientiously discharging his duty to his sovereign, according to his own view of that duty; and is influenced by an anxious zeal for the dignity of the crown and the interests of the country. I give to him the credit which I ask for myself, and shall receive from him for the principles of my own conduct, upon this and every other part of this question. We have each of us acted upon our own sense of what is right, and I as little impute to him an intention of disrespect, as I expect that he should impute to me an intention of courting favour.”

Sir Samuel Romilly, alluding to the former practice of the courts, by which the care and custody of an individual could not be committed to his heir apparent, nor to his nearest of kin, observed, that this practice was now exploded, because it had been founded upon the basest suspicion that could enter into the human breast, and because it prevented persons in such a deplorable situation from having the benefit of the care and attention of those most attached to their person, and most interested in their recovery. "Mr Ryder," he said, "had referred to this practice; he did not charge him with any wish of showing disrespect to the prince, but really such arguments had the effect of casting suspicions upon the illustrious members of the royal family, to which even the meanest of his majesty's subjects were not exposed." Then addressing Mr Perceval, he said, "that he neither accused him, nor could he suppose him

capable of offering any intentional insult to the Prince of Wales, but he wished he could say the same of his political adherents. We should not then have found those public prints, which he would not say were under the protection of administration, but which certainly were not prosecuted with the same rigour as was manifested on other occasions, pursuing a sys tematic course of attack upon the prince, calumniating every act, and misrepresenting every word of his royal highness, and holding up to scorn and derision every member of the royal family. Neither should we find them incessantly imputing the basest motives to many members of that house, for pursuing on this occasion what they conscientiously considered their duty." Mr Perceval replied, "that he lamented, as much as Sir Samuel Romilly could do, any licentious expressions which might have been applied in the public prints, either to the prince, or to any of the other branches of the royal family; but this was neither the time nor place for discussing reflections of that kind, which might have been made upon any one description or another of public men.' Then replying to Mr Canning, he said, "that, without meaning any disre spect to his right honourable friend, or undervaluing the suggestions he had thrown out, he must be permitted to observe, it appeared to him mon. strous that the house, in providing for the maintenance of his majesty's dignity now, when they had a sanguine expectation that his illness would be of a very short duration, should arrange the proportion of the household to be given to her majesty, in the same manner as if his majesty's calamity was to last the whole of his natural life. It would certainly be practical. ly by far the better mode to make an arrangement that would meet both cases; but that was impossible. If his

majesty were to recover within six weeks, or three months, or even six months, would any honourable member wish to strip him of his household to the same extent as if no hope were entertained of his recovery? His right honourable friend had called upon them to state, why they did not propose to make now a permanent provision for the arrangement of the household? The answer was, that their measure was to provide only for a twelvemonth, and that what hereafter might be necessary, should be done at the expiration of that period."

Mr Tierney declared," that the whole project and scope of the bill was nothing but an artful scheme of political power; a contrivance for dividing the unity of the government, and setting the executive at war with the palace. The whole arrangement was founded in a most unjust and injurious feeling of distrust in the illustrious person who was to be regent. Mr Perceval, indeed, had disclaimed any such distrust; but if he were not actuated by such feeling, why did he not make provision for the prince with the same care and zeal with which he made provision for the king? I do most solemnly call upon this house," said he, “not to make an experiment upon his royal highness which may be attended with the most serious consequences to the constitution of this country. I call upon this house to pause before it will give its sanction to the monstrous project of the right honourable gentleman, to ascertain by this dangerous experi. ment with how small a portion of the royal prerogatives the functions of the executive may be carried on. Let us gravely reflect, before we accede to such a measure, what may hereafter be the result of our now refusing our confidence to that illustrious person, to whom, by the course of nature, our allegiance will be at no very distant period due. Let us, before we take

from him, placed in the execution of the duties of the royal office, the power of creating peers, consider seriously to what consequences such a restriction, imposed now, may lead when the Prince of Wales shall hereafter succeed to the throne. We know that differences upon political questions must at all times exist; and is it not likely that, when George the IVth, on his accession to the crown, may think proper to exercise this prerogative by the creation of a new peer, those, who may think the elevation of the individual not expedient, will say, 'We should have foreseen all this; we knew the prince when he was regent, and we refused to place confidence in him; it is all our own fault, as we did not take care to tie him up as to this prerogative when we had him in our power.' Is not this the language that we are to expect on such an occasion, and can we justify it to ourselves to impose the restrictions now proposed without any just ground or necessity, but with a certainty that they will give rise to such feelings hereafter as may destroy the harmony that ought to subsist between a paternal sovereign and a loyal people

190 members voted for Mr Ponsonby's amendment, 212 against it. An amendment, which Mr Canning proposed upon his view of the subject, was also negatived. Upon the third reading, Mr Wilber- Jan. 23. force gave his support to the bill; a support always of great weight and worth, because always independently given. "The measure of 1788," he said," was one which did the greatest honour to the memory of Mr Pitt, and to that measure Mr Perceval had made great improvements. All the objections which had been raised originated in the idea that the prince had a claim of right to the regency: it was the duty of the house to express themselves in such a manner as to re

move all ground for such ideas in the future. He had no doubt that, when the present measure should be candidly examined and calmly reviewed, Mr Perceval would receive that to which he was justly entitled,—disinterested praise, and universal applause."

When the bill was brought before the Upper House, there Jan. 25. also, as in the Commons, the clause respecting the household was vehemently opposed. "Could it be believed," said the Marquis of Lansdowne," that a resolution, the object of which was to retain about his majesty in his affliction all that part of his household which was necessary for his comfort and personal dignity, and to transfer to the regent all those offices of state which were attached to the dignity of the crown, would have been followed up by a clause separating from the dignity of the crown all those offices of state, and erecting, by means of this separation, a new power, hitherto unknown to the constitution? Under the cloak of adherence to the letter of the resolution, a provision the very reverse of it was attempted to be carried into effect. Ministers had been defeated upon the principle, but they sought shelter in the obscurity of detail, and were endeavouring to accomplish all their objects in the enumeration of particulars. This stratagem it was the duty of their lordships to frustrate, and what he proposed was, not that the bill should be delayed by ma, king an arrangement relative to the household now, but that that arrange ment should be deferred till the regency was constituted." The Earl of Liverpool, in reply, denied "that the clause was in any degree inconsistent with the resolution; a resolution which was obviously indefinite, and left the question open to the discussion and final settlement of parliament. As a proof that the resolution was thus indefinite, it would be sufficient to re

mind them, that, when the clause was under discussion in the Commons, no less than four or five different plans were proposed, all differing from each other, and thus showing that no clear idea was entertained of the object proposed by the resolution. He could have wished that, as the bill was to expire in a twelvemonth, the principle of 1789 had been followed in this. point, and the household left entirely to her majesty's disposal during the continuance of the act. For he, and all those who thought with him, considered that the great offices of state and parade were so mixed up with all the details of the household economy of his majesty, that they could not with propriety be separated from his person. The last thing which their lordships should wish to touch or to alter was the household of his majes ty, while hopes were entertained of his speedy convalescence. He would ap peal to those feelings which must naturally arise in their own minds, in regard to their own domestic economy, whether such alterations would not carry with them a degree of objection and indelicacy that was applicable to no other part of the bill; and he maintained that, as the officers of the household were rendered irremoveable by the queen, all arguments against the clause, upon the ground of influence, were done away.'

Earl Grey insisted" that the clause was a direct breach of faith with their lordships' house of parliament, a complete departure from the terms of the resolutions which the prince had accepted, and therefore a scandalous breach of faith with his royal highness. How would a proceeding so inconsistent with every feeling of honour, and so contrary to every principle of probity, be spoken of in private life? How would the chancellor dispose of such a question, if it came before him in his judicial capacity? He besought that noble

lord to indulge the same honourable sentiment in the discharge of his political, as he was proverbially accustomed to do in his legal and judicial functions. The question, being of such vital importance, ought to be discussed not upon any personal considerations, but upon the old constitutional principles of a jealousy of ministerial ambition, and a lively vigilance of ministerial projects. He was not disposed to complain so much of the power and patronage which the clause went to confer on her majesty, as on the power and influence which it placed in the hands of ministers; for the influence which was thus nominally vested in the queen, might be employed to obstruct the government of the regent. With respect to that part of the bill which provided for the resumption of the royal authority, before he could approve of that resumption he must be convinced that the recovery was full and perfect; he must have other authority for that important fact than the mere putting of the great seal to a commission in his majesty's name. He could not receive such a document, when he considered what had taken place on two former occasions, when it was notorious that the great seal had been employed, as if by his majesty's command, at a time when he was under the care and actual restraint of a physician for a malady similar to that by which he was now afflicted. The noble and learned lord must excuse him when he said, he must have better authority than his declaration for his majesty's recovery. That important fact required to be substantiated in the most solemn manner; and nothing short of an examination of the physicians by their lordships could afford that proof of it which would satisfy his mind.”

"The noble earl," replied the chancellor, "might well have spared the observations which have fallen from him. I will not scruple to declare to their

lordships, that no fears, no influence of any kind, should deter me from doing over again what I have already done, if I conceived that it was necessary to the interests of the king my master, or to those of the country at large. When I mention his majesty, I never can speak of him without gratitude for the favours and the obligations he has heaped upon me; I never can think of his unhappy malady without the acutest sensibility. Neither the reports of the physicians, nor threats in or out of doors, should operate to prevent me from exercising my own judgement in whatever regarded my royal master's interests. I would rather perish igno miniously on the scaffold, than desert my allegiance to my sovereign, by declining to take any steps which my duty and my office pointed out. Í would act in every possible case upon my official responsibility, and be con. tent to leave the consequences to God. In what was done upon the occasion alluded to by the noble earl, I acted under the solemnity of an oath, which prescribed that I was to act conscientiously, and to the best of my judge. ment; and until my country shall tell me I have done wrong, I shall feel satisfied with myself for my conduct on that occasion. No man has a right to charge me with criminality. I have long served a gracious master most faithfully; I did so, in conjunction with some noble lords over the way, at the most critical moment that this country ever experienced. It was at a time, when some of those noble lords were supporting him in the measures which he thought necessary for put ting down those societies which aimed at the subversion of the government; and which measures other noble lords, who are now sitting side by side with them, were obstructing by every means in their power, and decrying and ridi culing under the name of the 6 gag. ging bills. Strong as those measures

were, they could not by their sole unassisted operation have effectually coun teracted the pernicious and unconstitutional proceedings of those clubs and societies: from my conscience I believe that nothing could have saved the country at that momentous period, but the value of the personal character, and the almost universal love and reverence of the people for the individual who filled the throne.

"It has been significantly put to me, with reference to the state of his majesty's health, whether I would supersede a commission of lunacy against the opinion of physicians. I have of ten done so, and perhaps I might have been wrong in so doing; but I acted upon my conscience, as I should always do in such cases. I am asked, what I would do in the Court of Chancery, if the present clause, and the resolution upon which it is founded, came before me? I would answer, that the resolution was uncertain, and that the court would have nothing to do with it. Now, however, let me ask a question in my turn: Are there any two of the noble lords on the other side of the house who are agreed as to what should be done upon the original resolution? Several plans have been proposed, four or five at least, all of which are at variance. If I were asked for my plan, I would say, that the whole of the household ought to be given to her majesty. I speak with the same tender regard to conscience that I would if acting in a judicial capacity. I would tell the house, I would tell every man who hears me, I would tell all his majesty's subjects, that the last thing I would do in the court in which I sit would be to remove from any man labouring under an affliction, such as has unhappily fallen upon his majesty, those comforts becoming his condition, and to which he has been accustomed. For myself, let me but see my sovereign well, and

then let me depart in peace. I cannot on this afflicting occasion take my heart out of my breast, and forget that my most gracious master was a man. Let those who could do so, do it. I am not made of such impenetrable stuff: I have neither the nerve nor the apathy requisite for such an act of stern and unrelenting duty. Until his majesty shall vacate his throne by descending into the grave, to no other person can I acknowledge myself to be a subject. As to the amendment, if every one of their lordships were to go below the bar to vote for it, I should feel it the proudest day of my life to stand alone, and record my loyalty to my sovereign by voting against it."

Lord Grenville said, that when he formerly voted for vesting the household in the queen, he did it on the principle that her majesty should be amply provided with the means of enforcing and upholding the authority to be vested in her; but in the present bill, all such means were withheld from her. The chancellor also begged it might be distinctly understood that he did not approve of taking any part of the household from the queen.-Lord Sidmouth, coinciding with this opinion, said, that all the inconveniences which had arisen in the progress of the present measure, had their origin in the de parture from the proceedings of 1789. What had two-and-twenty years done, he asked, to lower the king in the eyes of the country? And he entreated the peers to spare their sovereign the possibility of feeling a disappoint ment at their proceedings on his recovery, and to avoid departing from a precedent which did immortal honour to the person who had the merit of it.Upon the division, ministers were left in a minority of 98 to 107.

When the report was next brought up, the Duke of Jan. 28. Sussex spoke at great length, and in the same spirit as he had mani