a miserable culprit be pardoned? Could a general be appointed? Could reinforcements be sent to lord Wellington if that should be requisite? Who was to perform these functions? Could they (the ministers) do all this; they, who possessed a power to which they had no more right than any other individuals? If they could, then they were regents. You, (said Mr. Whitbread) talk of dethroning the King, a most improper and absurd expression but you, yourselves, do worse, for you take the crown from the constitution. Had the right hon. gent. a greater right to call the privy council together than any other member of that body? The neces sity justified that measure, but if the period of the existence of such a necessity was improperly prolonged, the justification was gone. Let the House consider the time at which the whole executive functions were suspended, a time when a week had to carry a load of events before borne by centuries! If a military commander abroad should be wanted-if it should be requisite to appoint one at home, how was the deficiency to be supplied? If they (the ministers) were to abuse the authority which they now assumed, so as to call for the animadversion of the House, to whom could the Commons go with their address? Did they (the ministers) propose any remedy for all this? No, the House was misled by false impressions as to the state of the King's health, and even since the examination of the physicians it appeared that his Majesty had had but an indifferent night. Yet another fortnight was to elapse before any steps were to be taken to find a substitute! Were they to be frightened from performing their duty to the public, by being told that by taking measures to supply the executive they would be dethroning the King? Who ever proposed to dethrone the King? When in the reigns of George the first and George the second, regencies were appointed to administer the government in their name in their absence when in the year 1788, a regent was to be chosen during the King's incapacity, the power being to be delivered back again to his Majesty, the moment he became capable of managing it were these proceedings considered as a dethronement of the King? And were they now to be told, that they were dethroning his Majesty; and threatened with words and imputations like these, in order to prevent their taking that course which the occa sion demanded. No, Sir, (continued Mr. Mr. Whitbread), we do not propose to dethrone the Monarch; but they are endeavouring to divide the crown from the constitution, and whoever votes with them in such an attempt, will do that which tends directly to the destruction of the constitution. Was this then our constitution which formed the wonder and admiration of the world? Was it now to be proved, that when the Sovereign was incapacitated by any malady, as long as he was likely to get well, so long the government could go on without any King at all? Let the House mark the progress of this doctrine. In the year 1788, the novelty of the case formed an apology for some things, which in looking back to the history of. that period, it might appear better not to have done. But did any unnecessary de lay take place in taking the proper steps? No, though much time was protracted in debate, the whole bent of both Houses was for the supply of the deficiency up to the time when lord Thurlow reported to the House of Lords, not that the King was better, but that he was in a state of convalescence. Up to that time measures were in progress to constitute a substitute for the incapacitated Monarch. Now, however, they were called upon to lie on their oars and do nothing; and that, too, out of delicacy to the King! Why, if the King deserved, as he was convinced he did, the respect and affection which his subjects entertained for him, he would be more hurt at the neglect and contempt of the Kingly office and of the constitution, than pleased at any delicacy shewn to his own personal feelings. The right hon. gent. even deprecated the agitation of the question, for fear of increasing his Majesty's malady; but the subject was long debated in 1788, during a period of three months, and yet amidst all that discussion the King had got well. At the period of 1788-9, the person who filled the situation now held by the right hon. gent. a person to whom he was politically opposed, but whom he wished to speak of with respect, whatever he thought of many of his doctrines, had the confi dence of the nation; and the country thought, that the powers of the government (he spoke historically), could not, under the circumstances, be lodged in better hands. Did he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and his colleagues then flatter themselves that they could occupy such a large space in the public mind? Could they be permitted to go on as Mr. Pitt bad done? In 1789, when the King recovered, it was most unfortunate that some remedy had not been provided against the recurrence of a similar calamity; a calamity to which all mankind were subject, and from which even kings were not exempt. Provision ought then to have been made for such an exigency as this. In 1801 and 1805, he had to answer for his share of negligence in this respect, and for this he blamed himself, though at the former period not an old member of parliament. But out of delicacy to the King personally, instead of feeling for the Kingly office, he had suffered that occasion to pass. in so extraordinary a way told them of the progressive amendment of the King, his Majesty had in reality become worse, he trusted they would not now vote for this adjournment upon a similar statement. He at least would vote against it. He thought the House ought to lose no time in examining the physicians by a committee of its own, and then, if it should be necessary, and God grant, he said, that it may not, proceed to take the proper measures to supply the country with an executive government, Even though it should not be necessary to put the measure in execution at present, still they ought to be prepared for the worst; they ought to have a remedy ready in case of any future suspension of the royal functions. Even if his Majesty should be restored, and be able to encounter all the accumulated business which perhaps might occasion a relapse, still they ought to be provided with some mode of supplying an executive authority, to which they themselves and posterity might refer on the occurrence of a similar calamity. Thus, (concluded Mr. Whitbread), I have taken the liberty to submit, with the utmost sincerity, my views to the House, on this most important subject, feeling with all proper delicacy for the King personally, but feeling more strongly for the kingly office, the country and the constitution. Mr. Yorke was convinced, that every member of that House was equally ac In 1788-9, the measure for supplying the deficiency was only abandoned when his Majesty was accessible to all his subjects, and in full vigour of mind and body immediately after his illness; when he went about, shewing himself to his loyal and affectionate people, and when the anxiety of the public mind was quieted by the solemn offering up of thanks in the metropolitan cathedral of this kingdom for his recovery, on which occasion his Majesty in person attended. In 1801 and 1805, he was more or less accessible, though during the latter period the defect in his Majesty's eye-sight ought to have directed the attention of ministers to the proper measures of preparation for a state of things like the present. Now, how-tuated by a strong feeling of loy ever, his Majesty was inaccessible, and it was only from other persons that ministers had their information on the subject of the King's malady. Even though his Majesty should recover, it ought to be considered that it was the recovery of a man very far advanced in years; and of a man (speaking of him as a man) who must be much more in the power of others than before. The defect in his Majesty's sight, too, had been stated by his Majesty's ministers themselves as a reason for refusing access to him on many important occasions. Let the House then only duly consider the present situation of affairs, and afterwards let him, who could do it, vote for the adjournment-no steps being taken to supply the deficiency of an executive government. For his part he was not able to conceive, that the right hon. gent. could succeed in his motion. After what they had before seen, after they had ascertained that, on the very day when the right hon. gent. had alty to the King, and a firm regard to the principles and integrity of the constitution. Whatever difference of opinion might exist respecting the course, which it would be proper for the House to pursue, on these points he was certain they were all agreed. For his own part, he must observe, that, according to his view of the question, however the House may decide as to what it was fit to do, under the present circumstances, they were bound to regulate themselves by a consideration of what was due to his Majesty personally, as well as what was due to the safety and welfare of the country. In fact, these considerations were one and the same, inasmuch as the same duty that enjoined them to attend to the feelings and interests of his Majesty was equally binding on them with regard to the security of the country. They could not violate or neglect the duty they owed their Sovereign, without at the same time violating or neglecting their duty to their country; nor, on the other hand, violate or neglect the duty they owed their country, without being guilty of a breach or neglect of their duty to their Sovereign. He was perfectly ready to admit, that the situation in which the House was unfortunately placed was, no doubt, difficult and embarrassing; and he was confident that in such a situation every man would feel a just consideration for those who may differ from him in opinion, and look without suspicion or prejudice to the line of conduct they may feel themselves bound to pursue. One great principle of action with the House on this occasion should be, that, as their assembling was altogether anomalous, they should not proceed to any act which the necessity of the case did not call for. They were in duty bound to do whatever was necessary; but farther than that, they could not proceed with propriety. The hon. gent. who had just sat down, had, for the purpose of supporting his general argument, strongly stated the great public inconveniencies under which the country at present laboured. That the country unfortunately laboured under these inconveniencies there could be no doubt; but the question to be considered in that instance really was, whether the inconveniencies to which the country would be exposed, if that hon. gent. could persuade the House to adopt the course he recommended, would not be much greater? His right hon. friend had truly stated, that the House had but a balance of difficulties. But the hon. gent. in his statement of the course that should be adopted appeared to have gone rather further than the precedent of 1788 would warrant. If the inconveniencies were such as to leave the House no option, but to proceed without any delay to take measures for supplying the deficiency in the executive, how, he would ask, could the parliament have been justified in 1788,in suffering three or four months to elapse, without completing such measures at the conclusion of even such a long period? It was perfectly true, that the year 1788 was a time of peace; and that the country was not then pressed by such momentous difficulties as at present, if unfortunately the King's illness should continue for the same length of time. But if the argument by reference to the precedent of 1788 were good at all, it would preclude that House from resorting to the course proposed by the hon. gentleman. Without wishing at all to go at any length into a review of the inconveniencies on the other side, he might, he supposed be permitted to advertshortly to some of them. There was certainly no reason to apprehend that the illustrious person who would most likely be appointed Regent, would adopt any measures that would not be for the interest of the country; or that any rash or ill advised steps would be taken under his government: still that was possible. He could certainly conceive it possible that a Regent might be advised to take measures to overset the whole system of foreign and domestic policy, by which the present Sovereign had governed these realms. In such a case, he would ask any man whether such a change of system would not be an inconvenience? Would it, he would ask, be no inconvenience if the Regent were to be advised to change the whole system of foreign policy by which the affairs of this nation had been administered-to withdraw our army from the peninsula, and refuse all further support to Spain and Portugal? He had stated this possible case, only to shew, that the other side of the question had also its inconveniencies. But the hon. gent. appeared to him to have animadverted in stronger terms than they merited upon the situation in which his Majesty's servants were placed. That situation was such that they had nothing to consider but how they should best perform their painful duty; a situation from which they could not be relieved, until a sufficient authority should happily be re established to continue, or dispense with their further services. Under such circumstances, then, it was absurd to suppose that any man in their situation would advise the House to do any thing but what the necessity of the case might require. As to what had been said by the hon. gent. respecting the change which took place subsequent to the statement of his right hon. friend previously to the last adjournment, which statement the hon. member seemed to insinuate had been made with a view to practise a deception on that House, his observations might have some weight, if his right hon. friend had in this instance grounded his motion of adjournment on his own personal examina tion of the King's physicians. But his right hon. friend proposed no such proceeding, his motion being founded upon a more authentic document; the report, upon oath, of the physicians made to the privy council. This report, he was confident, whatever opinion gentlemen might subjects. But there was, he should contend, no law, written or unwritten, which gave that body power to supply any de fect in the third estate. The only autho entertain as to what should be done by the House must have been heard with general satisfaction. It stated, no doubt, that his Majesty was at present incapable of coming in person to his parliament, or of attend-rity the privy council possessed or could ing to business; but also stated, that his constitutionally exercise in such a case, restoration was confidently expected, as was to inquire into the capacity or incawell as that a considerable amendment had pacity of the Sovereign, the wearer of the already taken place. Upon the whole he crown, to meet his parliament and to atwas convinced that the report fully jus- tend to the public business of his king tified the proposition of his right hon. dom. If unfortunately upon such inquiry,. friend for an adjournment for a fortnight, it should appear that there existed not though he was ready to admit, that, if his sufficient grounds of conviction as to the Majesty's health should not be considercapacity, the privy council was then ably improved at the end of a fortnight, bound to present in an authentic document it would then be necessary to resort to to the two other estates of the realm, the measures for supplying the deficiency. grounds upon which they ascertained the He could not be persuaded, that the feel- actual incapacity. There their duty ings of the House and of the country would ceased-no further were they authorised! not be inclined to allow some further time to proceed. Who, he would ask, had to relieve his Majesty in a state of re- ever read in any book of authority upon covery, from the anxiety which would re- the law or constitution of this country, sult from the agitation of this question. that it was the duty of that it was com He was certain that this short interval, petent to the privy council to proceed to that this fair play would be allowed to supply any deficiency in the third estate? his Majesty, and that no measures would If any gentleman thought so, he chalbe taken which were not actually ne- lenged him to name the work; or to cessary. shew that the privy council had any other powers than to inquire, and present. the result of that inquiry in an authentic form to the two other estates, whose duty it would then become to satisfy themselves. as to the fact, and to take such measures as the existing circumstances might demand. Now, upon what kind of evidence was it that, on the present occasion, they were required to rest satisfied as to the propriety of an adjournment for a fortnight? Certain questions had it appeared been submitted to his Majesty's physicians, some of which were improper to be asked at all; and some others, such as a proper feeling of delicacy should have prevented from having been inquired or examined into, in any detailed way before the privy council; and upon the answers given to these interrogatories that House was required to. agree to the proposed adjournment.. Mr. Ponsonby contended that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, in the arguments he urged in support of the question of adjournment, steered completely clear of the actual question he proposed. That right hon. gent. had moved the House to adjourn for a fortnight, because his Majesty's physicians had reported that his Majesty's malady had undergone an amendment, and that they entertained a confident expectation of his Majesty's ultimate recovery. For his own part, he was rejoiced to say that there was a very high probability of his Majesty's ultimate recovery. But that was not the question. The question really was, whether that House was, in that in stance, as fully informed on the subject of his Majesty's disease, as according to the principles of the constitution it ought; or whether they should take that sort of certificate which the report of the physicians amounted to, from false notions of delicacy, as the ground of adjourning for a fortnight. Upon this subject he should not hesitate to assert, in the presence of many eminent lawyers, that this document constituted no constitutional ground for adjourning. The privy council was a body unquestionably of great weight, of considerable dignity, and of high importance and authority upon several particular VOL. XVIII, But the right hon. gent. had argued, that the House was not called upon by his motion to institute any proceeding upon this ground. Did the right hon. gent. then call it no proceeding, that when one of the estates was known to be incapable of exercising its constitutional functions, the others, instead of discharging their duty by taking steps to provide for the deficiency, should consent to adjourn over for another fortnight? The duty thetwo remaining estates had to perform was, H might take place before a Committee of, that House, any more than he had felt it necessary to communicate the inquiry be fore the privy council? 80. But the right hon. gent. had said, that on this occasion the House had only a choice of difficulties. Undoubtedly, the fact was Yet, under such circumstances, it must be obvious, that the greater evil ought to be avoided; and the lesser, if no other alternative could be resorted to, preferred. Did the right hon. gent. then suppose that the majority of the people of this country would think that that House had adopted the lesser evil, by an abandonment of its duty in agreeing to the ad declining to proceed with the examination, as a preliminary step towards ulterior proceedings? No person could feel greater or deeper regret and sorrow than he did for the domestic calamity with which his Majesty was afflicted, but still he could not be persuaded from any false idea of delicacy to agree to what he felt to be wrong. As to what the other right hon. gent. had said, as to the inconvenience that might result from the appoint in his mind, of the highest consequence, and of paramount importance. The right hon. gent. who spoke last had alluded to the inconveniencies that might result from the immediate appointment of a Regent. That argument, however, was inapplicable with reference to the question under consideration. It was by no means his wish to recommend the immediate appointment of a Regent. But that he must observe was no part of the present question. What the House had upon this occasion to decide upon was, whether it would hand over to the privy council those functions which constitutionally belonged solely to itself. And upon this point he would contend, that if the House should now re-journment, and avoided the greater, by fuse to inquire, merely because the privy council had enquired, it would establish this principle, that the privy council had the right to supply any deficiency in the third estate, it would make that body the depository of its own legitimate authority -it would establish a tribunal unknown to the constitution and law of this country, by delegating in such a way to the privy council those powers which could alone belong to the two other branches of the legislature. Was that House then pre-ment of a Regent, in overturning the expared to consent to such a surrender of its constitutional functions? Was it ready upon such a ground, and from false and absurd notions of delicacy towards his Majesty, to defer having recourse to those preliminary steps necessary to be taken before they could adopt those ulteriorliament would allow him or his ministers measures, which might be indispensable? And was the House to concur in this doctrine, and form a groundless apprehension that it might retard his Majesty's recovery or be indelicate towards the sovereign, to abstain from inquiry, when it could not be certain that, at the end of the proposed adjournment, from the continued indisposition of his Majesty, and the pressing emergency of affairs, it might not be compelled to precipitate these very preli minary steps which could now be taken deliberately, and that in a manner too of which they might hereafter find reason to repent? Could the right hon. gent, say, that his Majesty was any more apprised of the examination which had already taken place before the privy council than the remote inhabitant of the north pole? Would he say that he had thought it his duty t: communicate that examination to the Sovereign? And how, he would ask, could the right hon. gent. consider it his duty to communicate any inquiry which isting system, he did not mean to meddle with that question. He could not presume that the Regent could entertain such a design; neither could he presume, that, if his ministers should be so inclined, or so advise the Regent, the two Houses of par to do what was wrong, or to adopt any measures calculated to injure the essential interests of the country. Yet the argument of the right hon. secretary proceeded upon an assumption that the Regent, that his ministers, and the two Houses of parliament, would be all equally ready to resort to such measures. The right hon. gent. had also spoken of the painful feelings resulting from the situation in which his Majesty's servants were unfortunately at present placed, and from which they could not be relieved till the functions of the executive were restored, and their resignations could be received. But was not their situation of their own choosing? Had they not shewn themselves extreme. ly anxious to obtain these situations, and to retain them too? He really should have imagined, that the continuing in office for many years would have been the last thing to give these gentlemen pain, and that it was from their removal from office alone that they could have been capable |