plainest and strongest manner the impropriety and domestic distress, was not an executive of the proposed adjournment. Ministers had, even in this early stage of the business, manifested a disposition to regulate their conduct in all respects by the proceedings of parliament in 1789 on a similar melancholy occasion. But the opposition contended, that the state of the country and of Europe at that time, and at the present period, were so very different, that no line of proceeding could fairly be drawn from one to the other. In 1789 Great Britain was in a state of profound peace; the powers of Europe, and especially France, were either not disposed or by no means able to disturb her tranquillity. In 1810 the case was unfortunately quite the reverse: we were embarked in a tremendous warfare with a man who had nearly the whole power of Europe at his command; having at length gained an opportunity of rousing and supporting a people who were determined to resist him, we had embarked in their cause with almost the whole of our disposable force. Affairs in the peninsula of Spain and Portugal were in such a critical state that the balance might be turned for or against us, by seizing or passing by the opportunity which a single day might present. Sweden had declared war against this country; but while the royal authority was suspended, no hostile measures could be commenced against her. The opposition also dwelt with much force of argument on the internal state of the country; our commerce was falling rapidly before the power of Buonaparte; credit and confidence in the mercantile world had experienced a serious shock; many bankruptcies had already taken place, and much misery had ensued; and the prospect was by no means of a cheering kind. Under these, circumstances of foreign warfare government possessed of the utmost strength absolutely necessary? And if such an execu tive government were necessary, what must unavoidably be the result if the country were suffered to go on, even for the short space of a fortnight, totally deprived of an executive government? It was also argued, that as much time must elapse, after parliament had come to the determination of adopting measures to supply the defect in the royal authority, before a regent could be appointed, no delay should take place under the pretext of the probability of the king's speedy recovery. If he did recover, as ministers expressed a belief he would do within the space of the next fortnight, the measures which parliament might have begun to adopt would of course be dropped; if he did not recover, some progress would have been made towards putting the nation under its complete and regular government. Thus then no harm could possibly result from parliament proceeding directly to business; while serious inconvenience, or a palpable breach of the constitution, would be the consequence of further delay. Many things which could alone be performed by the king were already waiting for execution; and it was reasonable to suppose, in the present state of affairs, that few days could pass over, without a necessity for the power or interference of the royal authority. If nothing were done in such a case, the nation must unavoidably suffer; if ministers took upon themselves the royal functions, they would create a dangerous precedent, and tend to impress the public mind with a suspicion that the executive government might be dispensed with. Such is a sketch of the arguments used on the one hand by the ministers, who proposed a further adjournment; and on the other hand by it and what was usually termed insanity. When the opposition, who contended that parliament asked to describe generally in what the differshould immediately proceed to fill up the va-ence consisted, he replied, "It consists princancy in the exercise of the royal authority. The motion for adjournment was carried by a large majority; and the 13th of December was fixed upon for the re-assembling of parliament. During this period the disorder of his majesty by no means abated, even according to the vague report which the bulletins presented: and it was generally understood that the malady had assumed a more violent character, so as not only to bear hard upon the bodily health of his majesty, but to threaten a long and tedious endurance, and to cast great doubts upon his ultimate and perfect recovery. When, therefore, parliament met again on the 13th of December, ministers found themselves driven to the necessity of proposing that his majesty's physicians should be examined by a committee appointed by each house; and of explicitly stating, that, if the report should not hold out a prospect of speedy recovery, they would then propose measures to supply the defect in the royal authority. cipally in the different state of the mind, and the different state of the constitution also. In delirium the mind is actively occupied upon past impressions without any reference to present objects. A person under delirium resembles one talking in his sleep: he is totally insensible to all surrounding objects. The bodily health is at the same time considerably affected; there is great restlessness and want of sleep. In insanity the mind is acting upon some assumed idea, to the truth of which it will pertinaciously adhere, contrary to the strongest evidence of its falsity. The individual is awake to all surrounding objects :-the general health may be little or not at all impaired. Taking these two points as extreme points, derangement will lie somewhere betwixt them, partaking more or less of one or the other. The derangement which is the object of this inquiry, I consider partaking of delirium, but never partaking of insanity." In the second place, the circumstances which The physicians in attendance upon his ma-induced the physicians unanimously, and with jesty were examined in a very particular and strict manner by the committee of both houses. From this examination three important points, directly bearing on the subject before parliament, were made out; and some curious information was collected respecting the previous illness of his majesty, in the years 1801 and 1804. In the first place, the nature of the complaint under which his majesty laboured was scientifically and perspicuously described, especially by Dr. Willis. He stated it to be his opinion that it was a derangement of mind closely allied to delirium, and occasionally falling into it; but that there was a wide difference between scarcely any difference in point of confidence, to adhere to their former opinion, that his majesty would recover,-were particularly called for by the questions that were put to them and explicitly stated. These were, that the malady had originated from a known and specific cause, fully adequate to its production, without supposing any overruling inherent propensity; that his majesty had recovered from three previous attacks of the same disorder; and although he was now considerably further advanced in years, yet, from his temperance, vigour, and haleness of constitution, the chance of his recovery was much greater than that of most men not so old; and that the malady had not weakened the faculties of his mind, they were still entire; that is, his powers of memory and judgment, though exerted on erroneous subjects, and not within his control at all times, were as perfect as they had been previously to the commencement of the disorder. In the third place, the physicians, although, as has been stated, they expressed the most confident hopes that his majesty would recover so as to be able to resume the exercise of the royal functions, yet were disposed to apprehend that he would still be liable to occasional "hurries," and that, as he had already laboured under four attacks, it was probable he would continue liable to repeated attacks. It is curious to compare the statements given by the physicians, when they were examined before the committees of the two houses, respecting his majesty's health on particular days, with the bulletins that were issued on those days. It came out, that more than once his majesty had been in great and imminent danger, at a time when the bulletins pronounced him to be no worse than usual; and that he had had repeated paroxysms with intermissions of comparative calmness, though no such variations were stated to have occurred in the bulletins, It perhaps was impossible to draw up the bulletins in such a manner that they should give a clear and definite account of his majesty's health each day; but assuredly they might have led the public nearer to the truth than they actually did; and have been guarded against becoming, what they were too generally deemed, baby-word for ambiguous information. As in the course of the examination of the physicians it was necessary to advert to the malady under which his majesty had laboured in the years 1801 and 1804, some very curious and important particulars were brought to light. >>It came out from the evidence of Dr. Heberden, that in 1804 his majesty continued indisposed, and actually under the care and control of Dr. Willis and his men, long after the bulletins were discontinued; and the nation, from that circumstance and from his majesty's resuming his royal functions, had been induced to believe that he was perfectly recovered. The use which the opposition made of this discovery will be noticed afterwards. It was most ungracious and unwelcome to the men who were then in power; but it necessarily produced the beneficial consequence of making ministers more guarded and cautious in declaring his majesty well on this occasion. As the physicians expressed a decided opinion, not only that his majesty was at that time totally incapable of performing the high functions of the regal office, but that his recovery would probably be slow and remote, and that it went beyond their skill and foresight to fix the period when that happy event would take place, it was absolutely necessary for ministers to proceed towards the appointment of a regent. As the houses of lords and commons, the session not having been opened in the usual form, by a speech from the throne or by commissioners named by his majesty, could not constitutionally be regarded as the parliament of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, but merely as a convention of the estates, it was necessary to have a regard to this character in the mode of their proceedings. The business originated in the house of commons, where, on the 20th of December, the house having resolved itself into a committee on the state of the nation, Mr. Perceval moved three resolutions. The first simply declared the opinion of the committee respecting the indisposition of his majesty, and the consequent interruption of the personal exercise of the royal authority-This resolution, affording no room or occasion for debate or difference of sentiment, immediately passed unanimously. * his majesty's present indisposition." Upon this resolution the debates were very long and interesting, both in the house of commons and The second resolution declared it to be the the house of lords.-Mr. Perceval in this stage opinion of the committee, that “it is the right of the business, as well as in all the future sand duty of the lords spiritual and temporal stages of it, had availed himself of the proceedand commons of the united kingdom of Great ings of parliament during his majesty's indisBritain and Ireland now assembled, and law-position in 1789. The resolutions he proposed fully, fully, and freely representing all the were framed exactly according to those preestates of the people of this realm, to provide sented at that period by Mr. Pitt. It is well the means of supplying the defect of the per-known that Mr. Fox, in a moment of unguarded sonal exercise of the royal authority." When warmth, opposed the mode of proceeding by this resolution was put, sir Francis Burdett bill, denied the right and power of parliament rose and denied that the house lawfully, fully, to confer the royal authority during his mafor freely represented the people-a denial so jesty's indisposition; and asserted in too strong totally out of place, that it discovered a greater and unqualified terms, the undoubted right of portion of zeal than of judgment or discretion. the prince, as heir-apparent, under such cir Besides, as was well remarked in reply, if the cumstances. This assertion was afterwards house were not the legal representative of the modified by Mr. Fox; but it had passed his people of Great Britain, how came the baronet lips and gone into the world; and it afforded to occupy a seat in it, or while there to waste too fair and strong a ground of argument to be his arguments upon it? Supposing he carried neglected by his adversary Mr. Pitt. The opa motion to that effect, of what avail would it position in 1810 recollected how much the be; since it was the opinion and determination popularity of Mr. Fox had suffered in conseof a body of men, by the very terms of the mo- quence of his zeal for the prince-they theretion, not the legal representatives of the united fore, in objecting to the mode of proceeding by kingdom? bill, went so far as to deny the power of parThe third resolution declared it to be the liament to confer the royal authority, but exopinion of the committee, that for the purpose pressly declared it to be their opinion that the of supplying the defect in the personal exercise prince had no right to it. They therefore proof the royal authority," and for maintaining posed, that an address from both houses should pentire the constitutional authority of the king, be presented to the prince of Wales, requestit is necessary that the said lords spiritual anding him to take upon himself the executive temporal, and commons, of the united kingdom duties. If the prince acceded to this request, of Great Britain and Ireland, should determine he was then to open parliament in the regular on the means whereby the royal assent may and constitutional manner, and to give his conbe given in parliament to such bill as may be sent to the act which constituted him regent. passed by the two houses of parliament, re- As lord Grenville and his friends adhered to specting the exercise of the powers and autho- the doctrines on this point which they had arities of the crown, in the name and on the be-maintained and acted upon in the year 1789, 676 THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LIFE ing by address, in both houses, by a great ma- | seal, but was a mere ministerial servant of parliajority. It is evident at first sight that there are very serious objections to both modes of proceeding, whether by bill or address; and the advocates for each measure adroitly called the attention of parliament, rather to the contradiction and absurdities of the plan proposed by their adversaries, than to the clearness and consistency of their own. ment, nothing can constitutionally be recognised in this bill but the power and the consent of the house of lords and the house of commons. The objections to the mode of proceeding by address were not so glaring, they lay deeper; but when brought up to light, as they were by ministers, they appeared to possess considerable weight. The precedent of the revolution in 1689 was brought forward in support of an address; but, as was observed, at the revolution, the object was to appoint a king; the throne was then vacant. In 1810 the object was to appoint a temporary regent; the king still occupied the throne, although from indisposition the personal exercise of the royal functions was sus pended. The case of the revolution, therefore, did not apply as a precedent. But the measure of proceeding by address, it was contended by ministers, not only was unsupported by precedent; it was fraught with absurdity and contradiction. What was proposed to be done? That the two houses of parliament should present an address to the prince, praying that he would take upon him the executive duties. If he agreed to this prayer, it might naturally be supposed that he was now constitutionally regent; and that the defect in the exercise of the royal authority was fully supplied. The objections to the mode of proceeding by bill, however, lay more on the surface; they were more glaring and formidable; the mere reading over the resolution suggested them to the mind. A regent was to be appointed by a bill; that is, in other words, the king, whose incapacity was the sole cause of the measure, was, by a fiction of law, to be declared to have given his assent to a bill which constituted another person regent; because, as that bill expressed, his majesty was incapable of exercising his royal functions. A bill so passed could in common sense be viewed in no other light than as the act of the two houses of parliament. It had the consent of two branches of the legislature, but assuredly not of the third. The great seal might be put to it, and its validity therefore might not be a proper subject of dispute except in parliament; but to impress upon a bill the character of constitutional validity, and to form it in such a manner that its validity cannot be investigated, are certainly The first step which it was proposed that the very different operations. The measure, there- regent should take, appeared to justify this fore, which ministers proposed, and which was supposition; he was to open parliament in the adopted, stripped of its affected obscurity, same manner as his royal father would have amounted merely to this: the two houses of par- done, either by a speech from the throne or by liament appointed the regent; they did not indeed commission. But here the absurdity and indo so directly; they first appointed a person to consistency began; the prince, though by openput the great seal to the bill; but as this person ing parliament he had exercised and displayed was appointed by them, not by the king, and as the royal powers, was not actually regent. he was not at liberty to refuse affixing the great | Parliament thus opened were to proceed in the |