agreed in other points, they were unanimous that the probability of the cure rested precisely on the same grounds as before; — a circumstance which, he was persuaded, would give as much pleasure to the right honourable gentleman as it had done to himself.

With regard to the difference of opinion between the physicians, as to the prospect of a recovery, it appeared to him to depend on two circumstances, by which it could be decided on whose opinion the greatest reliance ought to be placed. The first circumstance was the knowledge of the malady in general; and the second the knowledge of the particular case of the patient. Three of His Majesty's physicians had been conversant with the malady. Two others, though not so conversant, were well acquainted with His Majesty's habits. These two (Sir George Baker and Dr. Warren) attended His Majesty for two hours each day; the three others from the evening until eleven in the forenoon. Surely it was natural for those who attended His Majesty most to be the best judges of his situation; and it was remarkable that Dr. Warren and Sir George Baker were the least confident of a cure, and the other doctors had much greater hopes; but Dr. Willis, who attended His Majesty more than any of the others, was more sanguine than them all. Sir Lucas Pepys stated circumstances which did not amount to a certainty of a cure, but which proved an abatement of His Majesty's disorder. Dr. Willis was of opinion that all the symptoms since the time of the last examination were more favourable. In a word, all the physicians agreed in the probability of His Majesty's recovery, and that the length of the time had made no unfavourable changes: those, too, who understood the disorder best, thought. it more favourable.

For his own part, he wished not to go at length into the particulars of the last report, on which the committee might safely rely, as there were those on the committee who were anxious to sift, with the most scrupulous accuracy, every point likely to prove His Majesty's recovery. There had been those who gave no considerable degree of credit to Dr. Willis; if, therefore, any

observations should arise from them, he conceived that they would be made in the same spirit, and with the same ability, as when they were urged in the committee above stairs. Upon this occasion he felt it but common justice to commend the skill, integrity, and good sense of Dr. Willis, which were evinced under a severe cross-examination, calculated to puzzle simplicity, and leave the coolness which should, of necessity, accompany the delivery of evidence, too unguarded. However it might suit with the political intrigue of the times, or be convenient to circulate them at present in London and its environs, he would not anticipate the remarks which might be made; but if there were any such remarks to be advanced, he desired, if they chose to discuss the credit of either this or that physician, that they might understand the nature of the imputation. In the course of the inquiry above stairs, a circumstance had come out, over which he would not draw a veil of delicacy, as he was not ashamed to bring it forward. If it be stated to the discredit of any physician, that he had submitted to be unduly influenced by a great personage, let the committee know to what physician the imputation of having consented to give an untrue account of the state of His Majesty's health applied: if an impropriety of transaction like that was imputed, he would not believe it till it was distinctly ventural to be said, and when he used the term venture, he did not mean to use it with regard to the exalted station of the person in question, but with regard to the transaction itself; nor did he (he repeated it) believe that any man would venture to charge blame of any kind on the respectable personage in question, who had lived for almost thirty years in this country without traduction, a pattern of the most unexampled affection, domestic tenderness, and virtue; against whom the breath of calumny had not dared to send forth even a whisper; and who could not merit it at a moment, when visited by a calamity which rarely befals a private person, but which surely was not a little aggravated when it becomes the lot of the family of a person in so exalted a rank as the sovereign of the country. As to the fact itself, it appeared that Dr. Warren allowed that apparent circumstances of an

amendment began to appear; and there was, in consequence, a wish on the part of Her Majesty that the report might be such as should give the public the most favourable account of His Majesty's health; but would any man prove that any undue influence had been used for that purpose? Mr. Pitt explained in what manner the words, a comfortable way, had been introduced into the report, and then spoke of Dr. Willis, declaring that he was known in the country where he lived, by his character, and by the happiness which he had been the means of giving to the numerous families who were bound to bless him for the good effects of his skill. He mentioned another physician, whose character was likewise high, but declared that if he wished to draw a true conclusion of His Majesty's state of health, and prospect of recovery, he would wish to draw it from Dr. Willis, more than from any other physician.

At length, Mr. Pitt adverted to the situation for which they were to provide, and this situation was no less than the cessation of the personal exercise of the royal authority; a deficiency for which no previous provision had been made. As the cause of deficiency, he had every reason to think, would prove but temporary, they must deliberately consider what were the cases for which they were to apply a remedy. The first object for which they had to provide, was to secure the establishment of a government in the country, equal to its safety and the dispatch of public business. Out of the nature of such a provision another duty arose, of equal importance to the other; and this was, to take care that the measure embraced did not go beyond the necessity of the case. The committee were to provide powers for the exércise of the government, and they must take care to place those powers in proper hands; but, above all things, to recollect that they were not placing a king on the throne. They were to remember that the throne was full, that no right any where existed to exercise the royal authority, but that which was conferred by that House; they were to take care to provide against any embarrassment in the resumption of the regal authority, whenever God, in his providence, should permit the rightful holder again

to exercise it. They were to provide only for the necessity of the case, and not to exceed it; and therefore the measures which he should propose, would be to invest His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales with the whole royal authority, to be exercised in the name, and on the behalf of His Majesty, under such limitations and restrictions only as should be provided. The principle was not new, although the circumstances of the case happened to be unprecedented. No man would say, that the same power which the principal exercised ought to be given to the delegate; and if the House referred to precedents, they would find that no one instance could be met with of the whole of the royal prerogatives having been so delegated. On the contrary, every precedent which bore the smallest analogy to the present. situation, evinced the direct contrary, and that, doubtless, with at view to facilitate and insure the resignation of the delegate, when the principal should be competent to exercise or to resume his authority. Referring them to the act of Queen Anne (the act of succession), the regency act of George the Second, and the regency act of the present King, Mr. Pitt added, let them look to the case of a sovereign disabled by infancy. Was the Regent of the country invested with full and unlimited power to exercise the royal authority? Undoubtedly not. In the three regency bills in the statute books to which he adverted, were there not limitations? There were in every one. All the powers might be given, but then they were not given to one person. What was the principle in a case of minority? It was thought unsafe to vest all the powers in one person. He laid particular stress on the regency bill in the reign of George the Second, and observed, that there appeared at that time to have been a wish on both sides of the House to doubt what confidence should be placed in the regent. They were afraid of making a precedent, and therefore they gave the royal powers among many, appointing a council, without whose consent the regent could take no important step whatever. The will of the predecessor was, by one of the bills, to be the system followed, while the heir apparent continued a minor, a principle which he owned he thought went too far,

although it was a plausible principle, and was apparently most applicable to the present case. After reasoning upon the three different precedents, and touching upon the short protectorate of ¡Richard the Third, and the other protectorates or guardianships n the earlier periods of our history, and endeavouring to demonstrate by argument, that as, in no preceding instance, all the powers of royalty were given to one person, so, in the present instance, which certainly differed most essentially, they ought not to be, nor could they be, trusted in the hands of one person, without proving a hazardous, and, possibly, a prejudicial experiment, he declared that he would give his vote for investing the regent with all the powers which are necessary, but would not agree to give any which were not requisite to carry on the government of the country with energy and effect.

Mr. Pitt now observed, that he need not trouble the House with his first resolution, as he had already stated its substance and effect. The second resolution (which he read), was to restrain the Regent from exercising one branch of the prerogative peculiarly inherent in the crown, and this was, the power of granting peerages, excepting to His Majesty's sons, being twenty-one years of age. This restriction he thought necessary, as the Regent ought not to confer any grant which might produce difficulties and embarrassments, when the happy hour of His Majesty's restoration to his health should arrive. The object of investing the crown with the power of creating peers, was to enable the sovereign to distribute rewards to eminent merit, and to give the crown' the means of choosing persons who should add to the number of one of the branches of the legislature. The creation of peers was one of those powers which belonged personally to the King. When he made this assertion he scarcely meant to inculcate that it was the individual right of the King to create peers, but that it was an especial prerogative of the crown. He. enumerated the grounds on which he conceived that the crown might exercise the privilege of making peers, and described what he regarded as the inconveniences which might follow from the regent having the power to make peers, contending it was possi