Lord Sidmouth stated, that he did not think it his duty to make any communication; and when further pressed, he said, he did not conceive that there was any necessary suspension of the regal functions. The foundation of this statement was the assurance of the Physicians, that his Majesty was competent. Mr. Pitt, whose confidence in the Ministry was not then very marked, argued, and successfully, that it was better that no communication should be made. The Parliament concurred in this so decidedly that the subject was pressed no farther, but abandoned without any division. The course of Mr. Pitt's argument was, that it was infinitely better to leave the matter with the servants of the Crown, who were bound to make the communication when they thought it necessary. Mr. Grey afterwards came down and urged the subject. And Lord Sidmouth then stated, that his report of his Majesty's competency was founded, not on his own observation, but on the opinion of the Physicians. Mr. Grey, upon this, said no more, than that if this state of things continued much longer, he should bring the subject before the House in a more regular form.Would this have been enough if it had been thought that the silence of Ministers was so criminal as the honourable gentleman, with no better evidence, now pronounced it to be? In 1801, too, Parliament must have been aware of the nature of the King's malady; for Lord Sidmouth, whom it was in contemplation to appoint to the situations of Chancellor of the Exchequer and First Lord of the Treasury, vacated upon the Chiltern Hundreds, and returned to that House again, and was thanked as a private individual. It must have been then perfectly obvious that his Majesty was indisposed, and there could have been no doubt as to the nature of his malady. On the 27th of the month of February, in that year, while the Bulletins were in existence, Mr. Nicoll gave notice of a motion on the subject, which was received, however, with so much indignation, that it was withdrawn by the proposer. Such was the feeling of Parliament on this subject, to which Misters naturally attended, in considering what was the line of their duty under such difficult circumstances, He had already stated, that no act of government had been done at the time of the indisposition in 1804, till the 5th of March, when a Bill passed relating to Crown Lands. The Chancellor waited upon his Majesty on the 4th and 5th. It would be recollected that he was the highest officer under the Crown, peculiarly com

petent to judge in a case of this kind, and sworn to give ho nest and faithful counsel. The Physicians were examined at that time, and told that it was intended to explain to his Majesty, and to discuss with him the subjects of several Bills then to receive the Royal Assent. They said his Majesty was perfectly capable of doing this. The deliberate judgment of the Chancellor after two conversations, the one on the 4th of March, the other on the 5th, was, that the King was perfectly competent. On the 9th of March the Royal Assent was given to several Bills. One of these was the Mutiny Bill. Now, if his Majesty was thus competent, as upon the evidence of the Physicians, as well as the judgment of the Chancellor, they had every reason to believe, what would have been the situation of Ministers if they had suffered the Mutiny Act to expire? They might, indeed, have come to Parliament for a remedy; but the question was, whether, when such was the opinion of the Physicians, they would not, by taking the Executive authority out of the hands of the Sovereign, do an act tantamount to a dethronement of the King. After recapitulation of some of the circumstances he had before mentioned, his Lordship again stated, that the honourable gentleman was wrong in supposing that Lord Eldon was the only one of the Ministers that saw his Majesty between the 12th of February and the 23d of April; or even the 22d of March; for Lord Sidmouth had seen him on the 13th of March. Lord Sidmouth, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, had attended his Majesty on the 19th of March, with official papers to be signed by the King, and thought his Majesty fully competent to transact business, as the Physicians had stated. The next act was the commission for passing Bills on the 23d of March; at which day, Dr. Heberden, taking his evidence altogether, had declared that his Majesty was most fully competent. On the 26th of March, a message had been brought to the House respecting the Irish Militia, the Physicians having declared, that he was perfectly capable of holding communication with his Parliament. After a recapitulation, his Lordship in conclusion observed, that the principle of incapacitation to the extent contended for by the honourable gentleman, was perfectly monstrous on the face of it-and besides, the whole of his argument was in a great measure overturned by the consideration, that his Majesty's was a case not of insanity, but derangement, as had appeared in the evidence. His

Lordship further observed, that the full and perfect recovery of which the honourable gentleman spoke, was out of the question. How could any body look for a complete recovery in every respect, bodily as well as mental, when the usual effects of such a malady were considered? It was, in truth, impossible that the hurries of which the Physicians spoke, should not at times take place under such circumstances. Yet his Majesty might be fully competent, notwithstanding, as had been abundantly made out in evidence, to exercise the Royal functions. He again claimed for himself a full share of responsibility; and said, they could not touch a hair of the heads of Lords Eldon and Sidmouth without also coming upon bim. With that he threw himself upon the judgment of the House (Hear! hear! hear!)

Mr. Yorke said, that after the able and eloquent speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down, it was scarcely necessary for him to say a word. (Hear!) He agreed with his noble friend that each of the Ministers of that day were equally responsible with the two noble Lords who had been made the more immediate objects of the honourable gentleman's charge, because nothing has been done in that instance by his Majesty's servants which had not been submitted to the previous consideration of the Cabinet, and upon which there had not been full and free communication with all. He had therefore at present little more to state than his opinion, that the statement of his noble friend was correct, and his opinion had been grounded upon reference to memoranda similar to those of the noble Lord, and which, like them, had been made at the time. He had listened to the honourable gentleman with the greatest attention, in order to see what kind of prima facie case he could make out; and what did the statement of the honourable gentleman amount to? It was before the House; and he would confidently appeal to the House if it contained one new fact, and this after a lapse of seven years! If there was no new fact, he wished to know why that honourable gentleman, who was so generally on the alert, did not bring forward bis charge at the time when the facts were recent? After such a lapse of time, one would expect some strong and extraordinary circumstance; but nothing appeared in the accusation, which might not have been just as accurately and as forcibly preferred in the time at which they occurred. The evidence of Dr. Heberden, as to the probable period of the King's recovery, was

not, neither could it be expected to be, positive. The King's illness commenced on the 12th of February, 1804, and the King appeared in Council on the 23d of April following. But here he could not rep noticing the honourable gentleman, why he had founded all his case upon the evidence taken before the Lords? If the honourable gentleman would not answer that, he (Mr. Yorke) would endeavour to do so; and, in his judgment, the probable reason was, that, in the records of that evidence, there could be found a most satisfactory explanation of that part of the evidence given before the House of Lords, on which the hon. gentleman now solely rested his case: but the honourable gentleman seemed resolved to shut his eyes against that explanation he would not admit it-he would not look at it-he seemed determined not to see it. Much had been said upon the case of a private individual similarly circumstanced; he had seen his Majesty, had had a long conference with him about, or before the 23d of April-he could not pledge himself accurately to the day, but he could affirm that in that audience the King's mind seemed to be perfect master of itself. (Hear!) The King then appeared to him to be in full as good health of mind and body to be as fully competent to the discharge of the duties of his station, and to be as competent a judge of those duties, and of the interests of the Government and the Country, as any of those political sages, who set themselves up as patterns of statesmen -as men who would claim an exclusive patent for all the talents, and all the honesty in the country. (Hear, hear, hear! and a laugh.)

Sir Francis Burdett said, that while he agreed with the honourable gentleman who spoke last in censuring the absurdity that would limit genuine patriotism to sects or parties, he could not agree with him in thinking that any thing had as yet been said in opposition to the motion before the House. He did not now therefore rise to refute what was unworthy of refutation, but rather to give his passing comment upon one or two vague doctrines which had escaped the noble Lord in the course of his long speech, and which were not refused the sanction of the honourable gentleman who followed him. That honourable gentleman had spoken of a set of persons whom he described as not in any respect qualified for that station to which they pretended; who they were to whom he so alluded, he (Sir F.) could not say; but nothing that could fall from that hon. gentleman should

deter him from doing his duty. That gentleman and the noble Lord were both most anxious to be held responsible, but they seemed not equally anxious of coming to the test. If they did right, they can fear nothing from investigation; but they have also tried to meet charge by charge. The hon. gent. (Mr. Whitbread) was charged with negligence, in not bringing it forward before. Was that a reason why it should not be brought forward at all, or that it should not be entered upon now that it was at last brought forward? (Hear! hear!) This was a curious mode of answering an' accusation. He protested against the principle, that MiAisters should ever be allowed to plead time as a bar against the prosecution of their offences. In what he thought better times, no such plea would be admitted. Formerly the notoriety of an alledged grievance was thought sufficient ground for inquiry; but now it appeared as if every person who instituted a charge in that House was criminal if he did not ultimately succeed in the full proof of it. An honourable gentleman had said, that there was no new fact-the fact already stated was at least new to him (Hear!) The Ministers had usurped the Sovereign power -the King had been under restraint at the time that he was acting as King-and this was the principle which, in the earlier periods of their history, had laid the foundation of many of their most penal statutes against favouritism, under which both the Gavestones and Despencers had suffered; and one of those statutes spoke of the King as under strict guard and restraint. He protested against that principle of responsibility which made every man and no man responsible of the Ministers. The House could not punish a whole Cabinet; it therefore selected the officer in whose immediate department the office complained of occurred; and it was no sort of justification to plead the acquiescence of a Cabinet, a something unknown to the Constitution (Hear!) The honourable Baronet then proceeded to comment, in terms of ridicule, on the volunteering generosity of the noble Lord, to participate in the responsibility of other men. He really thought the noble Lord had quite enough to answer upon his own score (A laugh, and Hear, hear!) With respect to the charge preferred, it related to a fact. That fact was not controverted; and if the Kingly office was not a mere puppet, made for the purpose of coming down in a gilt coach to meet the Parliament occasionally, this act of the Ministers amounted to a high crime and misdemeanour. If they could