It is not wise, Sir, at any time, to risk experiments of this sort, gratuitously and unnecessarily, upon questions so nearly connected with the Throne and the Royal Family. In the present times, when every thing most venerable and sacred is discussed, and measured, and arranged, with a reference to some calculating, abstract, utilitarian standard, it is most unwise. In England, the people have been properly taught to look to the Throne as the directing and constantly active power, which puts every part of the political machine in motion, and keeps each part in its right place. The Throne calls Parliament together, and prorogues and dissolves it. The Throne states the business for which they have been called together. The Throne is one, and the first, of the three estates of the realm, in the formation of all laws. The army, the navy, the public power of every description, the courts of law, the adminis tration of justice, are all directed and put in motion by the Throne; and the tempering of that administration with mercy is an emanation of it. The Crown cannot stand still. Ever moving within its proper orbit, upon its movement depend the harmony and good order of the whole system. These are the feelings of every man who understands the constitution, in respect to the regal functions, and the character of the monarchical part of our Government. It is most unwise to weaken those feelings, by exhibiting the Crown as a phantom, which can be called into life at one moment, or set aside at another, by the authority of a senatus consultum, or any authority of the two Houses of Parliament. These are very serious, but very delicate, considerations. It is enough to shadow them out, and I will not pursue them further.

I would put it to the common sense of the House, and to each member individually, and particularly to the honourable and learned gentleman, the Solicitor-General, who has alluded to the postponement of this question, to consider

what they would think of a father of a numerous family, with a large estate, who should postpone to arrange and settle his affairs, after it should have been made clear to him, that if he neglected to do so, his estate might probably be wasted in chancery, and his children, instead of succeeding quietly to their inheritance, involved in litigation and discord. There is one member of this House, of whom I need not ask that question. The right honourable Secretary of State told us, the other night, that he should consider it a great calamity to have his concerns, and the interests of his family, involved in a chancery suit, and that he would rather make great sacrifices, than incur such an evil. I have no doubt that, as a prudent man, he has taken every precaution which it becomes the father of a family to take, for the purpose of guarding against such an evil. I wish he had not advised the father of a larger family, the head of a great nation, in a case of such fearful complexity, and which ought to be governed by similar considerations, to risk that postponement, which no man would be inclined to give way to in his own case. If, however, the advisers of the Crown should give that counsel, relative to the interests of the Throne and the State, which they would not give with regard to their own, it is but justice, that the responsibility attached to that advice should rest on the heads of its authors; and that the minority in this House, as I anticipate the advocates of an immediate appointment of a Regency will be, should be exonerated from any share in the responsibility of adopting a course which is full of complexity and possible confusion, in the event of so fearful a contingency as that in contemplation.

All that has been said, as to the inexpediency of pressing the subject on the attention of the new Monarch at the present moment, who is busy, we are told, in arranging the affairs of his household, falls to the ground, the moment it

is recollected, of how much greater importance such arrangement must be, than matters of ceremony, or of private convenience and accommodation. The public convenience and public safety are paramount objects, and there must be abundant time to provide for both, if the disposition existed to press them on the mind of the illustrious individual most interested. The supporters of the present motion have nothing to apprehend from the attempt made to implicate them in a charge of implied disrespect to the character of that illustrious individual. It is unworthy of refutation. The charge is levelled at, and against, the responsible Ministers of the Crown, for having neglected that which, under the circumstances, was their obvious duty. The sole object of the motion is to assert a right, which is equally applicable to parties interested in the appointment of a guardian to the heir of property, or to the heir of the throne of these realms; except that, in the present instance, when public and general objects are at issue, the anxiety of all men ought to be proportioned to the magnitude of the risk which is run, and the danger which may possibly result to the security of the Crown, and the safety and tranquillity of the State.

The House divided: For the motion, 93. Against it, 247.

APPENDIX.

No. I. Prospectus du " Journal de la Société de 1789."

II. Discours prononcé par M. Huskisson, Anglois et Membre de la Société de 1789, à la Séance de cette Société, le 29 Août 1790.

III. Speech at the Liverpool Election, February 14, 1823.

IV. Speech at the Public Dinner, given to him, in the Council Chamber, Chichester, the 3d of April 1823.

V. Speech at the Public Meeting, held at Freemasons' Hall, on the 18th June 1824, for erecting a Monument to the late James Watt.

VI. Speech at Liverpool, on his Re-election, February 5, 1828.