173 
the adjournment; but Sir Francis Burdett 
spoke at some length on the necessity of a 
pefmanent executive; and therefore, con- 
ceiving it to be the duty of the House to sup- 
ply the defect without loss of time, opposed 
the proposed adjournment, and, supported by 
Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Elliott, and a few 
otliers, divided the House on the question. 
For the adjournment for a fortnight, 343—_ 
Against it, 58.—Majority, 285. 
When the Lords met on the 29th of No- 
vember, the examination of the physicians 
before the Privy Council was laid belure them, 
and an adjournment for another fortnight 
moved by Lord Liverpoo) ; ‘but this was dp- 
posed by Lord Spencer and others, who moved 
as an amendment, that the House should’ap- 
point a committee to examine the physicians, 
,and to report accordingly 5 and, upon that 
amendment, the House, after a pretty long 
debate, divided, when there appeared for 
the adjournment, 68—For the amendment, 
56.—Majotity, S2. In the Commons, the 
Motion for adjournment, moved by the 
Chancellor of the Exchequer, ‘was op. 
posed by Mr. Ponsonby, who moved’also for 
the appointment of ‘a committee to examine 
the physicians. The House ‘divided on the 
question of adjournnient—For the adjourn- 
ment, 253—Against it, 129-—-Majority, 104, 
On the division for the committee, there 
was—Againstit, 250—For a coramittee, 1597. 
=—Mujority, 95. , 
The House of Lords and Commons met on 
the 13th of December, and proceédéd to ap- 
point committees to examine the physicians. 
In the Lords it was appointed by ballot; in 
the Commons, the Chancellor of the Exche- 
quer selected a committee from the gentlemen 
en bothsides of the House indifferently 5 each 
consisted of twenty-one menibers. Their 
lordships met oa the following Monday 
(17th), but their committee not having fi- 
hished their labour, adjourned till Wednesday, 
(19th). The report of the Commons’ com- 
mittee was brought up on Monday, and the 
‘Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an‘ad- 
journment §o the following ‘Thursday (20th), 
and that the House'should, on that day, re- 
solve itself into a committee on the State of 
‘the Nation. ‘On ‘that day he ‘proposed, ‘in 
imitation of the mode pursued in 1788-9, by 
‘Mr. Pitt, to move three Resolutions: the 
‘first, declarative of the present incapacity of 
‘the sovereign; the second, the competency 
of the two Houses tosupply that incapacity; 
‘and the third, that the’proper mode of doing 
3t should be by Bill; a call of the House was 
‘ordered forthat day. Mr. Ponsonby signified 
‘his intention to oppose the preceeding by Bill, 
At the meeting of the Lords, on Wednes- 
‘day the 19th, Lord Liverpool moved to have 
‘the House called over on Thursday (27th.) 
‘Lord Spencer protested against the proceedings 
in 1788 being admitted asa precedent. Lord 
‘Liverpoo! gave notice of his intention to move 
‘for a committee to search for precedents te 
State of Public Affwirs in February. 
[Match 15 
ascertain how far proxies could be admitted 
to-vote on the settlement of the royal au= 
thority. ig 
Oo Thursday (20th), there was a call of 
the House inthe Commons. The Chancellor 
of the Exchequer moved his three resolutions : 
the first passed unanimously ; the second, 
with the negative of Sir Francis Burdett; to 
the third, Mr. Ponsonby moved an amend- 
ment, that an Address should be presented te 
the Prince of Wales, praying him to take 
upon himself the office of Regent. On this 
the House divided—A gainst the amendment, 
269—For the ‘amendment, 157.—Majority 
for ministers, 112 ( 
In the Lords, on this day (20th), the Re- 
port was read short, and a debate took place 
on the mode’of proceeding, but without a di- 
vision. 
The Commons met on the following day; 
and their Report on the State of the Nation 
being brought up, Lord William Russell 
moved the previous question on the second 
resolution, and divided the House apon it. 
For the resolution, 98—Avgainst it, 15.—Ma- 
jority,-83. The third resolution was ‘also 
carried, and the House adjourned. 
On Thursday (27th) the Lords proceeded 
ina manner similar'to the Commons. The 
resolutions were carried by a majority of 26, 
100 voting for ministers, and 74 against 
them. Amendments were'moved to the se- 
cond resolution, but the division was confined 
to the third. The Report was ordered to be 
brought up next day, and a conference with 
the Commons, after which the House ad- 
journed. ‘On Monday (31st), on the motion 
of Lord Liverpool, eight Lords were nomi. 
nated to hold a conference with the Com- 
mons; the conference took place immediately 
after, and the House, after receiving the re= 
port, adjourned, 
In the Commons, Mr. Spencer Stanhope 
teported from the committee the assent of 
the Lords to their resolutions ;° after which, 
the House resolving itself into a committee 
on’'the State’of the Nation, the report of the 
former committee was referred ‘to this com- 
mittee by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
‘He, after along speech, moved five distiner 
‘propositions as the hasis of a bill for regu- 
lating the office of Regent: the’first, appoint- 
ing the Prince Regent subject to certain re- 
strictions and litnitations; ‘the ‘second, re- 
straining him fromn*conferring the honours of 
the peerage for a certain time ; ‘the third, 
from ‘granting places and “pensions; the 
fourth regulated the'king’s private property ; 
and the ‘fifth respected the ‘mdnagément ‘of 
the household, ‘Which was to be vested in 
the queen. ‘An amendment to the first reso- 
lution was moved by Mr. Lambe, the ‘pur= 
port of which was to confer the whole ‘power 
of the crown on the Regent without any re- 
‘strictions, which, on a division, was negatived 
bya majority of 24 ; “224 voting against 208 
for it. “The House divided alse on the ap 
aa 
