Star.
London, England, 1811-01-29 00:00:00

the'
of
sot=

sons on which he acted and voted on important
question, lie shettld not further trouble Lordships.
A conversation ensued oil several o f the verbal
amendments reserved for the
-Report, siemo of which
were agreed to. •
Earl STANHOPE suggested the propriety of
omitting the distinctions of G. P. R. Mod George P.
R, in the Regent's signature, which produced some
observations from Lords GRENVILLE, ELDON, and
LIVERPOOL. The clause was passed al it stood.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL proposed an addition
to the oath to be takes by the Regent, the purport of
which was, that he would maintain the Church of
Scotland. This addition was agreed to.
DURATION OP RESTRICTIONS.
The Clause on this subject being next come to,
Lord GRENVILLE rose, in pursetance of the no
tice he had given on a former night:, to submit art
amendment to their Lordships, which world go to
lalter the duration of the restrictions on the Regent
from twelve to six months, counting from the date or
the passing of the present Act. It was not necessary
for him to enter much at length into the subject, or
long to occupy their Lordships' attention; for the ar-
guments lay within a very short and narrow compass'
—nor had he much to add to the observations he had
made on a former night. It might
_not be improper,
however, to remind their Lordships, that in the Bill
of 1789, there was no limitation in respect of time
of the restrictions imposed. On looking back to the
Journals of the House it would be found that a divi-
sion took place on the point, whether the restrictions
should endure for a time to be .limited; those who
supported the Bill, of whom he had the honour to be
one, contending that no limitation wat; required, and
those who opposed it maintaining the contrary opi-
nion. Now, however, he was of opinion with those
who brought in the present Bill, that some limitation,
of time should be put to its enactments ; and he ler-
tned this opinion from the different nature of the cir-
cumstances that attended the attack of the malady
under which his Majesty now laboured, and those ohs
the former occasion. On the first attack of the dis-
order, there existed no grounds from which a pro-
bable judgment could be formed of the nature or
duration of the malady. Even medical experience
and information could furnish fevi materials from
which conclusions could be drawn : but at present,
from the experience of what had taken place in seve-
ral attacks, there existed strong grounds for cherish-
ing the hope, which none would be more unwilling
to relinquish than himself, that the malady with
which his Majesty was afflicted would be but of short,
duration. The reason or assigning a limited period
at all was founded on the necessity of providing for
the safety of the country, and the precise limits to
be given to it should 4:Upend upon the experience
which they had of the past. Experience had told
them, that there was a period Within whinft the !lapel
of recovery might be strongly entertained; and cer-I
tainly there was no time when it could be pronounced)
that his Majesty's recovery was desperate, for what,
there was life there was hope. Whether the tit=
which he had to propose, or that proposed by the fn.
mere of the Bill, was the most reasonable, it would
be for the House to judge. Being compelled to lit
r some period, on what other data was he to proceed,'
but on those facts which were furnished by expel
rience ? Let their Lordships consider the time within
which the former recoveries of his Majesty had oc-
curred. Three several times his Majesty had been '
afflicted with a disorder similar to the present, in its,
nature, its symptoms, and its progress ; and as often'
he had recovered. ence a favourable omen was
derived for future expectation. At no time had the
duration of the malady lasted beyond four months.]
The duration of the first attack was recorded in the
Journals of Parliament. What its precise duration]
was in the other two cases he could not now pretend'
to state, though a month ago he thought he could,
have been able to declare it; but from the circum-
stances that had transpired in a late debate, he must
now be understood to speak of the duration of the'
attack in 1801 with great doubt and hesitation.—
(Hear, hear.)—But still there could be no doubt that
the first attack was the longest ; and the physicians
had unanimously stated that no one attack had lasted
beyond four months. Their Lordships had not been
told, that the present case differed in its nature, symp-
toms, and progress, from any of the former ; and
hence he would deduce the probability that, if recce..
very took place at all, it would not be extended
yond the period within which it had happily takep
place in former instances.
This also appeared to be the judgment of his Ma-
jesty's Physicians. He had looked back at their ex-
amination ; and had found that three out of the five'
spoke in strong terms of the probability of recovery
within the period when it had formerly occurred.—
This was particularly the language of Dr. Willis,
who, without speaking at all invidiously of the other
most respectable gentlemen, had enjoyed far superior
advantages of experience in that particular malady.
When Dr. Reynolds was asked his opinion as to the
probable duration of his Majesty's complaint, his an-
swer was, « that if recovery should be protracted be-
yond the usual period, his confidence would be consi-
derably diminished." This was the substance of the
opinion on which be (Lord Grenville) founded the
proposition he had to submit. Despair of ultimate
recovery would not in such a case be produced, but
confidence would be diminished. Dr. Baillie again
bad said, that when he considered the progress of the
resent attack, he thought it not unlikely ro last
nger than some of the preceding. The Noble Lord
then proceeded to cite and comment upon the opi-
nions of Doctors Heberden and Halford on the: same
point ; but he particularly called the attention of the
House to that of Dr. Willis. The answer of Dr.
Willis was, that he should certainly begin to have a
very unfavourable opinion of recovery, if the period
of recovery in former attacks should pass by. On
these grounds he (Lord Grenville) would rest the
Amendment which he had to propose. It was, that
, the restrictions should last for a period of sir months,
counting from the Ist of February next, about which
time it was likely that the Bill would pass ; which
would give in all, a period of-nine months from the
commencement of the malady, being considerably
more than doable of any other period within which
recovery took place. IT within that period there was
no recovery, then the hopes of amendment must be
less confident, and all restriction on the Executive
Power ought to expire. Before he sat down, he
hardty thought it necessary to guard himself against
that vaigar and despicable idea which hat been insi-