would not, however, be ready or willing to cast a censure upon parliament, for reprobating unconstitutional principles, held and started by those, who now lamented their having ever asserted them, and who were afraid and ashamed to avow, and even seemed willing to retract them; principles which, never again, he trusted, would for a moment be borne in that House, or in the country.

Mr. Burke next rose. He said, he would look the minister full in the face, and tell him that he, for one, avowed all the principles that he had ever enter tained on this subject, as did a right hon. friend of his, who was now absent, but to whom allusion had been frequently made on this subject. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer was extremely judicious, he observed, in the time of his attack; he levelled his charges against his right hon. friend (Mr. Fox) when he was absent, just as he attacked the prerogative of the Crown, when it could not defend itself. The minister, he said, had declared, that he had proposed the preliminary resolutions, solely because a claim had been set up in favour of the Prince of Wales, who was said to have a right to the Regency. Now, if that was his object, he had worded his resolution on that head so ambiguously, that a man might at the same time vote for it, and maintain the right of the Prince of Wales to the Regency: for what did that resolution declare? Why, that it was the right and duty of the two Houses of Parliament to provide for the exercise of the royal authority. Now, in a resolution so worded, there was nothing incompatible with the right of the Prince of Wales; for it was unquestionably the province of the two Houses to decide upon that right, and adjudge it to him. The definition of a right of action was, in all countries, not a right to take possession of the thing claimed, but "jus prosequendi in judicio," or a right to carry a cause before a tribunal competent to decide upon it: the two Houses, in case of the Prince's right to the Regency, were that tribunal; and without their adjudication, his Royal Highness could no more assume the exercise of his right, than a plaintiff in a court of law could put himself into possession of the lands or goods withheld by the defendant. This he said, was no shifting of ground, but a strict adherence to a principle, which he would illustrate by two cases, and, for argument sake, take the liberty of supposing.

Should the King of this country, or should the Prince of Wales, be reconciled to the church of Rome, which would induce the forfeiture of his right to the Crown, and vest it immediately in the next heir, to whom it would have descended in case of the natural demise of the person so forfeiting, the right accruing to the next heir must be admitted to be positive, indisputable, clear, and distinct; and yet would any one say that the duke of York, in whom the right of the Crown would vest instantly upon the forfeiture, could take upon him the government of the country, before the two Houses of Parliament should have decided upon the fact, whether forfeiture had really been incurred, by which the right could be vested in the duke? Certainly not. Here then, would be a real, declared, and positive right in the duke, which nevertheless he could not, however, exercise but in consequence of an adjudication in parliament. In such a case, might not a man say it was the right and the duty of the two Houses to provide for the safety of the government, and at the same time assert that the duke of York had a right to the Crown? Another case, which he supposed was a resignation of the Crown made by the King. In that case the Crown would descend just as if the King was actually dead: but still the Prince of Wales could not take upon him the government of the country, until the two Houses should have accepted the resig. nation, and determined that it was voluntary. Here two rights, very distinct in their natures, would be found, the right of the Prince to the Crown, and the right of parliament to adjudge it to him; and it would be absurd, indeed, to infer that, because the latter had the right of adjudication, it had also the right of adjudging it when it pleased.

But what was the doctrine of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this head? It was not only that the Prince's claim to the Regency was not well founded, but that, in point of fact, he had no more right to it than any other individual in the kingdom. A monstrous, false, perfidious, and abominable doctrine, which if once admitted to be founded in the constitution, would open a door to ambition, that would overturn the government. At the time of the Revolution, the doctrine laid down by the wisdom of our ancestors was, that the hereditary succession to the Crown was absolutely necessary for the peace of the

government, and the security of the constitution. But should those who might wish to defeat that succession, lay down this principle, that every man in the nation had as much right to the Regency as the Prince of Wales, and acting upon it, should appoint some person, not interested in the defence of the Crown, to the office of Regent during the King's incapacity, who would venture to say, that the hereditary succession to the Crown, pronounced by our ancestors to be so necessary to the security of the constiution and the happiness of the people, might not be endangered? and should the incapacity of the King last twenty or thirty years, which was very possible, who would be bold enough to assert, that the whole power of the fleet and army, of the revenue and patronage of the Crown, being in the hands of one not interested in the preservation of the hereditary succession might not in the end be completely defeated?

The people who had voted thanks to those who had supported the minister, touched upon points which they did not understand; this was the most charitable opinion he could entertain of them; for if they did understand them, they adopted language which was pregnant with mischief. They had said that the minister, by asserting the rights of the House of Commons, had maintained the rights of the empire. What did they mean by the word"empire"? Did they mean to say that Ireland, a part of the empire, was to be bound by the resolutions of the English House of Commons; and that the Irish legislature, after having asserted its independence, was bound to recieve a regent from the British parliament? The spirit of a legislature, which as independent of that of Great Britain as were the Cortes of Spain, or the States General of France, would revolt at the idea; and thus the connexion between the two countries would be endangered by a measure, the obvious tendency of which would be to sever them for ever. But perhaps it was meant that every part of the empire might choose a regent for itself: this doctrine might be carried very far indeed; for perhaps Nova Scotia, Nevis, or any part of the British empire, having a legislature of its own, might lay claim to and assert what some of the meetings in England have declared to be the rights of the empire. It might not be the intention of those who voted thanks to the majority,

to invade the independence of the legislature of Ireland, but they should take care, lest they gave countenance to a principle likely to produce as dangerous effects, as if they were to attempt to destroy the independence of Ireland, by voting a regent in this country, whom she must take because he was elected here.-If the principle maintained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, that any man had as good a right to the Regency as the Prince of Wales should be adopted by the Irish parliament, then might the Lord Mayor of Dublin instead of the Prince, be chosen Regent: or perhaps many regents might be elected, and the royal prerogatives parcelled out among them to one might be given the army, to another the church, to a third the civil list, and thus Ireland might be divided from herself;-but what would most infallibly happen, would be, that she would be separated from England. For what was it that kept two countries together, which were governed by two distinct and independent legislatures? It was unquestionably the unity of the Crown: that was the bond which kept them together; and if that was once broken by letting loose dangerous and speculative ideas of government, Ireland would be lost for ever to this country. With what eye, then, ought the nation to look upon those, who by their abominable doctrines, exposed the empire to such a calamity. He trusted that the good sense of Ireland would make her reject these new-fangled doctrines, and vote the Regency to the Prince to whom it of right belonged, and from whom it could not be withheld without danger to the happiness and connexion of the two kingdoms.

Mr. Burke observed, that the plan now proposed was to adopt what deserved a worse name than a phantom-they were going to create Milton's monster of sin and death, death to the constitution, and sin to the feelings of the country. They were going to steal the Great Seal, to commit a forgery and fraud, and to support violence. If the House wished to preserve unity in the empire, they ought to appoint a person to represent the King who was interested in the empire; they ought to trust, upon his word, the Prince of Wales whom hereafter they must trust without; and thus, they would save their country, and none would suffer but ambitious men. Mr. Burke urged the argument of delay, and said that the Convention Parliament, in the year 1688 sat on

pacity, had not indeed, been made a matter of regular claim, avowed on the part of his Royal Highness, but it had been urged by a member of that House, who from his extraordinary abilities and weight in the country, certainly drew great attention on every thing which fell from him, and enabled whatever he said, especially respecting his Royal Highness, in whose confidence he was supposed to stand high, to make a considerable degree of impression. Mr Rolle added that it gave him great pleasure to hear that his Royal Highness had declared his willingness to accept the Regency on the terms proposed. There had occurred one circumstance, however, since the signification of his Royal Highness's answer had been given, which he was sorry for, and which, he feared, would cause uneasiness in the country; and that was, a certain secession which had taken place. He meant the circumstance of the Prince of Wales and the other Royal Dukes having desired that their names might be omitted in the present commission.

the 26th of December, and on the 12th of | January had completed all their objects, finishing the whole in sixteen days. He contended that the House had no right to authorize the Lord Chancellor to put the Great Seal to forgery, fraud, and violence, and that giving them the form of the royal authority, instead of the substance, was to give them the sweepings of the cobwebs in Westminster-hall, and the smoke of the dish. The danger which had been talked of, if they were to address the Prince of Wales to take the Regency upon him, reminded him of the giant who used to swallow a dozen windmills for a breakfast every morning, and was afterwards choaked by a small bit of butter in the month of July. In the present instance, the commission was said to be, in form, an act of the Crown, and in substance an act of the two Houses. There never was a precedent in this country, where the two Houses took upon themselves to exercise the legislative authority of the Crown. Necessity, he observed, had been generally termed the tyrant's plea; but, strange to tell, it was now considered as the guardian of our liberties. Mr. Burke insisted that the Committee ought, in the present instance, to act liberally and fairly, and to trust the Prince upon his word, solemnly given in his answer to the addresses of both Houses, since hereafter they must trust him without professions. A confidence of this nature would give them union, would give them liberty, would give them peace.

Mr. Rolle rose to rescue the meetings in the west of England from the censure indirectly cast upon them, by the noble. lord in the blue ribband. The meeting in the county of Devon had resolved to return thanks to his right hon. friend for having asserted the right of the two Houses to provide for the exercise of the royal authority, during the incapacity of his Majesty, and brought that question to a decision, in contradiction to the right asserted by a right hon. gentleman, not then present, to exist in the Prince of Wales to assume the exercise of that authority, whilst his Majesty's illness continued. The question of the right of the two Houses to provide for the defect in the exercise of the royal authority, had not been, as it was affirmed, unnecessarily brought forward, or upon light grounds. The assertion of the right of the Prince of Wales to assume the exercise of the royal authority during his farther's inca[VOL. XXVII.]

Sir James Johnstone said, that if he found any thing objectionable in the wording of the commission, it was, that it was not strong enough. It stated, that the Lord Chancellor be directed to put the Great Seal to the commission resolved upon. He thought that the Lord Chancellor ought to be commanded to put the Great Seal to such a commission. The occasion justified the exertion of authority, and the Lord Chancellor dared not refuse the command of the two Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Sheridan rose merely in consequence of what had fallen from Mr. Rolle. He denied that Mr. Fox had ever asserted the Prince of Wales's right to assume the exercise of the royal authority, without the consent of the two Houses of Parliament. The question of right was, therefore, unnecessarily agitated because the doctrine of the Houses having a right to provide for the defect in the exercise of the royal authority-had never been denied. With regard to his right hon. friend standing high in the confidence of the Prince of Wales, the fact undoubtedly was, that his right hon. friend stood higher in the opinion of his Royal Highness than any other person; and the reason was, that his Royal Highness reposed the greatest confidence where he found the greatest merit. Of the secession to which the hon. gentleman had alluded, [4 E]