consideration; and thence, argued, that it was the more necessary to learn how the House had acted in cases of similar exigency, and what had been the opinion of Parliament on such occasions. He would not allow that no precedent analogous to an interruption of the personal exercise of the royal authority, could be found, although there might possibly not exist a precedent of an heir apparent in a state of majority, during such an occurrence, and in that case, he contended, that it devolved on the remaining branches of the legislature, on the part of the people of England, to exercise their discretion in providing a substitute. From the mode in which the right hon. gentleman had treated the subject, a new question presented itself, and that of greater magnitude even than the question which was originally before them, as matter of necessary deliberation. The question now was, the question of their own rights, and it was become a doubt, according to the right hon. gentleman's opinion, whether that House had, on this important occasion, a deliberative power. He wished, for the present, to wave the discussion of that momentous consideration; but, he declared that he would, at a fit opportunity, state his reasons for advising what step Parliament ought to take in the present critical situation of the country, contenting himself with giving his contradiction of the right hon. gentleman's bold assertion, and pledging himself to maintain the opposite ground against a doctrine so irreconcileable to the spirit and genius of the constitution. If the Report of the Committee had not proved the necessity of the constitutional precedent, or to reconcile to the spirit and genius of the constitution itself. The doctrine advanced by the right hon. gentleman was itself, if any additional reason were necessary, the strongest and most unanswerable for appointing the Committee he had moved for, that could possibly be given. If a claim of right was intimated (even though not formally) on the part of the Prince of Wales, to assume the government, it became of the utmost consequence to ascertain, from precedent and history, whether this claim was founded; which, if it was, precluded the House from the possibility of all deliberation on the subject. In the mean time, be maintained, that it would appear, from every precedent and from every page of our history, that to assert such a right in the Prince of Wales, or any one else, independent of the decision of the two Houses of Parliament, was little less than treason to the constitution of the country. He did not mean then to enter into the discussion of that great and important point; because a fit occasion for discussing it would soon afford both the right hon. gentleman and himself an ample opportunity of stating their sentiments upon it. In the mean time, he pledged himself to this assertion, that in the case of the interruption of the personal exercise of the royal authority, without any previous lawful provision having been made for carrying on the government, it be longed to the other branches of the legislature, on the part of the nation at large, the body they represented, to provide, according to their discretion, for the temporary exercise of the royal authority, in the name, and on the behalf of the sove-motion he had made, the right hon. genreign, in such manner as they should think requisite; and that, unless by their decision, the Prince of Wales had no more right (speaking of strict right) to assume the government, than any other individual subject of the country. What Parliament ought to determine on that subject, was a question of discretion. However strong the arguments might be on that ground, in favour of the Prince of Wales, which he would not enter into at present, it did not affect the question of right; because, neither the whole, nor any part, of the royal authority could belong to him in the present circumstances, unless conferred by the Houses of Parliament.-As to the right hon. gentleman's repeated enforcement of the Prince of Wales's claim, he admitted that it was a claim entitled to most serious tleman had furnished the House with so strong an argument for inquiry, that if any doubt had existed, that doubt must vanish. Let it not, then, be imputed to him, that he offered the motion, with a view to create delay; indeed, the right hon. gentleman had not made any such imputation. In fact, no imputation of that sort could be supported; since no longer time had been spent, after the first day of their meeting, than was absolutely necessary to ensure as full an attendance as the solemnity of the occasion required; since that time, every day had been spent in ascertaining the state of his Majesty's health, and now the necessity of the case was proved, it behoved them to meet it on the surest grounds. Let them proceed, therefore, to ascertain their own rights; let every man in that House, and every | man in the nation, who might hear any report of what had passed in the House that day, consider, that on their future proceedings depended their own interests, and the interest and honour of a sovereign, deservedly the idol of his people. Let the House not, therefore, rashly annihilate the authority of Parliament, in which the existence of the constitution was so intimately involved. Mr. Fox begged the House would permit him to rise again to explain. The right hon. gentleman had, though he beJieved unintentionally, misrepresented what he had said; at least, an expression which the right hon. gentleman had used, might, if not explained, have the effect of a misrepresentation, on account of its equivocal meaning. The right hon. gentleman had charged him with something like treason to the constitution, for having asserted that the Prince of Wales had a right, from law, to the government, which the two Houses could not take away from him: the right hon. gentleman, however, in stating the position, instead of the words "the two Houses," substituted the equivocal word" Parliament:" it was this word which required explanation. If by parliament the right hon. gentleman meant the three branches of the legislature, consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, he would agree with him that such a position would be treasonable; for no doubt the parliament, in that sense, could alter or limit the succession, or place such restrictions as it pleased upon the exercise of the sovereign power. But if by parliament he meant the two Houses without the king, then he would be bold to say, such a parliament, if such could be entitled to that name, could not legally deprive the Prince of Wales of the regency during the incapacity of his father, and during that period only, or place any restrictions upon him in the exercise of the sovereign power in the name of his father, So far would it be from being treason in him to assert, "that the two Houses could alter the succession, or restrain the exercise of the sovereign power," that if he should be daring enough to support such a proposition, the King's attorney-general would prosecute him for uttering such a doctrine, and would show that he was open to the penalties of a præmunire for maintaining it. Every one knew, he said, that he was no advocate for the antiquated and exploded doctrine of indefeasible hereditary right; but it had been declared that the crown of England was not elective. Now, if for the purpose of guarding against the discussion and anarchy of an elective government, the crown was by law declared to be hereditary, why should it not be inferred from analogy, that the exercise of the sovereign power was also hereditary. Such an inference was necessary to give life and spirit to the letter of the law, declaring the hereditary descent of the crown; and consequently the claim of the Prince of Wales to the right of assuming the government, during his father's illness, ought to be admitted. Indeed, he was astonished to find any one bold enough to dispute it. Some time ago, the Speaker had, from the chair, expressed his doubts, whether in the present state of affairs, the House had legally the power of ordering writs, even for the purpose of rendering its own representation complete; and yet the right hon. gentleman would contend, that it had a right to exercise the highest power, that of vesting, though for a time, sovereign authority in the person of a regent. In truth, it was matter of serious doubt whether, under the present circumstances, the House to which he was then speaking, was really a House of Parliament. Those meetings from which the country had derived the blessings of a free constitution, as settled at the Revolution, knew too well what they were, to call themselves a parliament; they called themselves by their true name, a convention, for they were no more, until a third estate was created. And perhaps the two Houses at present might be more truly styled a convention than a parliament, until the third estate was restored, by the recognition of the heir apparent's right, the declaration of the two Houses, or even an appointment of a regency under their authority. He had said before, that the Prince's right to the Regency was indisputable: he would now go farther, and assert that it so belonged of right, during what he would call the civil death of the king, that it could not be more completely or legally his, by the ordinary and natural demise of the crown. The prince, therefore, who maintained that right, and yet forebore to assume it, was entitled to the thanks of his country. He was actuated by a respectful regard to the principles that had placed his illustrious family upon the throne: he waited to be informed of the sense of the people, before he would assume what no man had a right to take from him, what the law and the constitution had given him a right to take, without waiting for a declaration of either House of Parliament. It was not decent, therefore, to trifle with a prince, whose conduct was marked with such meritorious forbearance, by instituting an inquiry into precedents, that had nothing to do with the case. It was the duty of the two Houses to restore the royal authority, and that immediately; and he denied the right hon. gentleman, acute as he was, to contradict that assertion; but if the two Houses of Parliament took advantage of the present calamitous state of the country, to arrogate to themselves a power to which they had no right, they acted contrary to the spirit of the constitution, and would be guilty of treason. Mr. Pitt wished it to be known what the point was, upon which the right hon. gentleman and he were at issue. He asserted, that to make a provision for the executive power of the government, during an interruption of the personal exercise of the royal authority, by sickness, infirmity, or otherwise, did rest with the remaining existing branches of the legislature. It was a matter entirely in their discretion; what that discretion was, he should not then discuss, but should only say, if the right hon. gentleman's doctrine was what he understood it to be, namely, that the two Houses had no such discretion, but that his Royal Highness had a claim to the exercise of the sovereign power, which superseded the right of either House to deliberate on the subject, there was an essential difference between their respective arguments, and that difference constituted the point upon which they were at issue. - Mr. Burke said, that he could not but reflect with astonishment on the style and manner in which the right hon. gentleman had debated the question; and contended, that if ever there was a question which peculiarly called for temper and moderation, it was that to which the present argument referred. The question did not point merely to an affliction of bodily infirmity, to an illness affecting the meanest and most perishable part of the human frame, but to the most humiliating of all human calamities which had fallen upon the highest situation. In that moment, when it peculiarly behoved every one of them to keep himself cool, and preserve the little share of reason with which Heaven had blessed him, the right hon. gen tleman had burst into a flame; he had fallen out into a fury, and with a degree of unpardonable violence, had accused others of treason, because they ventured to mention the rights of any part of the royal family. The right hon. gentleman, in such a case, must not only have been aware of what people expected at their hands, but of what he owed to the importance and delicacy of the subject, and to his own high situation and character. The right hon. gentleman had expressed his hopes for a regency in a subject, at the very time that he was bringing forward a charge of treason. When he could not convince any one by his arguments, he had endeavoured to intimidate all who had dared to mention only the rights of the royal family, and had threatened them with the lash of the law. Where was the freedom of debate, where was the privilege of parliament, if the rights of the Prince of Wales could not be spoken of in that House, without their being liable to be charged with treason by one of the Prince's competitors? [Here there was a loud cry of order from the treasury side of the House.] Mr. Burke said, he would repeat and justify his words. The right hon. gentleman had expressly declared, that the Prince of Wales had no more right to claim the exercise of the sovereign power, than any other individual subject; he was warranted, therefore, in stating the right hon. gentleman as having described himself as one of the Prince's competitors. For his part, he was too humble in situation to make such a renunciation of right to the crown himself, but he would venture to say, that none belonging to the proudest and most exalted families, those who enjoyed the highest dignities, and were loaded with the most splendid titles and honours, would dare to hope for a chance of the regency, or to state themselves as having an equal right to claim it with the Prince of Wales. He must own he trembled when he considered that he stood before that prince, who held the lash of vindictive law over the heads of those who dared to question the subject. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the discretion of that and of the other House of Parliament: let him remember that the first step of discretion was coolness of temper, and let him show his own discretion before he recommended discretion to others. Before he gave his elective vote, for he might possibly be made an elector against his will, the prince op posite to him, Mr. Burke said, ought not to measure people of low and timid dispositions by his own aspiring greatness of soul. He had read in some old law book, that nothing was so dreadful as when a subject was convicted of treason, without knowing what he had done that was treasonable. Let the right hon. gentleman recollect the 25th of Edward 3, and not be so eager to hurl his constructive treasons on the heads of those who differed from him respecting the Regency. He had ever understood, that our constitution was framed with so much circumspection and forethought, that it wisely provided for every possible exigency, and that the exercise of the sovereign executive power could never be vacant. He put the case, that if he supposed that there might be a right in the Prince of Wales (in whose patent of creation as Prince of Wales, he was declared and considered to be one and the same with the King) to succeed his father in the exercise of the royal prerogative, and should proceed upon that supposition to urge a suit in the Court of Chancery, or any other court, should be be liable to be convicted of high crime and misdemeanor for such an assertion? In that case, he conceived the charge of treason would not be made upon a sudden; but, if urged at all, it would be urged without any attempt at intimidation, any look of fury, or any voice of harshness. And yet, perhaps, the charge was thrown out merely to advise in the first place, that the Prince of Wales had no more right than any other person; and all his hitherto conceived notions of the meaning of a loud and most vehement tone of voice was possibly wrong; since it might mean nothing more than to make the expression which it accompanied clearly understood! Be that as it might, if he were to give an elective vote, it should be in favour of that Prince, whose amiable disposition was one of his many recommendations, and not in favour of a prince, who charged the assertors of the right and claim of the Prince of Wales with constructive treason. Mr. Pitt replied, that if the right hon. gentleman who had condescended to be the advocate and the specimen of moderation, had found any warmth in his manner of speaking before, which led him to think that he had not considered what he said, he was ready to repeat it with all possible coolness, and knew not one word that he would retract. Upon this ground, there fore, was he still ready to maintain, that it was little less than treason to the constitution to assert, that the Prince of Wales had a claim to the exercise of the sovereign power, during the interruption of the personal authority of his Majesty by infirmity and in his life-time; and to this asseveration should he adhere, because he considered such a claim as superseding the deliberative power and discre tion of the two existing branches of the legislature. And, when he had said the Prince of Wales had no more right to urge such a claim than any other individual subject, he appealed to the House upon the decency with which the right hon. gentle man had charged him with placing himself as the competitor of his Royal Highness. At that period of our history, when the constitution was settled on that foundation on which it now existed, when Mr. Somers and other great men declared, that no person had a right to the crown independent of the consent of the two Houses, would it have been thought either fair or decent for any member of either House to have pronounced Mr. Somers a personal competitor of William 3? The question was then put and agreed to, and the following members were named as a Committee; viz. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Welbore Ellis, the Master of the Rolls, Mr. F. Montagu, Attorneygeneral, Mr. Vyner, Mr. Dundas, Mr. Powys, Solicitor-general, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Hussey, Lord Advocate of Scotland, marquis of Graham, lord Belgrave, sir Grey Cooper, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Wyndham, Mr. Yorke, Earl Gower, Mr. W. W. Grenville, and Mr. Burke. Dec. 12. Mr. Welbore Ellis appeared at the bar, with the report of the Committee appointed "to examine, search for, and report precedents of such proceedings, as may have been had in case of the personal exercise of the royal authority being prevented, or interrupted, by infancy, sickness, infirmity, or otherwise, with a view to provide for the same." He was ordered to bring up the Report, the title of which being read, Mr. Pitt moved, "That the said Report do lie on the table." This having been agreed to, it was ordered to be printed. [For a copy of the Report, see Commons Journals, vol. 44.*] References to the EXTRACTS from the ROLLS OF PARLIAMENT, and other Papers, read at the Committee appointed to ex→→ House will, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the state of the nation." Mr. Fox remarked, that, two particular purposes were his motives for rising on the present occasion; and these he felt it incumbent upon him to lose no time in laying before the House, the more especially as they had reference to what had passed upon the subject that did then engage, and had for some days past engaged their most serious attention. The first Mr. Pitt said, that most probably it would be necessary to allow a convenient time for the House to consider the contents of the Report, and examine and weigh their application and force, before they came to any proceeding upon it; that as it was his earnest wish to use every possible dispatch consistent with the due solemnity of the case, he should move that the House would, on an early day, in the course of the ensuing week, resolve itself into a Committee," to take into consideration the state of the nation," to which Committee he should refer the Re-purpose was what he never rose for beport that had been just presented, and also the examinations of his Majesty's physicians. Tuesday, he hoped, would be a day agreeable to the House for the Committee whom he had named to sit, and with a view the better to enable gentlemen to make themselves masters of the contents of the Report, he took that opportunity of informing the House, that all the precedents contained in the Report were either taken from the rolls of parliament, the statute books of the realm, or their own journals. A schedule of the whole, with references, was annexed to the Report, which, he hoped, might be ready for separate delivery so early as the next morning, and such gentlemen as had the books in their possession, might thereby be enabled to refer to them immediately, and proceed to an inquiry into the doctrines contained in that Report, without waiting for the delivery of the printed copy. Mr. Pitt now moved, "That this 4, 5, 6 Edw. 3, vol. 2, p. 52, two first paragraphs; 1R. 2, vol. 3, p. 5, s. 15 to 27, both inclusive; 1 H. 6, vol. 4, p. 169, s. 1, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, & 24 to 33, both inclusive; 2 H. 6, vol. 4, p. 201, s. 15; 3 H. 6, vol. 5, p. 406, s. 5; 5 H. 6, vol. 5, p. 407, 8. 6, p. 409, s. 7; 6 H. 6, vol. 4, p. 326, s. 24, 25; 8 H. 6, vol. 4, p. 336, s. 13; 10 H. 6, vol. 5, p. 433, s. 16; 13 H. 6, vol. 5, p. 438, & 30 to 40, both inclusive; 33 H. 6, vol. 5, s. 22; 32 H. 6, vol. 5, p. 238, s. 22, 23, 24, p. 284, s. 20 to 39, both inclusive; 34 H. 6, vol. 5, p. 453, s. 41, 42, 43; 34 H. 6, vol. 5, p. 289, s. 40, 41; 34 H. 6, vol. 5, p. 321, S. 50; 25 H. 8, c. 22, s. 11; 1 & 2 Philip & Mary, c. 10; 24 G. 2, c. 24; 5 G. 3, c. 27. fore, since he had been a member of that House. No member was more indifferent to newspaper paragraphs, reports, and representations, than he was; he scarcely ever looked into any of their accounts of what he said in that House, without finding some part of his speech misrepresented; but he had thought it beneath him to take any notice of it himself, trusting, that if he had expressed himself clearly, the candour of that House, and the recollection of those who heard him, would do him justice. What he rose then to complain of was, a very different matter. There had, he said, been representations, or rather misrepresentations, not in newspapers, not in pamphlets, not in coffeehouses, but there had been misrepresentations of what he had said in that House on Wednesday last, publicly made, before a certain august assembly, by a grave person, in high authority, and of dignified rank. He desired the world to judge him and his opinions, from the sense of those opinions, and his meaning as explained at the time. There were different sorts of misrepresentations; there might be some wilful and intentional misrepresentations, others arising rather from levity, caprice, and wantonness, than mischievous design and, again, another description of misrepresentations arising from the misconception of honest minds, made by persons who were themselves mistaken and acted upon that mistake. Under which of these descriptions of misrepresentation he had fallen, he would not take upon him to determine; possibly he might have not expressed his meaning clearly, though he thought he had spoken in a manner so him; he was sure it arose, not from any explicit, that no man could misunderstand contempt of his auditors, that he had not rendered himself more intelligible, but merely from the want of power and capacity to convey to their minds, what so |