a year, were to fall into the hands of MR. | PERCEVAL, who has the snug reversion of it; and suppose that MR. PERCEVAL, by some mishap, were to go off also. Here, if the place were still left in existence, would be a good thing to give away; and why should not the Prince have the giving of it? Is he not as well qualified to choose a person for the office as the King would be, if the latter should recover But, the limitation is to go further. It is to prevent him from granting any pension, any office, any salary, except for during the King's pleasure; so that, any person thus appointed, or granted to, would be liable to be displaced or have his pension taken away, at any moment, when the King might recover; and that the thing would actually be done there can be very little doubt, if we suppose that the King would take for his advisers those, who would have been in opposition to the Prince. --Thus, then, one of two things must become clear to the people: either that this power being withheld from the Prince, must shackle and weaken his government, or that the power is never necessary to the due discharge of the Kingly office.But, indeed, there can be no doubt at all as to the real object of this intended restriction. When the operation of it is thus pointed out, there is no man so dull as not clearly to perceive the motive for imposing it. There is no man who must not see, that to make the King, in case of his recovery, the jadge of whether the grants made by the Prince should, or should not, stand good, is to make the Prince as much as possible dependent upon those who propose such restrictions, and, for one year, at least, to prevent him from making any material change in that system, which has brought us into our present situation. The FOURTH RESOLUTION takes from the Prince all power over the King's real or personal estate, except as far as may relate to the renewing of leases.Now the real estate of the King is, in fact, the property of the people at large, to whose account, in the annual statements laid before Parliament, the proceeds (such as they are) are brought. And, why should not the Prince of Wales be allowed to make grants of new leases of Crown Lands? Is it likely, that he would grant them away improperly? Is not he as fit to have authority of this sort as those were who granted the Lease to Colonel Gordon, at Chelsea? And, as to the personal Estate of the King, that being supposed to be enjoyed for the public benefit, why should he not have the same power over it that the King had? -There is no reason that can be urged, except that of suspicion of the Prince's character and views; and this, though not openly avowed, is what is conveyed in every one of the limitations, which it has been intended to be imposed upon him, but which intention will not, I trust, be put in execution. The subject of the FIFTH RESOLUTION was so fully discussed by me, from page 1313 to page 1327, that I have very little to add to what was then said. There was, in the Debate upon the subject, which took place on the first instant, nothing, worth notice, urged in defence of such a proposition. Indeed it was impossible to assign any reason for leaving 16 Lords to be removed or continued or appointed by the Queen and a Council, and leaving all the vast influence of the Household Expenditure in the same hands; it was impossible to assign any reason for this, other than that of keeping so much of the kingly power in the hands of such Council, which Council, be it well observed, is to be (if at all) appointed in the Regency Bill, that is to say, of course, by the same persons who propose and support the restrictions. And, for this purpose, the people were to be taxed tó provide a separate regal establishment for the Prince, during the time that he should be Regent !This was the grand stroke of all. This seems to have been intended for the purpose of trying to what length things could be pushed against the Prince. -Indeed, the COURIER of the 31st of December, pretty plainly said, that the most "glorious periods of our history are those "in which females have reigned, and " MANY PERSONS doubt, whether, as "a question of right, or of expedience, THE "QUEEN WITH A COUNCIL, would "not form the most constitutional and aus"picious Regency.". "picious Regency."After reading this passage, and considering the source whence it comes, the reader can entertain very little doubt as to the real object of the measure in question. This venal man was, you see, preparing the way for a defence of even a more bold attempt than that of the measure itself. He was sharpening his mercenary pen for a defence of keeping the whole of the Kingly power in the hands of the Queen and a Council; that is to say, in the hands of the present ministers! -But, here we see, fairly let out, the true grounds, upon which these venal and corrupt writers have called for restrictions. "The Prince of "Wales, it is believed, intends to change all "the King's servants and his whole system." Mind, they call it his system. They do not call it the minister's system. Whatever there is odious or ruinous in the system is to fall upon the King, for whom these corrupt writers, and publishers in all shapes, are professing such a tender regard and concern.--But, we will not have it SO. We will have it to be the system of the persons, by whom the King has, unfortunately, been advised for the last 26 years; and then we will say let it in God's name be changed; and all the people will say Amen. Why, this is the very reason that the people wish the Prince of Wales to have full powers. Does any one believe; that I, or that any man who has the good of the country at heart, can want to see a mere change of ministry, in the old way? Oh, no! we want to see no such thing. We want to see a change of the whole system; a radical and a sweeping change of it; and, it is because we hope, that such a change would be the consequence of giving full powers to the Prince, that we wish to see full powers given to him. And, is not the Prince of Wales as likely to be able to judge of political systems as his father, afflicted as the latter unhappily has been, in more ways than one, and bent down with age as he now is? Is not the Prince as likely to be able to choose proper advisers as his father was, or ever can be? What a monstrous thing to suppose that he is not? And, why, then, should power of any sort, belonging to the Kingly office, be withheld from him, while, at the same time, he is called upon to exercise that office? ever the power in the Crown, to make peers, to grant offices in reversion, to grant pensions and places for life, to grant fees or leases of crown-lands, and to appoint Lords of the Houshold; if he had made such a proposition, the point at issue would have been wholly different. But, no such thing does he propose: he proposes, that all the powers and emoluments, and all the cost to the people, shall still exist; and that a part of the power and money shall be withheld from the Prince, who is to exercise the office of King, and shall be kept in the hands of the Queen and a Council, which Council he proposes to be appointed by the same persons who are for withholding the powers and money from the Prince, and as to who would compose such Council there can, therefore, be little difficulty in guess. ing.The question, therefore, which he puts to the Friends of Freedom, is, not whether the powers of the Crown shall be diminished; but, whether they shall be divided between the Prince and those who are proposing and supporting the intended restrictions. This is the question, upon which the friends of freedom are called upon to decide; and they must be the most inconsistent of all. mortals, if they, hesitated, for one moment, in deciding in favour of the Prince, especially when they are told, that the great reason for withholding power from him, is, to prevent him from being able to effect a change of system, to prevent him from being able, though he might be willing, to do any of those things, for which they have, for so many years, been petitioning in vain. In these petitions, and in the language of the friends of freedom, Mr. PERCEVAL will find no desire expressed to diminish the prerogatives of the Crown. These prerogatives are part of the legiti mate powers of the King. They are such as the constitution of England sanctions. The friends of freedom have complained of CORRUPT INFLUENCE; they have complained of that which the constitution and the laws stigmatize and abhor; and, one of their grounds of complaint always bas been, that this Corrupt Influence is hostile to the just prerogatives of the King as well as to the freedom of his people. This has always been the language of the friends of freedom.--The friends of There was an argument of MR. PERCEVAL, in the passage above-quoted from his speech, which applied generally to all the restrictions proposed. We may "feel," said he, "some surprize that they, "who in their warm attachment to the "doctrines of liberty, assert that all power " is a trust, should be, on this occasion, so "fearful of diminishing the power of the Exe"cutive, or of lessening the checks and restric"tions upon the exercise of its authority." -This, as thus given in the published report, is a fallacy.It is not proposed "to diminish the power of the Executive:"freedom have no jealousy of the Prince; it is, by the resolutions, proposed to divide it. It is proposed, indeed, to make an addition in a new establishment for the Prince. No diminution at all is proposed. If, indeed, he had proposed to take away for they have no suspicions of him; he has never done any thing to make them sus-. pect to find in him an enemy to their just demands. There may be men who have so treated him as to have a natural. dread of seeing him invested with all the thus :-"That throughout the course of Kingly powers; but the friends of freedom" a long public life, it had been marked have never treated him in a way that can by more of forgetfulness for his own situa inspire them with any such dread. They "tion, by more of veneration and regard for can see, in none of his actions or words, "his country and for the general interests of any cause for fearing that he would use "the world, than any other man placed his powers against them; and, in the hos- "in a similar situation. He had theretility towards him shown by their enemies, "fore experienced much of pain, to they think they perceive no very weak" find that the hon. and learned gentlegrounds to hope that he would prove him- "man should have thought it necessary self their friend. This is the view that the" to rake up the ashes of that great man, friend of freedom take of the matter. These " in order to pass a fleeting censure upon are the principles by which they are ac- "his memory. It was not however the tuated; and, whatever the venal and corrupt writers, of all sorts and in all shapes, may think; however sure they may believe themselves of having the people with them; they will soon find, that the whole nation is with the Prince, and that, too, upon this very ground, namely, that his having full powers will enable him to affect a radical change of system; a complete and total change of that system, which has existed for the last 26 years, and which has brought the country into a state, which, on all hands, is acknowledged to be one from which it has only a chance of escaping without being subdued by a foreign enemy. This leads me to notice, by way of conclusion, a sort of episode, which arose and became of great importance in the debates of the 1st and 2nd instant, relative to the public character of MR. PITT.In the proposing and supporting of the Resolutions, on the former day, the precedent, as it is called, of 1788, was urged, and, in order to give weight to that precedent, the name of its author, MR. PITT, was introduced, accompanied with an eulogium upon his character as a statesman.- -SIR SAHUEL ROMILLY spoke against the Resolutions, and, in answering that part of the argument which was built upon the precedent of 1788, he also, in answer to what had been said of its author, observed, that he could see no good reason for thinking Mr. Pitt a great man. A deriding shout from the other side of the House called from him, in his mild and dignified manner, an observation, that those who differed from him in opinion would better consult the credit of the character they were so zealous in supporting, by citing any one instance, in which Mr. Pitt had proved himself a great man by being the author of measures that had produced benefit to his country.The Morning Post says, that Mr. WILBERFORCE answered it testimony of his (Mr. W.'s) sentiments, "that could rescue his character from "aspersions so unmerited, that testimony "was recorded in the minds of his coun"trymen, his public actions were before "the world, and those were best able to "judge of him who knew him best; but his "character would be done justice to by "future historians, as indeed it had been by "the historian of the day."Now, what answer was this? What was there here to oppose Sir Samuel Romilly? What was there here to show, that his opinion was not well-founded? What was all this. general talk about forgetfulness of his own situation, veneration for his country, love of mankind? What was this? Why did not this defender of Mr. Pitt's character give the instance which Sir Samuel Romilly called for? Mr. Wilberforce ought to be very familiar with all the instances to be referred to, having been his most constant supporter. Why, then, did he not give the single instance, in which he adopted a measure, which had proved beneficial to England? The reason is plain; for, it is not to be believed, that he would not have done it, if he could.Instead of such instance; instead of proof that Sir Samuel Romilly was wrong in his opinion; instead of proof that Mr. Pitt was a great man; we are, forsooth, to be content with Mr. Wilberforce's assertion, that "those were best able to judge "of Mr. Pitt who knew him best." no! Mr. Wilberforce; we shall not yield to this. Those are best able to judge of him, who are best able to ascertain and to estimate the effects of his measures. These are the persons best able to judge, whether he ought to be called a great man or not. We shall not take his character from those who dined and drank with him; Oh, no! nor from those "historians of the Oh, day," though they may be Police Magistrates, and thought, by some persons, worthy of pensions, paid out of the public money. We shall not pin our faith upon such sleeves, I assure you. We have his acts before us, and the fruit of his acts. We have the Statute-Book; we have the Paper-money; we have the million of paupers; we have the state of Ireland; we have the Conquests of France. We have all these before us, and, with these before us, we shall not ask the character of Mr. Pitt from Messrs. Boyd and Benfield, or from Mr. Thomas Steele, or from Mr. Villiers, or Mr. Hunt, or even from Lord Melville, or G. Rose, or Mr. Canning or Mr. Huskisson. All these were amongst he most intimately acquainted with Mr. Pitt; they, therefore, according to Mr. Wilberforce's notion, knew him best; but, we shall not, for that reason, trust to their judgment upon the subject, when we have all the acts of the man before us, and while we feel so grievously the consequences of these acts. Those are the best able to judge of Mr. Pitt who feel the Assessed Taxes, the Income Tax: and who, according to the statement of Mr. Huskisson get fifteen shillings in the pound for their money in the funds. These are the persons to judge of Mr. Pitt, and not those who dined and drank with him, and who got titles and places and grants and pensions and other good things, which, though not of a direct sort, are not the less gratifying to some people, or less likely to warp men's judgment. Oh, no! Mr. Wilberforce, we shall, I assure you, take his character from persons of this description; but, shall judge from facts, facts which we are all acquainted with, and that no man can now disguise from us.--In the debate of the 2nd instant this topic was revived by MR. CANNING, who having taken 24 hours to collect his materials, took occasion (amidat loud cries of question) to come out with what some people call an eloquent eulogium on Mr. Pitt, during which, as the newspapers say, he charged Sir Samuel Romilly with having calumniated the character of his dear departed friend.--Sir Samuel Romilly, whose answer is said to have been most admirable, coolly told him, that he would better have consulted the credit of his departed friend's memory, if he had pointed out one single act of his by which England or any part of mankind had been benefited. Sir FRANCIS BURDETT followed; and, though I do not see his speech reported, I am quite sure, that he did not fail to point out acts enough, of the “great "man," which had been a cruel scourge to England and to mankind.--I have not room for a quarter part of what I wish to say upon this subject; but, I will return to it in my next; though I cannot even now forbear to notice what is said to have fallen from MR. PONSONBY; namely, that he and those with whom he acted (I was in hopes that this sort of acting was over) disclaimed attacks upon Mr. Pitt's character. What! do they then mean to cling to the sys tem? I want no other test than this; and observe, that this was said too (if it was said) during a discussion in which Mr. Pitt's character as a statesman had been brought forward to give weight to a precedent which was urged in order to cramp the power of the Prince of Wales, and, which is still stronger, against which precedent the Prince had himself protested at the time! I can hardly believe, that this was said by Mr. PONSONBY; but, if it was said, and said deliberately and with the concurrence of his party, I am quite sure that the designs of that party, be they who they may, are hostile to the interests of the people of England. The people are greatly indebted to Sir Samuel Romilly for having stood forward in defence of their character upon this occasion; for, if they deserved what they received at the hands of Mr. Pitt, how is it possible to find terms sufficiently degrading to describe them. The more that man's character is discussed the better. It is vitally essential that it should be brought to its proper level. Discussion, if free, will bring out truth, and truth is all we want. What disgrace, what misery, what incalculable mischiefs would England never known if Mr. Pitt had died the day after he first became minister! But, I have ne room, and must, therefore, postpone all further observation till my next. have WM. COBBETT. State Prison, Newgate, Friday, 4th Jan. 1811. Published by R. BAGSHAW, Brydges-Street, Covent Garden :-Sold also by J. BUDD, Pall-Ma}|, LONDON-Printed by T. C. Hansard, Peterborough-Court, Fleet-Street, COBBETT'S WEEKLY POLITICAL REGISTER. VOL. XIX. No. 3.] LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9, 1811. [Price 1s. "The defect of Representation is the National Disease; and, unless you apply a Remedy directly " to that Disease, you must inevitably take the consequences, with which it is pregnant.- Without a “Parliamentary Reform the Nation will be plunged into new wars; without a Parliamentary Reform, you cannot be safe against bad Ministers, nor can ever good Ministers be of use to you. No honest man, can, according to the present system, continue Minister."--MR. PITT'S SPEECH, in the House of Commons, 1782. 16 33] SUMMARY OF POLITICS. THE REGENCY.Before I proceed to notice the state, into which the project of Limitations has been brought by the debates, which have, since the 1st of January, taken place in the House of Lords, I shall return to the subject of MR. PITT'S PUBLIC CHARACTER, upon which I had not room fully to offer my remarks at the close of the last Number. This subject, though it arose incidentally, in the debate in the House of Commons, on the 1st inst. is one of the greatest importance to the country; of more importance than the nature of the Regency itself, because in this question of the PUBLIC CHARACTER OF MR. PITT is involved the question, whether his system is still to be persevered in, or not, by those who are now looking to office and power. This is, in a word, the TEST. It cannot be blinked. It must be met; fully canvassed, and clearly settled; and, accordingly as it is decided; accordingly as men are for this character, or against, will be, and must be the opinions, the hopes or the suspicions of the people, with regard to those men.—Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY has been accused of raking up the ashes of the dead. How is this charge made out? It was not he who raked them up. It was they who first brought forward Mr. Pitt's name; and, who not only brought forward his name, but who urged it as an argument in support of the proposition, which Sir Samuel Romilly had to oppose. Their reasoning was this: "We build our propositions for "limiting the powers of the Regent upon "the precedent of 1788; and that that "was a just and wise measure, that that " measure was congenial with the princi"ples of the constitution, that that mea"sure was calculated for the benefit of the "country, we have a right to assume, be"cause it was the invention of that GREAT STATESMAN, Mr. Pitt."--And, when Sir Samuel Romilly came to answer the arguments in favour of the projected limi " [34 tations, was he not to notice this argument? And, if he did notice it, was he not at full liberty to deny the assumption grounded upon the assertion that Mr. Pitt was a GREAT STATESMAN? And, in denying this assumption, was it not right for him, if he thought it, to deny that Mr. Pitt was a GREAT STATESMAN? And was he, for doing this, under such circumstances, to be charged with illiberality, and with raking up the ashes of the dead?. The affirmative of the proposition is too monstrous to be endured, for a moment, by any man of sense.- -The friends of the Pitt system were, it seems, to be at free liberty to say what they pleased in praise of their hero; they were, if they had chosen it, to eulogize his finance schemes, his taxations, his suspensions of the Habeas Corpus act, his India system, his schemes and transactions with the Bank, and even his subsidies and his expeditions; they were to make use of his name in the way of praise as long as they pleased; but, if any, one spoke of the mischievousness of his mea→ sures, the person so speaking was to be accused of raking up his ashes.If, how ever, they are alarmed at this sort of raking up, they have, I imagine, a great deal. of unexpected mortification to experience. -So far was it from being illiberal or indecorous in Sir Samuel Romilly to deny that Mr. Pitt was a great Statesman, as he did, in the way of answer to an argument built upon the affirmative of the proposition, that he would have been fully justified in stating his opinion of Mr. Pitt in the way of proof of the folly or injustice of the project he was opposing, if he looked upon Mr. Pitt as a minister whose acts showed him to be a man whose example. was to be shupned.If, for instance, a measure were now proposed that had formerly been proposed by LAUD or Nox or JEFFERIES or any other of the tyrannical villains who disgraced the reigns of the Charleses and the Jameses, and whose principles finally brought their masters to D |