"nion expressed by him on a similar for"mer occasion, meaning the Regency of "1789. This was sufficiently understood; his answer to Mr. Perceval, published in "substance by all the Newspapers, had "avowed it; and I lament that the Prince "should have shewn so much tenacity, so eager a desire to re-assert his opinions, they being hostile to those of the authorities "he was addressing, and such a re-as"sertion being wholly unnecessary. "Neither do I approve of the passage "wherein he says he will use all the "" means left to him" to merit the appro"bation of Parliament and the People by "his government, a passage containing a "notion that his power is greatly curtailed, "which I deny. He is to have the full powers of the executive authority, the "means of political influence being, in a "small degree only, withheld from him "for a short time. In his answer to the "Deputation from Parliament, His Royal "Highness was under no necessity to say "more, in substance, than that he would "accept the trust, "notwithstanding any ""opinions respecting the conditions." "This passage would have been a suffici"ent reservation. The detailed and strong "manner in which his Royal Highness's sentiments, or rather those of his ad"visers, is expressed, in opposition to the "solemn decisions of the two Houses of "Parliament, gives ground for much un"easiness, if not of positive alarm. His was "not a gracious answer.". What! uneasiness and alurm? Amongst whom? Amongst what description of persons does this give ground for uneasiness and alarm? Not amongst those, who really love the country; not amongst those who wish to support the Crown because they looked upon it as held in trust for the nation; not amongst those who have no hand in contracts and jobs, and who never desire to share in fleecing the people; not amongst those who have had no hand in peculations and seat-sellings and the other abominable corruptions that have, from time to time, been brought to light. No: to such persons the passage of the answer here complained of, gives grounds for no" uneasiness," no "alarm."-To say the truth, I, after the best consideration I was able to give this answer of His Royal Highness, thought it deficient in strength of expression as to the measure tendered to him. I thought, that it fell rather short of what might reasonably be expected from him by those, in parliament, who had opposed the measure by such powerful arguments, and also by those out of parliament, who have, in a public and constitutional manner, expressed their disapprobation of that measure. At the time when His Royal Highness gave this answer, there were lying upon the tables of the two Houses of Parliament, Petitions from the City of London, earnestly praying, that no limitations might be imposed upon His Royal Highness; expressing confidence in him, and beseeching the Houses that nothing might be done to mutilate the kingly power in his hands. After this, I, for my part, should have expected something stronger from him in disapprobation of the measure; but, if he had been silent upon the subject, what would the opponents of the measure, in Parliament as well as out, have said? Would they not have had just ground of complaint? Would they not have said, that he had been wanting in justice to them as well as to himself? And, what man would have relied upon him in future?—It was absolutely necessary, that he should mark the measure of limitations with his disapprobation, sooner or later; and, was it not best to do it at once; was it not best to do it the first moment the measure was regularly brought before him? Would not delay have produced, in part, at least, the effect above described; and, let me ask these MEAN and MALIGNANT men, whether, if he had been silent on this topic upon this occasion, they would not have cited that silence, and flung it in the faces of the minority in parliament and of the city of London, as a proof that the Prince either disapproved of their conduct or held them and their efforts in contempt ? This is what his and the people's enemies wished for above all things, and in this they were disappointed. We are next told, by the MEAN quirker, who is the author of this article, that this part of the Prince's answer means, that he ought to have had "unlimited authority "on the faith of his personal abilities "and virtues, rather than of law and "restraint, the unerring marks, the "indispensable props, of a free state." How often must one expose these worse than pettifogging quirks! No: the Prince asks, and we ask for him, no unlimited authority; he asks for no power without law and restraint. But, he wishes, and very naturally wishes, and the people wish it too, that he should have no other restraints than those imposed by the cone stitution, that is to say, by the laws already in eristence. He has asked for no authority upon the faith of his personal abilities and virtues; none at all; but he thinks, and the nation think with him, that he ought to possess all the authority that his Royal Father possessed, and no reason has ever been assigned why he should not, while an abundance of reasons have been produced on the other side.--To hear these MEAN and MALIGNANT men one would imagine, that they had a scheme on foot for diminishing the kingly powers. Not at all. What they urge is, not any diminution of the powers, but a division of them, by giving a part to the Prince, a part to the Queen, and keeping back a part to be exercised by the King, or his advisers, in case he should again be declared to be recovered, though for ever so short a time. The power of making peers, and of granting pensions and offices for life is, for instance, kept from the Prince. So that, if the Prince should find any persons meriting these honours and rewards, ke cannot bestow them; but, the King, if he should be declared well, and should remain so only for one day, may make as many peers as he pleases, and may grant away any of the life-offices that may have fallen vacant, during the time that the Prince has been filling the kingly office. And thus the powers and prerogatives of the Crown, which are vested there in trust for the good of the people, are to be separated from the office, and to be exercised by the King, if he recover, after the time is over. He, who is, unhappily declared incapable of exercising the functions of King, is, if he should be declared recovered only for one day, to have, not only all the kingly powers again in his hands, but is to have the additional power of making peers and granting places and pensions in retrospect. And, it is those who support such a measure, who have the impudence to censure the Prince of Wales for expressing his disapprobation of withholding the powers from him for the time being!This writer, whom I could almost name, and whose MALIGNANT soul and quirking brain are so strongly depicted in every line of this article, next, in order to excite as much jealousy as possible against the Prince, tells the public, that the King "uniformly bowed to the wishes of par"liament, that he never reproved their “conduct, and that this was the SECRET " of the strength of his government." Secret? What secret? Will you, dare you tells us; dare you fully to explain this secret? I know of no secrets of this sort that ought to exist; but, I am sure, that the people will easily understand what it means." Bowed to the wishes "of parliament," indeed! I wonder how any thing in human shape can muster up, the impudence to make use of such a phrase. Surely the day will come, when no one will dream of thus insulting the understandings of the people. Mr. PITT uniformly bowed to the wishes of parlia"ment," did he not? He bowed to those wishes, did he not, when he entered upon his mad wars; when he contrived that series of measures that produced the Bank Stoppage, and that have finally led to the conquest of all Europe by France and to the present state of Ireland. He bowed to the wishes of parliament: that is to say, he always had a majority there. Is this what is meant by bowing to the wishes of parliament? He bowed, did he, to the wishes of the Lords and the Secretaries of the several Boards, to the Lords of the Bedchamber, to all the Placemen and Pensioners? He bowed to their wishes, did he? What impudence a man must have to put forth such an idea; and what MALIGNITY thus to put the King in contrast with the Prince, and for that purpose setting at nought the transferring of the acts of the King's reign from his ministers to himself. But, this, the "loyal" have invariably done. They have never hesitated to saddle the King personally with the acts of his ministers. They have said, and sometimes nearly in so many words, do not blame the ministers; if you must blame, blame the King. The thing was his doing; it was his scruples; and, therefore, hold your tongues, or attack him. Thus have they always thrown him personally as a shield over the ministers, and this game they are, it seems, resolved to play to the last.- -We have next, from this quirking gentleman, an endeavour to confuse the understandings of the public by a case, in which the City of London complained of reproof received from the King. That case was this. The City of London, partaking in the feelings of the whole nation, went up to the King with an Address, in which they besought him. to cause strict inquiry to be made into the circumstances of the Convention of Cintra. They did the same in regard to the Walcheren Expedition. In answer to the first they were told, by the King's advisers, that he thought they knew him too well to suppose, that their interference was necessary; and, in the latter case, they were told, that he should leave the matter, as he safely might, to the wisdom of his partament.Now, what similarity is there between these cases and that now before us? In these cases the King spoke to a body of his subjects complaining of grievances, and exercising their well-known right in making that complaint, which, too, was directed against grievances of a most crying nature.His Royal Highness spoke to a body who came to tender him the exercise--I remember, and so must the reader, of authority, and in which exercise he would, in reputation, become responsible. Besides, they came to tender him the exer cise of authority, to which he was Heir, which, some day, in the common course of nature, must fall wholly into his hands, and which he was bound by every tie that can stimulate the mind, to preserve unimpaired, unshaken in the opinion of the people; authority, too, held in trust for the people's benefit, and only in that view sacred.- Is there the smallest resemblance in the two cases? Is there any thing, in the smallest degree, analagous? In the one case, the advisers of the King tell the City of London, that they have no business to interfere in the things of which they complain as sore grievances; and, in the other case, the Prince tells the Parliament, not that they have no business to interfere, but, that they have imposed conditions upon him which he does now, as he was well known to do before, disapprove ofAway, then, goes this flimsy, this miserable sophistry, and there stands the pettifogging quirker exposed to the reader's scorn.- -Applying this quirker's doctrine to the House of Commons, how will it suit? If the Prince's answer, which merely re-stated opinions that the parliament and that all the world well knew him to entertain; if his answer, which merely told the parliament, that they imposed improper conditions upon him; If this was ungracious, what epithet are we to bestow upon the treatment of those humble petitions, in which the people complained of the exercise of certain powers, or privileges, by that House? That House exercised the power of taking a man up and sending him to jail during their pleasure for an act done out of their doors; for a publication made by him; and, they imprisoned, in the Tower, one of their members, during their pleasure for asserting, out of their House, in terms that displeased them, that they had no right to send the people to jail at their pleasure, for acts done out of their House.Against their doing this, the people presented petitions to them; and, what was the answer, that these petitions received? -The question is not, here, whether they were right or wrong; but, both being cases, wherein the parties answering were tenacious of power, I only beg the reader to compare the answer of the Prince to the Parliament with the treatment which the petitions of the people met with from the House of Commons. that, during the discussions relating to as a trust for the "benefit of the people;" | and, of course, any suspension of them; any division of them; any reservation of their exercise for the King, when he shall recover (be it for a day or a year) is a violation of that great principle; whence it ensues of necessity, that the friends of freedom must approve of an expression of disapprobation of a measure, causing such suspension, division, or reservation; and, the Prince of Wales may be assured, that he has, from the feelings of the people, nothing to apprehend, whatever these intolerant and malignant men may endea vour to do in the way of exciting, even before he forms a ministry, prejudices against him, endeavours the more detestable as they are cloaked under the garb of attachment to his Father, than which nothing can be more base and hateful. wish particularly to put the reader upon his guard against this device, which is truly diabolical. The object is to make the people believe, that there are grounds of suspicion of the Prince, and that he will make a King when the time comes very different from his father; nay, and further. that we ought to suspect him of a wish to become King before the due time. And these are the men, who rail against jacobins! These are the men, who apprehend dan-profit and power would be made; though, gers from a conspiracy against the House of Brunswick. Of this House they do not appear to look upon the Prince as making apart. They are men of strange notions. In short, what they mean by the House of Brunswick is that alone by the means of which they are enabled, without labour and without talents, to get a good fat living for themselves and an equally fat provision for their familes. This is what sung men mean by the House of Brunswick; and, that being the case, it is quite natural that they should dread, even in their dreams, a conspiracy against it. The matter may, however, be looked upon as being thus far settled; and the country, after having gone on without a King, capable of discharging any part of the functions of royalty, for nearly a quarter of a year, has, at last, a prospect of seeing the exercise of those functions committed, in part at least, to a person capable of performing the task! Here alone is food for some hours of serious reflection; and, the reader will do well to consider a little what may be the consequences of this precedent. Here is a precedent for the nation being left during nearly a quarter of a year (it will be more before the Regent can be completely in stalled) with a King, declared to be in a state of incapacity to govern; here is a precedent for the nation being left in that state, for its being left to be governed by men, appointed to their offices by that same King, for nearly a quarter of a year. --- Now, suppose His Majesty should be, by Physicians chosen by these same ministers, declared to be reco vered, to-morrow? All that has been done respecting the Regency falls to the ground at once. Then suppose, that, in a week afterwards, his Majesty were to have a relapse, than which nothing could be more likely, seeing what a load of various matter it would be absolutely necessary to press upon him, and what painful reflections must crowd into his mind. Suppose this relapse to take place? What then? Why then we have, ac cording to this precedent, another quarter of a year to go on without a King capable of discharging the functions of the kingly office; and thus, with shorter or longer intervals, we may, upon this precedent, go on for a whole year, or, for years together.Then, observe, too, that, during the intervals of recovery, the grants of titles, lands, leases, places for life and reversion, and all appointments to offices of one must confess, that it is difficult to see, why these may not as well be made dur ing the King's known incapacity, as that money should be drawn from the Exche quer, troops sent abroad, and the like, during such known incapacity.Then, who is it that is to make known any sorrowful return of the malady? The ministers? Those men who have been ap pointed by the King during his intervals of sanity? These very men who have the power in their hands? Are they to be relied upon for punctually and readily making known the moment when the King shall be again unfortu nately incapable of discharging the func tions of royalty?--I do not say, that they would be the last men upon earth to be trusted with such a duty; I do not say, that they would hide the fact from the public to the last possible moment that disguise should be thought practicable. I do not say what would be, nor do I consider it at all as a personal question; but, I ask the reader, whether, upon the known principles and rules of action amongst men, persons so situated should be the depositories of such a trust ?--But, all these considerations aside, and leaving the interests of the country quite out of the question, let us consider a little the situation of His Majesty himself. If any one of us were to find ourselves recovered from such a malady; if any one of us were to find ourselves in such a state, should we not seek retirement, quiet, tranquillity; should we not rest our hope of final and perfect re-establishment upon the having kept from us all those things which require mental exertion? Nay, is not this the invariable practice of the world? Is it not always the practice of those, who are the real friends of persons in such a state, to resort to every possible means of relieving and diverting their minds; of amusing them with light and trivial matter, of presenting them with a variety of unimportant objects; and, in short, of preventing the necessity and even the chances of serious thinking. but has also been added to the vassals duce insanity. I put this to the serious and impartial consideration of the reader; and, I am quite sure, that, if he do seriously consider the matter, he will agree with me, that a moment ought not to be lost in making permanent provision against the evils of which we now feel the effects. If such be what compassion points out, and what the universal practice of the world has stamped with its authority, can it be supposed to be proper to leave the King so situated, that, in the very hour of his recovery he must necessarily have pressed upon his mind a multitude of objects, any one of which is of weight quite sufficient to excite trouble in the strongest mind? The Recorder of Lon--apprehension of which is enough to prodon would be amongst the first of his visitors, to present him with a long list of his unhappy subjects, condemned to an ignominious death, during his incapacity. Would he not feel upon beholding that list? Would the sight of it, or, still more the hearing of it read, give no trouble to his mind? Would he, could he,It appears to me, that provision should with a serene mind, decide upon the fate of so many persons? Could he, in a moment, by his breath, at once consign them to or give them are spite from eternity without feelings that must deeply affect his mind? To suppose it possible that lie - could is to pronounce a satire upon human nature. But, though I must believe, that, this would be his most dangerous trial, must he not very sensibly feel for the fate of the campaign in Portugal? When he is informed how things stand .there; when he learns the real situation of his own army compared with that of the enemy, who, as he had been before : told, had not an inch of ground but that which his army stood upon; when he learns this, will there arise nothing to trouble bis mind?- weden, since his incapacitifmutter added, not only to the at war with him, be made, which may prevent the necessity of the King's being compelled to attend to business for some weeks, at least, after he shall have been declared to have recovered the perfect possession of his reason. Some months would be better; but, some considerable space of time appears to me to be absolutely necessary, in order to afford the best chance of his final re-establishment; and, at the same time, to guard the interests of the country against the dangers above pointed out. Something of this sort does, indeed, seem to be in the contemplation of some members of parliament; but, it is a matter that admits not of delay; it is not less pressing than the measure of the Regency itself; for, as was before shown, that measure, without some such provision, may be rendered nugatory in an hour, either before or after its consummation. Let us now turn to |