his words. The right honourable gentleman had no pressly declared, that the Prince of Wales had exmore right to claim the exercise of the sovereign power than any other individual subject; he was warranted, therefore, in stating that he had described himself as one of the Prince's competitors. If the Prince of Wales had no more right than any other person, and 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. This strained attempt to place Mr. Pitt in invidious and personal contest with the heir apparent was not well received by any portion of the House; and, as Mr. Burke delivered his speech with his usual vehemence and animation, the matter and the manner of it afforded the minister easy and secure topics of reply. He observed, that if the right honourable 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. And, when he had said that 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 of charging him with arrogating to be the competitor of his Royal Highness. At that period of our history when the constitution was settled on its present foundation, when Mr. Somers and other great men declared that no person had a right to the crown independently of the consent of the two Houses, would it have been thought fair or decent for any member of either House to pronounce Mr. Somers a personal competitor of William the Third? The Committee was voted without a division, and composed of members taken from both sides of the House. CHAP. LXIV. This debate had material influence on that which took place on the following day in the House of Lords, when Earl Camden moved for a similar committee. 1788. He had heard, he said, of an idea started in another 11th. place, alleged to be founded on common law, and on in the House of Similar motion the spirit of the constitution, that the heir apparent, Camden. Lords, by Earl being of age, had a claim to assume the regal authority, and take upon himself the administration of government, as a matter of right, during the incapacity of his Majesty. If this was the common law, it was a secret to him he never before had met with it in any writer, or heard it laid down by any lawyer. A doctrine so new and extraordinary ought to have been well considered before it was uttered; because such opinions were much sooner raised than laid, and might involve the country in infinite confusion. Lord Loughborough said he had heard of another Lord Loughmost extraordinary assertion, boldly, arrogantly, and borough. presumptuously made elsewhere; that the Prince of Wales, the heir apparent to the throne, had no more right, under the present circumstances, to take upon himself the government, than any other individual subject. This assertion was founded on the idea that the regency was elective, which, he maintained, could not be the case. Were it so, the heir apparent had no such right. The two Houses might set up a pageant of a regent, and, in fact, assume the government themselves, because such a regent must necessarily be the slave of the electors. The only instance of a regent created by the two Houses, without regard to the heir apparent, was that of the Duke of York to be protector, in the reign of Henry the Sixth, which led to the well-known, calamitous civil wars. Had the Prince of Wales had no more right than any other individual subject? No more right! Was the Prince of Wales a common subject? Did not the law describe him to be one and the same with the King? Lord Coke expressly stated it so. Was it not as much high treason to compass or imagine the death of the Prince of Wales as the death of the King. Was it high treason to compass or imagine the death of any other indivi CHAP. 1788. Lord Committee appointed. Report to the Commons. 12th. Discussion renewed. Mr. Fox. dual subject? The regency was hereditary, not elective; and the heir apparent had now a right to assume the reins of government. He did not mean that the Prince could violently rush into authority; but that, upon the authentic notification of the King's unfortunate incapacity to the two Houses, he ought, of right, to be invested with the exercise of the royal power. The Lord Chancellor regretted that the topics so prematurely discussed had not been reserved until a later stage of the proceeding, when, probably, little difference of opinion would have existed. The declarations of law made by Lord Loughborough was to him perfectly new. In the eye of the law, the Prince of Wales and the King were one and the same! to consider them so, was to force a literal meaning upon a metaphorical expression. His Royal Highness, however peculiarly distinguished by his rank, birth, and dignities, above all other subjects, was still a subject. After a few other observations, a committee of twenty-one was appointed. The report from the Committee of the House of Commons was speedily presented, laid on the table, and printed; but when Mr. Pitt moved that, on a future day, the House should resolve itself into a Committee on the state of the nation, Mr. Fox complained, -which, he said, he had never done before, of misrepresentation of his sentiments, and denied having spoken from the authority of any person, much less from that of the Prince. He had merely delivered his own opinion, as an individual member, freely and without any authority. He now re-stated, explained, and vindicated it from misconceptions in the House of Lords, and in other quarters. What he meant to assert was, that the Prince had the right, but not the possession; he would not exercise the right without appealing to the two Houses. It was admitted that the Prince had an irresistible claim, which Parliament could not reject or refuse, without forfeiting their duty to the constitution. To that idea he had no objection, because he knew no difference between an irresistible claim and an inherent right. If the Prince of Wales had done him the honour to consult him, he should have advised a message to either or to both Houses, stating his claim, and calling for their decision. Such, however, was his Royal Highness's forbearance, that he would prefer no claim, but wait patiently and with due deference, conscious that the two Houses ought, by acknowledging the justice of that claim, to restore the royal authority. He urged the right of the Prince as an abstract point: but of what importance were differences upon abstract points, where the substance was indisputable? Although unused to meet the minister on any but adverse ground, he expressed a hope that he would afford some general outline of what he meant to state to the Committee, that members might not be puzzled with the novelty of propositions, and embarrassed in giving their votes. CHAP. LXIV. 1788. Mr. Pitt said they had just received a voluminous report from the Committee appointed to search for Mr. Pitt. precedents, and he had moved to refer it, with the examination of the physicians, to the committee on the state of the nation, where all topics would undergo ample discussion. He then controverted all the material assertions of Mr. Fox, denying, most explicitly, that the whole or any part of the regal power vested in the Prince of Wales as a matter of right, although he was equally ready to say, that, on the ground of expediency, it was highly desirable that whatever part of the regal power it was necessary to exercise during this unhappy interval, should be vested in a single person, and that person should be the Prince of Wales. He also stated his opinions as to the portion of political power to be given, and the restrictions to be imposed, with a frankness which Mr. Fox acknowleged to be satisfactory, and more than he had a right to expect. Mr. Sheridan deprecated all discussion of the Mr. Sheridan. Prince's rights. It could not conciliate; it might create dissensions and animosities; and he even intimated that it might lead to dangerous consequences. Mr. Pitt trusted that, in the discussion of these opinions, the House would do their duty, in spite of any Mr. Pitt. CHAP. 1789. Discussion introduced by Earl Fitzwilliam. 15th. Lord Chancellor. threat, however high the authority from which it might proceed. The committee was voted without a division. In consequence of the discussions to which Mr. Fox had alluded, which were conducted with great heat and asperity, not only in newspapers, but in pamphlets, in conversation, and in public speeches, Earl Fitzwilliam, first apologizing for introducing a conversation when he did not intend to make a motion, deprecated, in strong and feeling language, all debate in that place, on a topic so delicate and invidious, and tending only to increase the alarm and uneasiness which already had been manifested. The Lord Chancellor declared that, when the committee should have made its report, the House would see what further steps should be taken to restore vigour and efficacy to the executive government; and, above all things, they should take care faithfully to preserve the rights of the King entire, so that when God should permit him to recover, he might not find his situation worse than it had been before his infirmity. His own sorrow was aggravated by a recollection of the marks of indulgence he had been in the habit of receiving from his now suffering sovereign: his debt of gratitude was ample for the many favours which he had graciously conferred on him; and "when I forget my King," he exclaimed, "may God forget me.' But the chief, or indeed only cause for commencing the discussion, was, that the lords might hear, in an expressed by authentic form, a declaration of the opinions of the Prince himself. This was afforded by his royal brother, the Duke of York, who, presenting himself, for the first time, to Parliament, modestly urged that as an apology for defects. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl and other lords who expressed their wishes to avoid any question which tended to induce a debate on the rights of the Prince. No claim of right had been made on his part; and he understood too well the sacred principles which seated the House of Brunswick on the throne, ever to assume or exercise any power, whatever might be his claim, unless derived from the will of the people, expressed by their lordships in Parliament. Sentiments of the Prince the Duke of York. 66 |