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.
LXIV.

1788. Discussion introduced by Earl Fitzwilliam.

15th.

Lord Chancellor.

Sentiments of

the Prince

the Duke of York.

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.

CHAP.

LXIV.

1788.

Gloucester.

This speech, delivered with much grace and propriety, produced great effect, and was warmly complimented by the Lord Chancellor and Lord Camden. The Duke of Gloucester expressed similar sentiments: Duke of he trusted that the good sense and loyalty of a majority in each House would yet prevent the threatened discussion. Perseverance in it was highly mischievous, and could not be meant for the public good. If the attempt were persisted in, he feared he could not, such were his feelings, trust himself to speak his sentiments on the extraordinary conduct of those who would unnecessarily compel a decision on so delicate a question.

On this day, the House of Lords had been more than usually crowded with strangers, particularly of the House of Commons, whom the adjournment permitted to attend. Great curiosity was excited by the knowledge that the heir apparent intended to deliver his sentiments; and great surprise was created by the speech of the Lord Chancellor, who was known to have concluded a treaty at Carlton House, by virtue of which he was to retain his office, and to forward the claims of the Prince.

16th.

Lords'

On the following day, the Report of the Committee was produced and ordered to lie on the table. It was Report of the of considerable length, like that of the lower House, Committee. consisting of precedents, in the original Normanfrench, Latin, and English languages, of proceedings and statutes made on several occasions where the incapacity or absence of the monarch required a temporary substitution of authority. It was methodically arranged, under the several heads of infancy; sickness or infirmity; absence, where the remedy had been provided by the sovereign; absence, where the remedy had been provided by the great council of the nation, or the two Houses of Parliament; and cases not falling within either of those descriptions*.

In the committee on the state of the nation, Mr. Pitt moved three resolutions, introducing them with a long and luminous speech. Great as was the question,

See the Reports; Lords' Journals, vol. xxxviii. p. 276; Commons' Journals, vol. xliv. p. 11.

Committee on the state of the

nation.

CHAP.
LXIV.

1788.

resolutions.

66

"What provision ought to be made for supplying the deficiency?" there was a question of a greater and still more important nature, which must be discussed Mr. Pitt moves and decided first, namely, whether any person had a right either to assume or to claim the exercise of the royal authority during the King's incapacity; or, whether it was the right of the Lords and Commons to provide for the deficiency in the legislature. In refutation of any claim existing in any person, he argued at great length, both from the precedents found in the report, and general principles of law and reason, and concluded by moving, That the King was, by his present indisposition, prevented from attending personally to public business.

Debates on the
Prince's right.

That it was the right and duty of the Lords and Commons to provide the means for supplying this defect, according to the exigency of the case.

And that the two Houses should determine on the means by which the royal assent might be given to bills respecting the exercise of the powers and authorities of the Crown, during the King's indisposition.

The first proposition being evident, met with unanimous assent. The debate on the second was long and animated; the Master of the Rolls, the Attorneygeneral, the Solicitor-general, and the Lord Advocate of Scotland strenuously asserting the right of the two Houses, and denying that any right was inherent in the Prince of Wales. Mr Fox, on the other hand, in a long and argumentative speech, defended the proposition he had formerly advanced, and insisted, even to the extreme, on the right for which he had contended. A middle party deprecated the discussion of the right, and favoured an amendment suggested by Mr. Bastard, for omitting that word in the resolution, and stating it only to be the duty of Parliament. Lord North spoke in favour of this plan of forbearance; but the Lord Advocate declared he could not discover how the general question of right could be waived, unless both Houses were ready to resolve that the Prince of Wales should not only be regent, but invested with the royal powers without limitation or distinction.