tion; a certain composition of wax and copper was to represent the monarch: this was a species of absurd metaphysics such a preposterous fiction that he did not see how it was possible to treat it otherwise than with contempt and ridicule, did not the great effect which this absurdity was to have, make it serious and important. Here Mr. Burke said, "I disclaim all allegiance, I renounce all obedience and loyalty to a king so chosen, and a crown so formed. I have given my allegiance already to the House of Hanover. I worship the gods of our glorious constitution, but I will not worship Priapus."

Mr. Burke next begged leave to inquire of the gentlemen on the other side, why they feared that the Prince of Wales would abuse his power, or why they doubted whether he would consent to any necessary abridgement of power, when such necessity should be made manifest? Had not the present king consented? had not George II. consented? had not even William III. consented? had not, in short, the whole line of our kings, since the Revolution, consented to all necessary limitations? And if they had, what reason was there to suppose that the present prince would adopt a conduct so different from his ancestors? And, if gentlemen thought so, why did they unanimously concur in choosing him, nay, proposing him, since there were among his majesty's ministers men of such pure and spotless virtue?

At once irregular as well as dangerous, was the present mode; for the House began with resolving themselves into a republic completely, instead of being one of the three estates. It was impossible, in any point of view, not to see the gross absurdity of the present mode of proceeding; a great deal had been urged in support of different precedents; but he should feel himself obliged to any gentleman who could point out one precedent where the heir apparent was of full age and discretion and fit to govern; where even in the darkest, the most distracted, irregular, and confused government, it was not the uniform opinion that such a prince should be chosen to govern. When all the

heterogeneous mass of cases and all the farrago of nonsense under the title of legal distinctions were considered, every man of common understanding, and integrity of principle, must see the necessity of governing the whole of them by the genuine spirit and the fair principles of the constitution. He hated all distinctions and constructions which would not square with the principles of good sense; and, if the contrary doctrine was adopted, the House might, among themselves, choose their own great seal, together with a person to hold it.

jn;:;

As to the case of the Speaker of the House of Commous in the 31st of Henry VI. it was allowed by gentlemen on the other side, that it was not law then; but by their present arguments it is law now. He dreaded the idea of a common recovery of the crown, where any individual, either in that House, or the House of Lords, was to become the voucher. When he wanted a king, he wanted a man possessed of proper and appropriate power; but a king by the Commons was the creature of the Commons'; it was the king's name, but without his will.

Allusions had, upon this occasion, been made to the Revolution and the Restoration; but they were acts of necessity, having attendant upon them their peculiar ways. But what was the nature of the Revolution, and what was the nature of the restraints upon the executive power agreed upon, and consented to, upon that memorable period? They were these: if a king shall abolish or alter courts of law, trial by jury, or religion, or erect a standing army, then the compact is dissolved, and all right and power reverts to the people; and the people, by plots, conspiracies, or any other secret or violent means, may hurl such a king from the throne. The Revolution was, in fact, a precedent of a delinquent monarch, a precedent to teach this lesson to kings: "Discite Justitiam moniti et non temnere leges."

How exceedingly needless, also, was the notice which had been taken of the words of his right honourable fiend,

Mr. Burke, "I have lived to see, this day, a single word dropped from an individual, producing such alarming consequences, that nothing short of a declaratory bill, solemnly passed by both Houses, can be sufficient to answer the purpose of a negative to this word." Thus they had, indeed, paid a compliment to his right honourable friend, and thus they had presented him with a dish, on which the most gluttonous appetite might feed until it was satiated. Mr. Burke next adverted to the case of general warrants, and quoted the expressions of Sir George Savile, upon the power of the House, relative to declaratory laws. He observed, that the mention of Sir George produced before his mind the agreeable image of the Marquis of Rockingham, both of whom were happy in the oblivion of these degenerate times. With the idea of his right honourable friend, Mr. Fox, concerning the right of the Prince of Wales, he had the happiness to coincide; for, if the king be blind, dumb, lethargic, or apoplectic, there must be some person who is perfect, or else to whom do we owe our allegiance? Gentlemen on the other side seemed to consider themselves, like antiquarians, who valued a Homer without a head; and the constitution was thus made a museum. Mr. Burke expressed his anxiety to be informed, by those who cautioned the House against the danger of giving to the prince too much power, lest the king's right might, upon his returning health, be in danger, what the king could be supposed possibly to lose, by being represented by his own son? The rights, he contended, both of Lords and Commons, would be supported by it, and preserved. If the prince were allowed to represent the king, without limitation, it would prevent cabals, intrigues, and dissentions; indeed, reason and equity, the safety of the country, and the safety of the crown, were all joined in inducing him to agree to the sentiments of his right honourable friend upon this occasion.

Gentlemen on the other side of the House had thought proper to remark, that we had a weak government. We had, indeed, a weak government in two ways; for one king

was disabled by nature, and another was disabled by art. He repeated his request to know upon what principles ministers would elect the prince, if they suspected him? And if they did not suspect him, why did they wish to limit or restrict him? Were it possible for the sovereign to be made acquainted with the present situation of affairs, he would feelingly exclaim,

Upon my head they plac'd a fruitless crown,
And put a barren sceptre in my gripe,

Thence to be wrencli'd with an unlineal hand,
No son of mine succeeding."

He would then add, "Restore me to my former state and opinion. Do not let me see a black-brow'd phantom on my throne."

Adverting, next, to the consideration of depriving the prince of the power of bestowing honours, Mr. Burke remarked, that the fountain of honour had, indeed, since the year 1784, profusely flowed. He did not mean to infer that this was wrong; but, if his majesty had been thus bountiful, it would not be deemed extravagant to indulge his son a little in the same way; at least, to deprive him of that advantage was not very decorous. Suppose, for instance, the prince wished to bestow honours on the house of Cavendish, would any person in that House have the audacity to dispute the propriety of such honours? Or suppose his royal highness should be disposed to revive the title of Rockingham, would it be deemed extravagant or improper?- Here, conceiving himself to be interrupted during his remarks concerning the various possible claims for distinctions, which some families might have upon the prince, Mr. Burke observed, that, in vociferation and noise, some persons were very great, but he knew a set of hounds that would eclipse them. He declared, that, for his own part, he never spoke to the prince about any office; and here, perceiving a smile on some countenances, he added, that perhaps some gentlemen

be to them natural enough; but he wished to impress the House with a proper sense of the necessity of not depriving the prince of the power of bestowing honours. "I should not," he remarked, "mean, insignificant, and trifling as I am, like to see my name upon the roll of proscription." All sorts of proscription, in cases similar to the present, were nonsensical, insane, and most preposterous declarations; for they deprived the executive power of an essential part of its functions-- of the glorious opportunity of rewarding virtue. Mr. Burke briefly alluded, as an instance analagous to the present, to the case of Charles the Sixth of France, and concluded with advising the House to reflect upon the probability of convalescent sanity, and also to remember the danger and possibility of a relapse. The present occasion was an awful one; and, therefore, he trusted that the House, deeply impressed with a sense of its alarming and unprecedented nature, would come forward and provide effectually for the national security and welfare.

The amendment was also supported by Mr. Fox, Sir John Aubrey, Lord Fielding, and Lord North. It was opposed by the solicitor-general, Sir John Scott. The question being put, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said resolution, the House divided: Yeas 251: Noes 178. The amendment was conseqently lost. The original resolution was then put and agreed to; and the three resolutions were ordered to be delivered to the Lords at a conference, and their concurrence to be desired.

January 6. 1789.

MR. Pitt having given notice that he should this day propose to the House the restrictions, within which the exercise of the regal power should be granted to the regent, Mr. Loveden, the member for Abingdon, rose as soon as the order of the day was read, and moved," That a considerable space of time having elapsed since the examination of the physicians, with