secure the safety of the country, that his Majesty might have the gratification of knowing, when the happy moment of his recovery should arrive, that the people whom he had loved and protected, had suffered as little as possible by his illness. CHAP. LXIV. 1788. of Mr. Fox. Mr. Fox, who had before appeared in his place, Observations evidently depressed by the fatigues of his late journey, now said the exigency was so pressing, that he, for one, would dispense with the Committee. What were they going to search for? Not precedents upon their journals, not parliamentary precedents, but precedents in the History of England. At present there was a person in the kingdom, different from any other; to whom no precedents could refer an heir apparent, of refer—an full age and capacity to exercise the royal power. The examination of physicians had put the House in full possession of the true state of the King's health; through them it was known to the nation at large, and it was then their only duty to decide without the loss of a single moment. In his firm opinion, his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales had as clear, as express a right to assume the reins of government, and exercise the power of sovereignty, during the continuance of the King's illness and incapacity, as in the case of his Majesty's natural demise. His Royal Highness might have advanced this claim himself, but he chose rather to wait the decision of Parliament, with a patient and due deference to the constitution, than to urge a claim that, he trusted, a majority in that House, and of the people at large, admitted; and which he was persuaded, could not be reasonably disputed. As the leader of a political party, Mr. Pitt saw, Their effect. with pleasure, the advantage he should derive from many parts of this speech. The broad assertion of a right in the Prince of Wales to assume the functions of regent appeared to be unsupported by any declaration of law, and not countenanced by any analogy. Thus the leader of opposition, by affirming that the Prince ought to assume the office, without restrictions, exposed himself and his adherents to the suspicion of СНАР. 1788. Answer of Mr. Pitt. aspiring to power, which, by abuse, they could render permanent, notwithstanding the King's recovery*. In his answer, Mr. Pitt used the advantage afforded him without reserve. Whatever might be thought of Mr. Fox's penetration and discernment, his acquaintance with the laws and general history of the country, and his knowledge of the theory of the constitution, he defied all his ingenuity to support his opinion upon any analogy of constitutional precedent, or to reconcile it to the spirit and genius of the constitution. The doctrine was itself, if any additional reason were necessary, the strongest and most unanswerable for appointing the committee. If a claim of right was intimated (even though not formally) on the part of the Prince of Wales, to assume the government, it became of the utmost consequence to ascertain, from precedent and history, whether this claim was founded; which, if it was, precluded the House from the possibility of all deliberation on the subject. In the mean time, he maintained, that it would appear, from every precedent and from every page of history, that to assert such a right in the Prince of Wales, or any one else, independent of the decision of the two Houses of Parliament, was little less than treason to the constitution. He pledged himself to this assertion, that, in the case of an interruption of the personal exercise of the royal authority, when there had been no previous lawful provision for carrying on the government, it belonged to the other branches of the legislature, on the part of the nation at large, the body they represented, to provide, according to their discretion, for the temporary exercise of sovereign authority, in the name and on behalf of the King, and that, except by their decision, the Prince of Wales Tomline, vol. ii. p. 117. A writer of a Biographical Memoir thus describes the conduct and feeling of the minister on this occasion: "During the delivery "of this adventurous opinion, the countenance of Mr. Pitt was seen to brighten "with exultation at the mistake into which he perceived his adversary was hur"rying; and scarcely had the sentence, just quoted, been concluded, when, slapping his thigh triumphantly, he turned to the person who sat next to him, " and said, 'I'll unwhig the gentleman for the rest of his life!'"' And the author adds, in the next paragraph, that this anecdote is undoubtedly true. Biographical Memoirs of the Right Honourable Richard Brinsley Sheridan, by Thomas Moore, Esq. vol. ii. p. 38, 8vo. had no more right (speaking of strict right) to assume the government, than any other individual subject. However strong the argument might be in favour of the Prince of Wales, it did not affect the question of right; because neither the whole nor any part of the royal authority could belong to him in the present circumstances, unless conferred by Parliament. СНАР. LXIV. 1783. Mr. Fox complained that he had been, unintention- Mr. Fox. ally no doubt, misrepresented and unjustly charged with treason to the constitution. The word Parliament was used in an improper sense when applied to two branches only of the legislature; and he doubted whether, under the present circumstances, the house to which he was then speaking was really a house of parliament. Mr. Pitt briefly re-stated the point on Mr. Pitt. which he was at issue with the leader of opposition. To make a provision, he said, for the executive power of the government, during the interruption of the personal exercise of the royal authority, did rest with the remaining branches of the legislature. It was a matter entirely in their discretion. Mr. Fox, on the contrary, if he understood him rightly, had maintained that the two houses had no such discretion; but that his Royal Highness could claim the exercise of sovereign power, so as to supersede the right of either house to deliberate on the subject. At this period Mr. Burke arose, and expressed Mr. Burke. astonishment at the style and manner in which the minister had debated the question, which most peculiarly required temper and moderation. He had burst into a flame; he had fallen into a fury; and, with unpardonable violence, had accused others of treason, because they ventured to mention the rights of any part of the royal family; thus endeavouring to intimidate his opponents by threatening them with the lash of the law. Where was the freedom of debate, where was the privilege of Parliament, if the rights of the Prince of Wales could not be spoken of without subjecting members to a charge of treason by one of the Prince's competitors? A cry of order being heard in the house, Mr. Burke said, he would repeat and justify СНАР. 1788. Mr. Pitt in reply to Mr. Burke. Committee appointed. 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. Similar motion Camden. 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 the spirit of the constitution, that the heir apparent, 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 |
