The Sun.
London, England, 1810-12-28 00:00:00

Orange7should be called to the Crown, w hether
he.shpuld be made Regent,- or whether any other
mode of Government should be adopted to meet
,the existing exigency. Why -did not the Con-
vention proceed to use the -Great Seal ? In the
first, place that it would have been impossible; in
the second place, that if possible, it would. have
been absurd. It was impossible, because the
throne was vacant by the l'orfeiture of James
Who had disposed of the Great Seal where it could
not be found. ft would have been absurd to have
used the Great Seal of 'James 11. 'for the purpose
,01 declaring that that. Prince ,had forfeited the
Crown. -But (lid similar difficulties exist at pre-
sent Would it be as absurd to use the Great
Seal of the reigning Sovereign to provide a remedy-
for the suspension of. the Executive Government,
which his malady had occasioned ? By no means, the
two duties were diametrically oppoiite. In the one
• case, it was the duty of the two Houses instantly to
• declare that the Throne was vacant, 3nd instantly to
proceed to fill it. In the present. case, what was
their duty This brought him to what he conceived
. to be the great Constitntional Law of the country,
and that was the distinCtion to be always obsersed be-
tween the natural acid t he political Capacity of the Mo-
_parch. Th -re was no one part Of the administrationof
the law which did not rest on the political and not
on th per •onal capacity of the Mialarch. For in-
stant: ~ to writs summoning parties to the Court ot
Kit g's Be ch,.the parties were summoned to appear.
"be•le th • King." Clearly before the King in ,his'
political capac y, and consequently those writs con-
tinued to be effeetive, hotvviihseanding the personal
incapacity of the Monarch. So it was also in case
to be tried at the Bar of that House, ccbefore the
King itf Parliament." In faCt, in every de-
partment of the administration ofjustice the
sante principle existed. The King, in his po-
litical capacity, was considered to possess the
'power of übiquity—a power which of course ceidd
not be ascribed to him in his personal capacity. The
King, in his -political capacity, was said to .be per-
fect.
,The Constitution declared that he could do Ito
wrong. Bat much as the Monarch must be rever-
enced by all his subjects, it was evident that a distinc-
tion was here made between his natural and political
capacity. This distinction aservaded the while of the
Constitution. It wn a, necessary'consequetace, that
although his malady deprived his
.Majesty of per-
sonal capacity, vet that in his political capacity he
still reigned as King of the Couniry. Let no man,
however, think that from that analogy any: excuse
could be derived for those betrayers of the King's
trust, who, during the deprivation of his Majesty's
persona) capacity, had assumed the functions of the
Executive Government, because, for the due exer-
cise of those functions, the integrity of the .King's.
personal capacity was indispensable. It !lot:owes!
that no Legislaiive Act could be done except under
the name of that Monarch who, in his political. ca-
pacify, st,ll governed the k'ngdom. Power could not
be conferred on his son but by an Aci of Parliament
passing under the name of the reigning Sovereign.
Were even a Rev •nue Officer eppoint, d by a per-
sou pretess ng to exereisetae Royal Authority with-
out an Act os Parliament; that appointment would
be, rendered null and ►old: In illustration of h's
chietrine on this subieet,• he would mention an
:ereedote that took place at the Revolution. The
Ceti% ention met on the 22d of January ; -on the
30th the Commons appointed -a Clergymatr to
preach before them. On the 31st they appointo
day of thanksgiving for their delivery from Po-
pery ; selected ,another Clergyman, the celebrated
Dr. Burnett,_ to preach- before them on that occa-
sion.. Before the days on which these- Clergymen
preached, the Throne had been. declared vacant by
the Convention ; but -both these Clergymen, in
their prefatory prayers, prayed for King James
because by law he ,had not yet been declared to
have forfeited the Crown. The matter was- sub=
sequentiy, taken up in the House of Commons,
dud the conduct of the okra Clergymen was suc-
cessfully defendel on that principle. It was the
principle on which, he argued, namely, that the
King was alone the. King, and that any power to
exercise the Royal Authority could be derived only
-from the Great Seal. It was perfeCtly true that the
Att now proposed 'to be done, must be eifealed by
what was termed a legal fiction. But let not their
Lordships be deterred by this- name. He could strew
in all limited Monarchies that a legal fiction was oc-
casioaally found. indispensable. Were an arbitrary:
Monarchy created, legal fittions would unquestion-
ably-be no more, but with them-would expire the
most valnable rights of the subject. That the power
• of 'the Regent must be conferred on him by a legis- -
lative measure having the Royal assent of all parties
agreed. An address could not make a Regent. He,
must be made by bill; and surely the more direCt
was the more eligible mode of doing so. Reverting
to the conduct of Ministers, be repeated that in
voting for the resolution, he begged to be under-
stood as condemning in the strongest manner the
criminal condua of -those meti wile had usurped the
Royal Authority, and violated the Constitution. It
had been put to him, whether, were he a Minister,
and an unforeseen emergency arose, he would not,
even without : due. authority, recall or reinforce a
British army ?. He: had no hesitation in replying,
that were he so situated, and Parliament were
not
,assembled, lie st ould not scruple to 'commit
.an illegal ad to insure the safety of a British
army. But, if the necessity should occur a single
day after the assembling of Parliament, he should
then conceive it to .be his duty to submit ':the
case to Parliament, 'and to be their right to take
-such steps as in their wisdom might seem requisite.
But what the men opposite had dared to do, was a
violation offthat. principle—it was an act of mani-i
fest treason against the',King, and against the Parlia-
.rnent. He • was astonished with what face those
men could appear before their Lordships, with their
two-handed proposition., First, 'declaring, that in
the two Houses of Parliament rested the execution
of the King'a .authority, and in the same breath
sayintz, that it rested' with themselves ! These Merl
lead had the audacity to usurp not only the Kin,g's
authority,, but the whole authority, exe':utive and
legislative, of the State. He was greatly deceived if
in the first elace they had not arrogated (to the ie-
rieite' distress and • affliction of the Royal Family)
the:whole czee 'and custody of his Majesiv pers
At the niom:eit •that they told their Lordships that