Star.
London, England, 1810-12-18 00:00:00

•

him to infroie of 'the precedent la4eliiiinnri the
Irish Parliament in 17881 *lllll w bilin alluded
to by the last si • :kit.
.The CHANCELLOR. of thii EXCHEQUER
said, that he felt it necessary to ,trouble the House.
with one word, in answer to what had fallen from
gentlemen opposite, and in explanation of what he
had said. The Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pon-
sonby) had expressed his thanks for the candour of
Ole statement that had been made in the first instance.
He (Mr. Perceval) returned his thanks in a corres-
ponding mender to that Right Honourable Gentle-
man, for the equal frankness of his statement, as it
put them in possession of what view had been respec-
tively taken by each, on the propriety of the proposi-
tion he had to submit. He had also to thank the
other Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) for the
explicit statement of his opinions. Whether, how-
ever, he was not the less obliged to,that Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman, for not having spared the at.•
gument which accompanied that opinion, he shou'd
leave it to the House to determine: That Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman had not contented himself with
stating his opinion, but had argued it ; this he con-
ceived was disappointing the expectations which he ,
had held forth to the House. The Right Honourable,
Gentleman had thought the measure which was about
to be proposed to the consideration of the House, to
be inconsistent with the doctrine and wisdom laid
down and displayed in the letter of an Illustrious
Personage in the year 1788. Of that letter and its I
merits the Right Honourable Gentleman was more
competent to decide than he (the Chancellor of the Ex-.
chequer) could possibly be (Hear.) It was a compo-
sition which, no doubt, reflected high honour on the
Prince, who was the author of it ' • but as far as he
could charge his recollection, that letter did not dwell
at all on the manner in which the power was granted,
hut was confined solely to the particular conditions
and circumstances, limiting the power itself, so that
he could not see how he could be charged with ne-
glecting or acting in opposition to the contents of a
letter, which did not at all relate to the proceeding
in question—there was nothing had fallen from him
that could justly lay the grounds of such an infe-
rence. 'He had indeed avoided entering into any de-
tail on the present occasion, and the example set him
by the Honourable Gentleman should not even then
tempt him to do so. He was, however, anxious to
guard them against the erroneous notion which the
Right Honourable Gentleman seemed to have fallen
into, of his having entered into any detail which he
had Wished at present toavoid- Leaving it then under
this explanation, as to his having attempted to go
into any detail, he should merely add, that with re-
spect to the:is/receding itself, he should, on the ap-
pointed dayisendeavour to persuade the Committee,
that the measure which he should have the honour of
proposing, Couldliot prove either derogatory to the
Royal dignity, insulting to the Prince .of Wales, or
inconsistent with the integrity of the Constitution.—
These, three objects were the grounds on which the
Right Honourable Gentleman rested his objections
to the measure which he should have the honour to
propose to the House, and he did not despair ofbeing
able to shew that that measuro, so far from having any
tendency to insult the feelings of a Prince, whose ho-
nour and whose interests were as dear to hini as to
any Member of that House, would be better calcu-
lated to secure the Majesty of the Throne, the true
interests of the Prince of Wales, now and at all future
times, and the true principles of the Constitution, than
the mode which had been recommended by the Right
Honourable Gentleman.
Mr. ADAM said, that though he admitted that
the statement of talk! Chancellor of the Exchequer had
beeri sufficiently candid, as far as it had gone, yet he
did not think the Right Hon. Gentleman had gone
far enough, by merely stating, that he meant to move
the date preliminary Resolutions of 1788. He said,
the question before the House regarded the mode of
supplying the present deficiency of the Regal power
by a Regency. That without explaining the nature
of the measures which the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer meant to found upon the concluding Resolution
of 1788, it was impossible to understand the question.
It was quite clear so far, that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman meant to proceed by a Bill, the unconstitu.
tioaal course that was adopted at that period. But
in order to have the question fairly before the House,
it was necessary to know what that Bill was to con- ,
tain, what limitations or restrictions of the Preroga-
tive was to be propoied, and every particular respect-
ing them: He said that the true Constitutional line
of proceeding was by Address—that that Address
should be founded on Resolutions ; that by this mode
of proceeding, as the notice of his Right Hon. Friend
(Mr. Ponsonby) clearly conveyed. no restrictions
could be intended by him, but that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer's communication kept the House en-
tirely in the dark as to his future measures, and did
not put the matter on a fair Tooting, to as to give a
clear understanding of the subject to those who were
to deliberate and decide beween the two modes of
proceeding: That from this imperfect eommunica-
tion the Right Hon. Gentlemass was obliging the
House to take a leap in the dark. Ile said, that
tides the Resolutions to address the Prince to take
upon hiffiself the Government in his Majesty's narnshi
there would be Resolutions incorporated into, onto
accompany the Address, which would secure his Ma-
jesty's person being plated under such care, and pro-
tested by such regulations; as would ensure the King's,
return to the discharge of his Regal functions the
mdment that he should be in a capacity to discharge
them. That when these Resolutions, formed into an
Address, were presented to his Royal Highness the
Prince, the *securities for the fulfillment of them by
futtire statutary provisions would, as his Right Hon.
Friend (Mr. Sheridan) had said, be placed on the
Very basis on which the liberties of the people were
secbred at the Revolution. He said, he had given
the fullest consideration to the grounds on which he
had acted iii 1788, and had ,reviewed with Much
anxiety all the arguments, and learning and authors
ties, Which that period had afforded--that he was
perfectly convinced now, as he had been then, that
Address was the true constitutional course I that all
limitations on the PrerogatiVe art unconstitutional ;
that the Prerogatives of the Crown were trusts for
the benefit of the people ; and that they could not in
the person of a Regent, any more than in the person
►of a King, be' abridged, impaired, or limited in one
single point, without a violation of that mdst sacred
Kr:4oe. That in whatever shape the question came,
&Vs, es nub an atteltpt tits most strenaout