Star.
London, England, 1810-12-21 00:00:00

Royal Hightless.the Prittee of Wale* I declare, that
if in my own opinion complete and unlimited power
ought to be given to the Prince of Wales, I should
still contend that it ought to be given by Bill, and
not by Address. I cannot conceive the possibility of
a supposition being entertained that a proceeding by
Bill would contain a reflection on his Royal Highness
j from which a proceeding by Address would be freed
His Royal Highness claims no right ; it he did, both.
I modes would necessarily be offensive to him. On all
these considerations, I trust that the Committee will
consider the course which I have taken the liberty to
recommend to them as one which, combining in itself
I advantages that are not presented by any other line of
conduct, is intitled to their support and adoption.
t ( Loud cries of Hear, hear, hear.)
The first Resolution was then read and agreed to.
The second Resolution was next read.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT rose, and said, that
as his Majesty's Ministers were so anxious to recur to
precedents, he wished that they had looked back to
old precedents, and not confined themselves to prece
dents of late years: He wished they had looked back
to those precedents which furnish men'ss mind with
the best pools of the virtues and purity of our ances-
tors, and not to those of late days, which were only
precedents to skew how pertinacious men can hold
and keep their places. .The preposition now submit-
ted is one which very naturally emanates from a mo-
dern Miniiter of State ; it tells the world what he

wishes them to believe, that this House " is a full,

fair, and free representation of the People." It is no
such thing. He (Sir Francis) never thought so ;he
never could do that violence to his undetstanding to
allow himself to be duped into such a base belief or
supposition—he would not allow his perception and
knowledge to be so hoodwinked. It kas done so
many acts that he never could allow himself to
imagine that a free representatiOn of the people would
have ever attempted. How often has it been asserted,i
and even by petitions and addresses on the table of
the House, that evidence could be brought to the bar,
to prove that it was not a full, fair, or free represen-
tation of the people ? Is it sot on the records of the
House, that a majority therein is obtained by the di-
rect influence of about 150 or 144 Peers ?—(At these
words there was a mixture of laughing on the Oppo-
sition side, and of coughing on the Treasury side of the
House.) He was not surprised tha; Gentlemen were
unwilling to hear their own integrity called in ques.
tion ; they had, however, been guilty of conduct
which lost them the confidence of the country, and
, with this firm conviction on his mind, which no cia-

mour could remove, he felt it his duty to protest
against the proceedings proposed by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. It had been said that the. present
melancholy state of the country was analogous to that
of the year 1788, and upon this proposition all the
measures which were deemed proper at that period
were again brought' forward. In his estimation the
House had not to reason upon the analogy, but upon
the emergency of the case. What were the facts at the
time of the revolution ? The incapacity of the reigning'
King was admitted, that incapacity did not however
arise from illness but from a despotic exercise of these
laws which were meant for the protection, and not for
the destruction, of the people. Upon this ground,
it was deemed expedient to supply his place, not by
a Regent, trammelled by the chains of a designing
Ministry, but possessed with full powers, to act ac-
cording to the best of his judgment for the welfare
of the State. At the present crisis, the incapacity of
the Sovereign was admitted, arising from an affliction
which was universally and sincerely lamented. How-
ever painful the consideration of the melancholy cause
which led to the incapacity of his Majesty might be,
there was a duty to perform to the country which
ought not to be neglected. The Right Honourable
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said
that the Throne was not vacant. If this assertion
was true, why did he not prove it by some act of the
Executive Power ? In truth there was little or no
difference between the state of the country, as it was
at the present moment destitute of a King, and its
state at the time of the revolution. It was equally
necessary that the Not* office should be filled not
lby a Regent circumscribed in his powers, but by one,
in the full possession of all those means which the
King himself, when competent to the discharge of
{his duties, possessed. He would ask the Right Hon.
Gentleman, by what means he could prove that an
act of the House as they were then assembled could
be considered as unconstitutional, when it was prov-
ed that the Executive Power, from which all the
power of the House flowed, was not in existence, and
without the concurrence of which they could not le-
gally carry into execution any one Act. He did not
in fact see how the Right Hon. Gentleman could
contend with anS, degree of credit, that by the adop.
tion of the measures proposed, the House would not
be totally subverting.the Constitution. In 1688, the
opinion of the Citizens of London and of a large
body of the country, was considered essential before
the measures then adopted were carried into effect,
whereas upon the present occasion there had not been,
My appeal whatever, beyond the Members of the
House. At their will alone, and by their power, was
an acct to be performed, in which the vital interests of
the nation were so deeply concerned. lie could not
witness such conduct without feelings of the greatest
indignation. When he took a retrospect of past
events, he only was amazed at the presumption
with which the House was about to act. Could
he forget, or could the world forget, that it' was
in evidence before the House, that Members had
been turned out of their seats for not voting in favour
of the views of the Right Honourable Gentleman
Could he forget that a Noble Lord, and even dm
Right lion. Gentleman himself bad -been publiclf
accused of bartering the patronage of Government
[ for seats in Parliament ? Could he forget that the
IHouse of Commons allowed a public accournant,
(Lord Melville) to 'refuse with the utmost effron.,
tery, to give an account of his disposition of thel
public money ? And yet the catalogue of -their
offences did not terminate there. The disgraceful
!result of the inquiry 'into thee fatal Expedition to,
Valcheren, gave new grounds for public animad-
version, and excited new causes for regarding the
Parliament with distrust. He had heard various
terms of odium applied to different Parliaments.-r-
There was the Long Parliament, the Rump Parlia-
ment, and so forth—and some years hence, he had no
doubt, the present Parliament would he stigmativ
with the name of the indnieren Pert- (I
ter. )—However