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

. Gentlemen, that when the two Houses
vent direct the individual possessing the
,A 1 to put the Great Seal to an instrument,
't of legislation! It' is true that the one case
and distinctly intelligible, and that the other
•overed over and obscure,.but the things are
the same notwithstandmg. The authority
egent to order the Great Seal to be affixed to
instrument would be transferred through the
ises of Parliament. It would not he the
of the Regent, but the authority of the two
tf Parliament. One way or the other it must
of the Legislature. Igo on, Sh-, to con-
manner in which the two different measures
would be accomplished. In a case of this
in is it nothing to preclude any proposition
la carried into effect by a single vote ? On
in which is no less than to put the royal an-
ito other hands, ought we not to guard our
igs with as much deliberation as possible ?
Gentlemen opposite propose, is to transfer
Lc regal authority by a single vote. Am I
-stand that the proposers of the address are
transfer the whole power of theCrowNwith-
qualification,or reserve; or that in this mode
ding by address, it is intended to specify
it or qualification in the body of the Ad-
It appeared to me, Sir, that I received the
assent of the Committee whenll said, that it
lecessary to provide. means by which his Majesty
resume the Raga: Authority on his recovery.
to make a Regent without such a provision ?
to leave him to advisers who may mislead
r Regents may be misled as well as Kings ?
then to leave all these points solely to the
and consideration of the Regent's advisers ?
this be a fair execution of our double trust ?
iarticularly, would it be a fair execution of that
lur trust by which we are bound to secure
tajesty, on his restoration to health, the resto-
' his undiminished authority ? I am persuad-
that no one will suppose, either in the obser-
which I had made, or in ;he observations
shall make, that I mean any thing incompa-
li the utmost possible respect for the charac-
is Royal Highness the Prince of Wales.—
me remind those who are now willing to
immediate power in the hands of his Royal
is, in the strict confidence that that power
tot be abused, what have been their sentiments
far subjects. If it were a question which re-
his Royal Highness's character, I would say
lose Gentlemen appreciate that character as
as it deserves to be appreciated ; let them ap-
s it as highly as their imaginations will permit
the higher they establish, the higher they raise
yal Highness's character, the more cautious
'c to be not to establish a precedent of power
ig into the hands of an officer, not from a
-ation of the difficulties which would attend a
itation of that power, but from the merits of
,idual on whom it is conferred. In propor-
those merits are distinguished, ought 'we to
ious in onr proceedings, lest we legislate bene-
, perhaps, for the present age, but, for what
ww, most injuriously for future ages. Let the
ittee consider, Sir, how far it might be safe to
ich a principle to be established as that asser-
the Gentlemen opposite. If in a future period
lritish history, the Monarch should be afflicted
calamity similar to that which his Majesty
unhappily enduring, and if the apparent suc-
to the throne at the period I am imagining
be of a character the reverse of that of his
Highness the Prince of Wales, how invidious,
tngerons would the duty of Parliament become.
~uch a precedent, they could not ideny that it
been deemed wise in such a case, to invest with
ad immediate power ; they must therefore be
'3roadly to state, that that which was wise in
ign of George 111. was not wise itt the period'
ich they lived. I challenge any person, there-
shew that character will justify a departure
to principles of wise legislation, whatever may
opinion of other persons upon other parts of
thject—Whether they consider the restraints as
iany or too few—whether they consider the li-
tons as too much or too little determined, I call
them to resist the adoption of a measure by
the possibility of ategative would almost be
led. An appeal has been made to the prece-
if the Revolution ; but the circumstances are
different. At the period of the Revolution
touse itPl recollect that other Monarch was
.on the 'Throne. The rone was then vacant ;
not so now. Now a new office is to be created ;
suly an old one was to be filled up. The cases
from being parallel, and the reasoning that is
,ed from the one, is inapplicable to the other. An
%table Gentleman the other evening adverted to
ddress from the Parliament of Ireland to his
Highness the Prince of Wales in 1788, and con-
that after the Union the precedents of one Par-
tl were as good as those of another. With respect
different situations of Ireland and 'of Great
in at that period, I will not enter into any dis-
in, hut I beg leave to make a remark on the
,arative validity of the precedent brought for-
by the Honourable Gentleman, and that ad-
by myself. I have shewn how the Parliament of
Britain acted upon the result of an examination
history and Constitution of the country, and
the precedent which they then established has
A confirmed by the proceedings of subsequent
liaments. Did any such confirmation take place
Irish Parliament ? The Lord Lieutenant of
day was the Marquis of Buckingham. When
tressed by the two Irish Houses of Parliament with
view of transmitting their Address to his Royal
ghness the Prince of Wales, his Lordship hesitated
conveying the Address to his Royal Highness.
After the recovery of his Majesty did the Irish
arnent adopt any proceeding against the Noble
? Was even a Vote of Censure passed against.
And can the Honourable Gentleman conceive i
this weakly established precedent of the Irish
-liament is to be put in competition with the piece-
,of the British Parliament *ith all its various
sanctions? I have endeavoured, Sir, to go through the
leading points of the question before us, and to shew
grounds of the preference which I feel for that side
i!which I espouse. I trust I have redeemed the pledge
'filch I gave on a former night, that I would prove
was nothing in the measure that I intended to
Pt.opose, in the slightest degree derogatory to the Con-
Nution, or 'in' the, slightest degree offensive to his

.le
.far Ferne,
t Seal
an act 0
tyarfT
*little col
'set,' the
Rego
public IT
, House!
,thority of
t oases of
an act of
, er the Ina
pond we
.ption
it ur being
eestion
3 I •
h °dry into
dings
t the (
ic whole r
, odersta
ing to tr
,tlirnit, (11
limit c
, .ss ? It
s necessa
ight restt
n re to I
re we tO
• Int for R
•ia re we the
;scion; and
ould this
ore partil
► rt of our
: • his Maje
;ion of hi
Sir, tha
4tions wh
• hich Ish
ible with t
of his
t let mi
trost imi
ighness,
ould not
3.
n similar
h ted to hi:
• let thost
ghly as i
• eciate it
em ; the
is Royal
ght we t
evolving.
h. Insideratt
st limital
le individ
'on as tho
cantiou
daily,
e know,
OMMittCI
• 'lifer suet
by the
the Brit
.
Ith a ca
• now unl
sor to
ould be
in opal Hi
.ow dang
kit sue,
d been
s„ full and it
to
driven In(
the
reign
ie. at which
g fore, to st
t.
from the
be the opi
the sithe
Le
WO Than'
le '
mitations
re
upon th(
se
which th
a
excluded
5
dent of tl
e
wholly di
a
the Hous
placeu of
ss
it is si.‘t
a then mil)
are far fr
derived f
ci
If,
nema
• the Addi
Royal I-1
t.
tended tl
to
(lament
to the d
e,
Britain
CUSS:On,
• compara
t *aril by
duced it
Great lii
of he 11'
how the
Iseen co
Parliam
in the I
o that day
o address
the vies
Is
; in cony
But afte
L. Parliam
Lord ?
Kim ? ./1
at th'
Pathan
dent of
a sanctior
leading
r tite go'
of it whi
which l
there w
Popou
ititutia
•