whole was a scheme, under the pretence of pronouncing his majesty recovered, to bring back an insane king. Those who conceived, that the proof of a man having recovered his understanding was to depend on affidavits and entries, forgot that a sane king naturally courted public inspection, and was desirous of being examined and that his recovery should be established to the conviction of his subjects.

Mr. Burke reiterated his objections to the bill, and laid great stress on the circumstance of the House of Brunswick being excluded from any share of the guardianship of the king's person. He declared he did not suspect the queen of being capable of acting improperly, but, as a public man, it was his duty to suspect situations and temptations, that might pervert the purest mind, and draw it aside from the straight path of rectitude, and thus render her majesty the tool of ambitious men. He reprobated the bill on account of its malevolent aspect, in excluding the House of Brunswick, and for its malicious attempt to guard against evils from a quarter whence none were expected to come, and laying a quarter open whence they were most to be dreaded. The House, he said, had proceeded step after step, and been led on to do that, which, if proposed altogether, would, he was persuaded, have been rejected by every man of honour. Like Macbeth, who, after having murdered Duncan and Banquo, exclaimed,

I am in blood

Stept in so far, that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o'er —

they found themselves inclined to proceed, from not daring to trace back their steps. Mr. Burke added, that he had thought it necessary to throw out this preliminary series of loose remarks, not doubting but if they were coolly and seriously attended to, they would call forth those of men of greater abilities than himself, and that like the man who first raised a spark, he should see that spark kindle into a flame hereafter.

The bill was read a second time without a division.

February 7.

THE House went into a committee on the regency bill. When the clause was read, by which it is enjoined, that the regent shall bind himself by oath, to take care of the personal safety of the king to the utmost of his power and ability, and to govern according to the stipulations and restrictions recited in the bill,

.

Mr. BURKE said, that when he compared this clause with another in the same bill, he felt a persuasion that the framers of it intended it not only as a mockery of the Prince of Wales, but as an insult to common sense; for he found that the prince, who was not to be entrusted with the custody of the royal person, was to swear that he would protect it; whilst those who were in fact to have the care of his majesty, were not to be called upon to give any pledge whatever for the faithful discharge of the trust committed to them. He admitted that it was unlikely the person of the king should be in any danger from the queen; but it was just as unlikely that there should be any cause for apprehension of danger to him from his son; and therefore both or neither should be bound to give the security of an oath for the protection of the royal person. As the bill then stood, common sense must revolt at it; for the person who was actually to have the care of his majesty, was left free from all engagements relative to the safety of the king; and the regent, who was to have no power over his majesty's person, was to swear that he would take care of him! Nay, the very persons who were to be appointed counsellors to the queen, were not to enter into any engagement of this nature; for the oath which they were to take, was totally silent on this head, as appeared from the form of it, which he read as follows: "I A. B. do solemnly promise and swear, that I will truly and faithfully counsel and advise the queen's most excellent majesty, according to the best of my judgement, in all matters touching the care of his majesty's royal person, and the disposing, ordering, and managing all things relating thereto. So help me God."

In this oath, Mr. Burke observed, there was not one word about the personal safety of the monarch; and though these counsellors were to be appointed to advise her majesty touching the care of the king, they were not bound by the oath to consult the safety of his person in the advice that they should give. Thus was the Prince of Wales to be compelled to enter into engagements, in themselves nugatory and absurd, because the person, whom by these engagements he was bound to protect, was taken out of his power; and the queen and her counsellors, who could alone protect that royal person, because they alone were to have the custody and care of him, were left free from those very engagements which were to be forced upon the prince. Thus was an oath imposed where it could be of no use, and omitted where alone it was necessary. Sense and decency would therefore require, either that the prince should not be bound to take this oath, or that it should be taken also by the queen and her counsellors.

He said that the objection which he had been hitherto stating to the committee, was not the only one that occurred to him. He thought that the oath ought not to stand at the head of the bill, because the things to which a person was called upon to swear, ought to precede the oath, that he might know to what he was going to swear, otherwise the prince might be put into as aukward a predicament as the persons who were bound to swear to an &c. &c. Besides, there was something very new in the form of this oath, which was to be taken by the prince: he was to swear (exclusively of any thing that related to the safety of the king's person) that he would maintain all the provisions of the bill then before the committee. What was the reason for confining the oath to that particular bill? Why did it differ from the coronation oath, which had a general view? By that the prince was bound to govern according to the laws of the land. When the bill, actually under discussion, should have passed into an act, then it would become one of the laws of the land, and would of course be included in that general oath. But something

insidious was meant by this proceeding, or it would not have been marked by such a departure from the established rules and customs.

The clause was agreed to. To the clause in the bill, which restrained the regent from creating peers, Mr. Jolliffe moved an amendment, by limiting the duration of this restraint to the 1st of February, 1790. The amendment was supported by Lord North. Mr. Pitt remarked, that he disapproved of the amendment, on the same ground which induced him to oppose it when the resolution had been under discussion in the committee on the state of the nation. The noble lord had just urged the same reasons against it, which he had then answered, and therefore he should not repeat his arguments over again.

Mr. BURKE said, he should not scruple to declare that he had always doubted the intentions of the proposer of the resolutions, when he induced the House to pass them. He had stated his fears at the time, that it was intended by prevailing on the two Houses of parliament previously to pledge themselves, to force them to abandon their deliberative capacity hereafter; and those fears were now fully verified. The right honourable gentleman had declared, that unless any thing new was stated, he would say no more upon the subject. One right honourable gentleman had lamented the absence of his right honourable friend, Mr. Fox, a thousand times. Mr. Burke said, he comparatively had reason to lament it ten thousand times. If the right honourable gentleman had lamented the absence of a general, the ablest that ever conducted an opposition army, what ought not his lamentation to be! The right honourable gentleman had a high sense of the phalanx that he fought with. If he ran, he knew he ran with kings. He therefore thought nothing of conquering their irregular army, without their general to lead them. The right honourable gentleman reminded him of Montecuculli, who, on the death of Marshal Turenne, broke his staff, and said he would fight no more, because he had no enemy left that was worthy to cope with. Mr. Burke adverted to the

period of history to which he alluded, and stated facts apposite to his argument, declaring that he wished the right honourable gentleman a happy retirement, conscious as he was that he was opposing an adversary that could ruin him, and who chose that day to conquer, as all good generals would wish to do, without risking a battle. Mr. Burke said, that whether he could produce any thing new or not, he should certainly acquit his conscience, and endeavour to do his duty.

He desired, in the first place, to be shewn when, in any regency bill prior to the present, there had been a limitation of peers? He contended, that the present limitation must be proposed, on a suspicion that the prince would abuse his trust; or that his royal highness's friends were such men as were suspicious; or, from the affected motive that the king would be hurt, if, upon his recovery, he found a change of tables, chairs, and stools about his person; for it was not less absurd to suppose one thing than the other. Mr. Burke, in order to exemplify his argument that the king had, at various times, suffered different men, and at different periods, to increase the peerage, went through a list of the various administrations of late years. He first mentioned the Marquis of Rockingham, whose power, he observed, had been as large as his heart, and yet, that noble marquis, in whose footsteps the present Whigs professed to tread, was extremely sparing of grants of peerages. Why then should it be supposed that they would deviate from an example which they took for their model, when they wished to recommend themselves to the good opinion of the public?

In this part of his speech, Mr. Burke suffered his natural warmth to hurry him into a violent invective against the supporters of the bill. He imputed their insisting on such a restriction as the one under consideration, to the blackness of their hearts, and the rooted degree of their malignity. With regard to the probable prodigal making of peers, Mr. Burke said it was a slander. The motives could not be formed from the prince, because those who