207

demise, but I do know, that the ideas comprehended under theseterms are as perfectly intelligible as those which are comprehendedunder the terms natural demise.

“ I am not, My Lords, here to be told that the throne is notvacant; I know that it is full, and that the powers of him whofills it are not dead but dormant, not extinguished but suspended;and therefore it is that the demise I am contending for is notnatural but civil, not absolute but conditional, not permanent buttemporary.

“ It is a maxim, we are told, in law — That the King nevercan become incompetent to the exercise of the kingly office. Itis not my intention to question law-maxims, which are generallyfounded in great wisdom; but I must be allowed to say, that weare at this very mpment denying in fact that integrity of kingshipwhich we are establishing in words. For what is this politiccapacity of the King which always remains entire, what but thecapacity of executing the office of a King ? It is that body politicof the King which is styled immortal. But in appointing aRegent, we certainly disunite the body politic of the King fromhis body natural, and we annex it for the time to the bodynatural of the Prince of Wales. Thus we in fact subvert themaxim of the law on which so much verbal stress has beenlaid. This civil demise of the Crown, which I am firmly ofopinion has now unhappily taken place, differs not, I think,from a natural demise as to the quantum of power which oughtto be transferred to the successor; but it differs from it as tothe mode by which it is acquired, and as to the tenure by whichit is held.