214

which he sets his hand to, announces to every man in the king-dom, that the Crown still rests on the head of his father. Hewill differ, too, from a King in another point, in what is themost essential point of royalty, — in permanency of possession.

“ But it is contended in particular, that the power of creatingPeers should not be given to the Regent. What! is this highprerogative, then, useless or pernicious to the state ? No, it willbe said, it is a prerogative productive of public good, when exer-cised by a King; but productive of public mischief, when exer-cised by a Regent. My Lords, there is no manner of foundationfor this reasoning, when the Regent is the Heir Apparent.There might be some foundation for it, was the Queen theRegent; was the Duke of York the Regent; and much more,was any other person the Regent; because every other person inthe kingdom, except the Heir Apparent, might be supposed tohave a private interest, diverse from, and opposite to the publicgood. Peers might be made in attention to this private interest,but this cannot be supposed concerning a Prince of Wales. Tosay that a Prince of Wales can have any interest in view distinctfrom the public interest, is to say that he is absolutely unfit forthe government of the country,—an assertion not more reprobatedby the law, than, without meaning any flattery to His RoyalHighness, I believe it to be false in fact.

“ But, it has been said, if the Prince of Wales is allowed thepower of making peers, he may infringe the rights of the reign-ing monarch, and the King, on his return to his parliament, mayfind this House filled with the friends of the Prince of Wales, andwith the enemies of the reigning Sovereign. Good God ! MyLords, is it possible that so uncandid and illiberal a suspicion —