fubfifting of the prefent illuftrious race of Princes, who born and educated in this country would glory in the name of Briton. It may be asked, What probability is there that fuch an event should ever take place? I anfwer, the probability is not fo diftant or ideal as may be generally imagined, confidering the great increase of the Royal Family fince the acceffion of his present Majefty; for were the marriage of the Prince of Wales to take place, and were daughters only to arife from fuch marriage, according to the prefent law of fucceffion the eldest daughter of his Royal Highness, in whatever part of the world she might be fettled, or to what Prince or private fubject foever fhe might be united, without an express act of exclufion, would become Queen of England. It is eafy to imagine a variety of fimilar cafes, by which the imperial Crown of these realms might be tranf mitted from family to family, as private eftates are feen to do every day under the operation of the fame general law of inheritance. In order to establish an effectual remedy for this great political defect in our conftitution, I would humbly propofe a revival of the wife and falutary Act of Henry IV. a new Act of Settlement, limiting the fucceffion of the Crowns of Great Britain and Ireland to the heirs male of his Majefty now reigning; and this must be allowed to be a juncture peculiarly favourable to fuch limitation, as it is not in any degree probable that the Princeffes of

the

the Royal House now living can receive any injury from it; and he must be a very fcrupulous politician indeed who fhould found an objection against a measure fo beneficial, upon the lofs which may be eventually fuftained in confequence of it by perfons yet unborn. Indeed, my recollection does not fuggeft to to me any objections which have even a colour of plausibility; but as weak arguments are entitled to fome degree of regard, when more forcible ones are not to be found, it may perhaps be worth while to bestow a moment's attention upon these that follow, which are the best I am able to frame in this cafe.

ift, It may be faid, that as the monarchy has fubfifted fo long, and flourished fo greatly under the prefent form, it would be rafh and unadvifable to make important innovations upon fpeculative confiderations; at least, as there is no immediate profpect of danger, there can be no immediate neceffity for alteration. In answer to this vague and general objection I do not hesitate to acknowledge, that the monarchy has long fubfifted and flourished, notwithstanding that great defect in its conftitution which I have pointed out; but what then? Are we entitled to infer from this acknowledgment that the defect in question has been productive of no inconvenience to the State? far from it. We know that the long and bloody contefts between the two great rival Houses

of

of York and Lancaster originated from this fource. We know that fince the termination of those fatal divifions, we have at various times, and in divers inftances, been exposed to the most imminent danger by an abfurd attachment to the fame antiquated and impolitic maxim. We know that by an obftinate adherence to it, the Crown may, in the space of a very few years, be transferred from the present Royal Family into the poffeffion of a Prince who may be an utter stranger to our laws, language and conftitution, in which cafe the native Princes-of the House of Brunswick would no doubt become the objects of his perpetual jealoufy, hatred and perfecution; and these furely are fufficient grounds for adopting a regulation, which appears equally favourable to the grandeur of the monarch, and the felicity of the people. “But "there is no immediate danger, therefore no im"ediate neceflity." What! are we to wait till the danger becomes imminent, and perhaps irresistible, before we attempt to apply the remedy? Does the phyfician delay the application of the medicine till the very moment that he expects the return of the paroxyfm? In political as in private life the feelings cannot be fet in oppofition to the understanding, without experiencing a very senfible inconvenience; if, according to the dilatory maxims of these cautious politicians, we were to abftain from applying a remedy till the danger became near and preffing, and a bill of exclufion, or

fome

fome measure equally violent, was then to be propofed, it is evident that the feelings of the people would be powerfully interested in favour of the particular individual against whom that particular measure fhould be directed; and it would certainly be regarded as a fpecies of perfonal injuftice, to which the most important confiderations relative to the public welfare would fearcely be thought to give a fufficient fanction.

But, 2dly, It may poffibly be objected by fome, that the perpetuation of the royal dignity in the fame family must have a tendency to imprefs upon the minds of the people a fuper. ftitious awe and veneration for the person of the monarch, and ultimately to revive and fofter the long exploded notions of indefeasible right, paffive obedience, non-resistance, and that long train of abfurdities which feems naturally to flow from the idea fo readily embraced by the vulgar, that the perfon of the chief magistrate is in fome peculiar fenfe facred and inviolable. I answer, that though I am difpofed to pay every degree of refpect to an objection which appears to arife from a jealous attachment to the cause of liberty, this apprehenfion feems to me fo very far fetched and fanciful, that it can fcarcely be deemed entitled to a serious anfwer. Would the objector really be willing to incur all the inconveniencies fo obviously refulting from a transfer of the Crown to a new and foreign family, for the poffible ad

vantage

vantage of fortifying the minds of the people against Tory prejudices? If fo, he is a bold fpeculatift indeed. But what probability, or poffibility I might say, is there, that arbitrary principles can ever become prevalent, whilft this kingdom con. tinues under the government of a race of Princes who must neceffarily found their authority upon the basis of civil and religious liberty? The Revolution is an event which can never be forgotten in the annals of English history; and as long as the memory of it is preferved, fo long muft it be felt and acknowledged, that the genius of our conftitution is irreconcilably at variance with the spirit of defpotifm. It is well known to be an eftablished maxim of our Government, that the King can do no wrong; and a wifer maxim no Government ever adopted. Now, arguing upon the principles which an over-anxious caution might fuggeft, how eafy would it be pompously to declaim against the political abfurdity and dangerous tendency of this maxim! yet we fee that it is regarded as a mere political fiction, that no inconvenience in fact refults from it; but on the contrary, that it is productive of very fignal advantages. So if an uninterrupted fucceffion of princes of the prefent illuftrious family were to fill the British throne for centuries to come, there is no room to apprehend that the doctrine of an indefeasible hereditary right would receive the least countenance from it. Public utility would fufficiently

K