Answer to the 
 
 Considerations on the 
 
 Establishment of a 
 
 Regency
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 ANSWER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS 
 
 ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 
 
 A REGENCY. 
 
 THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED FOR J. DEBKETT, OPPOSITE BURLINGTON- 
 HOUSE, PICCADILLY. 
 
 MDCCLXXXVIU*
 
 ANSWER, &c. 
 
 r E ^HE author of the Confiderations on the 
 -* Eftablifhment of a Regency, if his 
 object had really been that which he pro- 
 fefles in his ;2d page, namely, " to contri- 
 " bute to fettle, on conftitutional principles, 
 *' a tranfiidtion which is intereftino: to our 
 
 o 
 
 <f prefent happinefs," {hould have firft well 
 informed himfelf what the principles of the 
 conftitution are, to which the prefent ftate of 
 affairs are applicable, and well ftudied thofe 
 precedents that bear any analogy to the exifl> 
 ing fituation, or to that conftitution which 
 he admits (page 5,) ft has been changed by 
 '*' the revolution of fo many ages." That 
 the author has not qualified himfelf for 
 the tafk he has undertaken, muft be evident 
 B to 
 
 1415190
 
 ( * ) 
 
 to all thofe who have read his pamphlet, and 
 looked over the precedents he relies upon j 
 unlefs they fuppofe, that not his ignorance, 
 but his intereft, has tefnpted him to endea- 
 vour to miflead the public. I {hall there- 
 fore endeavour to point out the fallacy of his 
 Statement, and of the arguments he makes ufe 
 of in fupport of his do&irine, and give fuch 
 reafons as have convinced me that the prin- 
 ciples he lays down as a bafis on which to 
 eftablifh a temporary government on confti- 
 tutional principles, arenotonly not ibundand 
 conflitutional, but grounded on the word 
 and mod dangerous policy, and unfupport- 
 ed by any precedents applicable to the pre- 
 fent cafe ; and that the fyftem of government, 
 if practicable, is not necejffary to fecure thofe 
 plaufible ends which he endeavours to per- 
 fuade the public are attainable by no other 
 means. 
 
 The profefTed object of the pamphlet is, 
 to fecure the rights of the crown from ima- 
 ginary dangers arifing from the necefTary 
 transfer of its authority to a Regent, during 
 the melancholy incapacity of its owner to 
 
 execute
 
 ( 3 > 
 
 execute his royal functions, and to infinu- 
 ate to the public, that this obje<fl cannot be 
 fccured if the whole authority is transferred. 
 The author in his argument fupppofes (what 
 is not true) that the two houfes, in their 
 prefent crippled ftate, without a head, or 
 vital principle, are a perfect and complete 
 legislature, competent to make new provifi- 
 ons, better fitted to the exigencies of the 
 moment than the common law of the land 
 has provided , and he fuppofes, that in the 
 cafe of a defect in the royal capacity, fhort 
 of death, the whole kingly power falls im- 
 mediately to the people ; and by a fingular 
 application of the laws of falling bodies, re- 
 bounds into the hands of the two remaining 
 branches of a maimed legiflaturej for in 
 page 10, he fays, that " it remains with the 
 " people toexercife this power which they 
 ' have referred;" and then ingem'oufly 
 finds, that though the people had not dele- 
 gated this power to their constituents, from, 
 whom it pafles to them by refervation, yet 
 their conftituents alone, from whom it is 
 referved, can exercife this power, and not 
 B 2 the
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 the perfons who have refcrved it ; but the 
 premifes are falfe, and his cpnclufion ridi- 
 culous and unlogical. He then proceeds 
 boldly to affert, that " the degree of au- 
 " thority which it may be neceflary to grant, 
 *' cannot be claimed as a right, but muft be 
 " conferred as a truftj" and grounds this 
 doctrine on the following arguments, that 
 " during the life of a Britifh king, no man 
 " can claim an hereditary right to the exer- 
 " cife of royal power nemo eft bares viven- 
 " tlo ;" which he fays " is equally appli- 
 " cable to every defcription of right and 
 " property;" and he endeavours to fortify 
 his doctrine, by a reference to the revolu- 
 tion, and other precedents in more ancient 
 times. In anfwer to this affertion I venture 
 to afTert, not only that a claim may be made 
 to the exercife of royal authority during the 
 temporary incapacity of the legal owner, but 
 that the peace, tranquillity, and unity of 
 this empire, depends on the maintenance and 
 acknowledgement of that claim. Nemo eft 
 hares viventio is certainly a maxim of law, 
 though not applicable to a king, who, by as 
 
 old
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 old a maxim of the fame law, never dies ; 
 the maxim thus applied, is certainly out of 
 its place ; but even in its application to pri- 
 vate property, it is not fo inflexible a rule as 
 to admit no exception j for a foil becomes 
 heir to his living father, who renounces 
 wordiy affairs by monadic vows and engage- 
 ments. How far, if releafed from thofe 
 vows and engagements, he coul^i refume his 
 intereft in his transferred property, is imme- 
 terial; certain it is, that during his legal 
 incapacity, he is dead in law; and his heir or 
 executor may maintain actions as fuch, even 
 during his natural life. This formidable 
 argument, therefore, has no ground to reft 
 upon ; but it would even be defective in its 
 application, if it hadbeenunexceptionably true 
 as a maxim ; for in the prefent cafe, there is 
 no queftion of fucceffion as heir to the full in- 
 defeaiible right to the crown, but during its 
 incapacity, to the full exercife of the autho- 
 rity belonging to it for the public good, not 
 given (in the phrafe of the author, page 8,) 
 " for the advantage of any individual family, 
 " however entitled to our gratitude and ve- 
 
 " neration."
 
 r 6 ) 
 
 * neration." It is a right inherent in the 
 prince of Wales, of full age, as guardian 
 apparent, as well as heir apparent to the 
 kingdom, more interefled than any perfon 
 to preferve the unity of empire, and the in- 
 tegrity of the conftitution ; to fee that no 
 new forms of government he introduced by 
 interfted men, to change, or difcredir, and 
 weaken the reverence due to the eftablifhed 
 monarchical form of government, and make 
 elective the authority of an hereditary mo- 
 narchy, which the author of the Confidera- 
 tions flatters himfelf he fhall perfuade the 
 public becomes naturally elective, on the 
 principles of hereditary fucceffion. The 
 author, well knowing the almoft religious 
 veneration the public juftly have for the 
 principles of the revolution, wimes to per- 
 fuade them, that there is ibme analogy be- 
 tween the principles of the revolution, and 
 the principles he has laid down : to prove 
 any analogy between the fituation and con- 
 duel of the convention of that time, and of 
 the prefent, he muft find that the fituation 
 of James II. who had broke the original 
 
 compact,
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 compaft, and by acts of defpotifm forfeited 
 liis crown, which by the forfeiture became 
 no longer defcendable, but was declared corri- 
 pleatly vacant, was fimilar to the fituation 
 of a monarch who has refpected the rights 
 of his people, but is for the prefent rendered 
 unable, by the melancholy ftate of his 
 health, from exercifing the functions of his 
 royal office; he muft likewife fhow that a 
 prince of Wales, of full age, undifputed 
 heir to the crown, is to be regarded as a 
 child, called by fome, prince of Wales, and 
 whofe royal birth was denied by the great- 
 eft part of the kingdom. It is in vain to 
 attempt to aflimulate the fituations, and it 
 will be equally in vain to fearch for princi- 
 ples in the revolution, which can fupport the 
 doftiine of the author of the Confiderations. 
 Every principle deducible from that period, 
 which can have any relation to the prefent 
 fituation, militates againft the author's po- 
 fitions. The opinions of both parties at that 
 time, contending with the utmoft zeal, for, 
 and againft, the declaration of the vacancy of 
 the throne, proves the acknowledged maxim, 
 
 that
 
 ( 8 ) 
 
 that unlefs the throne had been forfeited 
 completely, and declared perfectly vacant, 
 they could not, as a convention^ alter the 
 hereditary fucceffion. Hence arofe the great 
 earneftnefs on each fide, the one to main- 
 tain, the other to get rid of the declaration 
 of the vacancy of the throne; both agreeing, 
 that king James had loft his perfonal right 
 to the exercife of his authority j but difa- 
 greeing in the terms in which it mould be 
 exprefTed, becaufe their concealed views 
 were different ; the one party determined to 
 involve in the father's forfeiture the doubt- 
 ful heir, who would add to the dangers of 
 a difputed birth, thofe arifmg from a popim 
 education, the other wimlng to adhere to 
 the lineal fucceffion, and to enter into the 
 examination of the doubful birth ; though 
 the fubtlety with which they urged on the 
 one fide, and evaded on the other, the open 
 avowal of their intentions, this maxim ap- 
 pears manifeft, that the limple removal or 
 fuipenfion of the father's authority, could 
 not bar the fon's right; and that nothing 
 vefled a power to fupply the deferted throne 
 
 by
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 by an election, but its total vacancy, thofe 
 who maintained Kie vacancy, denied that 
 they made the crown elective, by filling a 
 throne fundamentally vacant, which muft 
 remain vacant, if no election, pro hac vice, 
 took place ; but they profefled neither to 
 have the power, nor wifli, to alter the 
 hereditary monarchical conftitution of the 
 land ; nor did they profefs to abridge, 
 or alter the legal powers of the crown; 
 they did not indulge their imaginations, 
 in forming new fyftems of government $ 
 they ftipplied the throne with no no- 
 vel fceptre, but by a King, known, de- 
 fined, and limited by the antient laws of 
 the land. They found the firft and moft 
 important branch of the legiflature abdi- 
 cated; they found themfelves thereby maim- 
 ed, and unfit for the execution of their 
 trufl; they eftablimed and confirmed the 
 loft exigence of the authority of the crown, 
 in the perfon of an elected king : thus far, 
 and no further, could they act as a conven- 
 tion, and no further did they attempt to 
 C act.
 
 aft. The king fo elected, became a king 
 defafto; and the aft of Henry VII. gave 
 him power and authority 5 it required a 
 fubfequent aft of the legiflature to limit 
 the fucceffion in the manner defired, with- 
 out which it was known, that the wifhes of 
 the people, in the limitation, could not 
 have the weight of law. This I take to be 
 the clear ftate of the principles of the Re- 
 volution, as far as they are applicable to the 
 prefent cafe; in many points they cannot be 
 applied ; the throne cannot now, as then, 
 be declared vacant ; for there is no forfei- 
 ture. Upon the principles of the Revolu- 
 tion, this convention can only find, as a jury, 
 who the perfon is who legally fills the place, 
 during the melancholy occafion that flag- 
 nates the vital energy of the conflitution ; 
 they mud fill it according to the law of the 
 land, which nothing but a full parliament 
 can alter; they cannot indulge their fancy 
 with idle dreams of Utopcan government ; 
 nor aflume a legiflative power, to under- 
 mine the prerogative of the crown, by de- 
 claring, with the Author of the Confidera- 
 
 tions,
 
 tions, that all the prerogatives of the crown, 
 arud kingly authority, are not neceffary for 
 the good government of the land j but may, 
 by its abufe, be of the utmoft prejudice, 
 and, therefore aught not to exift ; for if they 
 do not exift neceflarily for the good of the 
 whole community, they ought not to exift 
 either in King or Regent. I am founded 
 in this aflertion, by the author's own con- 
 feffion, p. 8. that the monarchy of " thefe 
 " realms has been eftablimed amongft us, 
 " not for the advantage of any individual 
 *' family, however entitled to our grati- 
 " tude and veneration, but for the benefit 
 " of the nation, and for the fecurity and 
 " happinefs of millions." 
 
 The precedents of the ]ft of Henry Vlth, 
 referred to by the author, and to be found 
 in the Rolls of Parliament, are ftated fq 
 falfely, that on the fimple examination, the 
 motives of the author mud immediately ap- 
 pear, not to arife from that affe&ed zeal he 
 profeiTes, to fecure his fovereign from ima- 
 gined dangers of his own creation, but fron^ 
 fome apprehenfion he may entertain for his 
 C 2 own.
 
 ( 1* ) 
 
 own fituation, or thofe of his employers. 
 To eftablifli his principle, that no claim 
 can be legally made to the exercife of royal 
 power, he ftates a claim to have been made 
 by " one of the relations of the King to 
 " the Regency, in the lit of Henry Vlth. 
 " during his minority," and that " this 
 " claim was formally examined and difal- 
 " lowed by parliament," who, in the words 
 of parliament, " after -long and great deli- 
 " berationsand advice, fearching precedents 
 " of the government of the land in fimilar 
 " times and cafes, when the kings of this 
 " land have been of tender age, and taking 
 <( information of the laws of the land, 
 " from fuch perfons as were learned there- 
 " in, finally found the faid defire not 
 " grounded in precedent, nor in the law 
 " of the land." A more impudent attempt 
 to miilead he public, by a falfe flatement, 
 cannot be found. 
 
 Henry the Vth, on his death bed, defired, 
 
 that his elder brother, " the duke of Bed- 
 
 ' ford, .fhould take upon him the adtni- 
 
 !' niilration of the affairs of France '," and 
 
 " his
 
 " his younger brother, the duke of Glou- 
 " cefter, be Prote&or of England, during 
 " his fon's minority." Vide Rapin. 
 
 After the king's death, a parliament was 
 fummoned, by writ, dated September 29, 
 1422, in the young king's name; and on the 
 day of its meeting, a cornmiffion, directed 
 to the duke of Gloucefter, to empower 
 him to hold the parliament, in the king's 
 name, was read in the prefence of the duke. 
 The duke of Gloucefter, at this parliament, 
 claimed by his birth, and the late king's 
 will, to have the government of the land; 
 the parliament were of opinion, that the 
 king couid not difpofe of the government 
 of the land beyond his life; nor alter or 
 change the government* without the confent of 
 the three eftates. Vide Rolls of Parliament, 
 Vol. iv. p. 326. and they were of opinion, that 
 the younger uncle, the duke of Gloucefter, 
 had no right; but they confirmed the right 
 of the elder uncle, the duke of Bedford, by 
 declaring him Protestor; and, in his ab- 
 f-nce, that the duke of Gloucefter fhould 
 be Protector, who took upon him the faid 
 
 dignity,
 
 ( 14 ) 
 
 dignity, under proteftation tliat it fhould 
 be no prejudice to the right of his brother. 
 Vide Parliamentary Hiftory, Vol. ii. p. 178. 
 Thus ftands this rejected right referred to, 
 and miftated hy the author; and proves to 
 be, not a claim of right rejected, as admit- 
 ting no right, but a right admitted, by par- 
 liament, to exift in the nearer relation to 
 the crown, the duke of Bedford. This 
 right proved fo ftrong, that it overruled the 
 inclination and dying requeft of a popular 
 and beloved king. This alfo was an act 
 of a full parliament, not a convention, 
 which has no authority to enact laws. The 
 parliament was held by a commiiTion, under 
 the great feal, the age of the king being 
 at that period no obftacle to many acts of 
 royal authority, which " the laws changed 
 " (as the Author of the Confiderations fays) 
 " by the revolution of fo many ages," have 
 fmce limited the activity of a minor king. 
 * The author fays, they gave this rejected 
 " claimant a more limited power, fubject 
 " to the controul of a council, by a name 
 " conceived to be of lefs dignity than Re- 
 
 " gent."
 
 ( '5 ) 
 
 " gent." The fact is, the parliament, and 
 not the convention, declared him Protector; 
 an office not only of lefs dignity, but lefs 
 power by Jaw; for a Protector could not 
 fummon, hold, or diflblve parliament, to 
 which the minor king was confidered then 
 as competent, nor to do any other act to 
 which the minor was confidered as com- 
 petent. In the 4th and 6th year of his reign, 
 the miner not only fummoned, but perfon- 
 ally held the parliament, and yet the pro- 
 tectoral authority remained. The council, 
 which is faid to have limited the power of 
 the protector, was a council to the king, 
 and not to the protector ; of which coun- 
 cil the protector was prefident, and, in aug- 
 mentation, not controul of his authority. 
 Parliament, not a convention, directed the 
 council, amongft other things, " in fuch 
 ." matters that the king had been accuftom- 
 *' ed to be confiilled with ; that then the 
 '* faid lordes precede not ther ynne with- 
 " onte the advife of the lordys of Bedford 
 *' or Glocefler." Vide rolls of parliament, 
 vol. iv. p. 176. So -that, fo far from being 
 
 limited
 
 ( 16 ) 
 
 limited by this council, he has the authori- 
 ty of the king given him in council. The 
 author, through all his falfe ftatements, 
 endeavours to blend and confufe the two 
 offices of Regent and Protector, as equally 
 limited in power and authority. The fact is 
 not true, as appears from the rolls of par- 
 liament in the reigns of Edward III. and 
 Henry V. Frequent appointments appear of 
 a cujlos regni, with full Regal power. In 
 the 5th of Edward III. John of Eltham, 
 Earl of Cornwall, was appointed Cujlos 
 Regni. In the jath of Edward III. during 
 his abfence in Flanders, Edward, duke of 
 Cornwall, afterwards prince of Wales, was 
 appointed Cuftos Rcgni, with full Regal au- 
 thority ; he difpofed of offices, &c. fum- 
 moned and held parliament, and commif- 
 fions run in the king's name, and that of 
 the lord warden of England. In Henry the 
 Vth's reign, the duke of Bedford, and the 
 duke of Gloucefter, were, at different times, 
 Regent, with royal authority, during the 
 king's abfence ; they fummoned and held 
 parliaments, and did every other Regal act. 
 
 The
 
 ( 17 ) 
 
 The parliament fummoned by them was* 
 ipfo fatfo, diflblved by the return of the 
 king ; to prevent which, an act ftill remains 
 on our ftatute book of the 8th of Henry V. 
 During his tender age, the king was deem- 
 ed capable of doing many" acts, therefore 
 .did not require a Regent to occupy the 
 whole royal authority, but a Protector to 
 .fill up the partial defects of his royal au- 
 thority. The young king could, by law, 
 fummon and hold parliaments, and actually, 
 in perfon, met and held thofe of the 4th 
 and 6th years of his reign ; and the Pro- 
 tector held, of courfe, a limited office, not 
 that of Regent, nor any (as the parliament 
 told the duke of Gloucefter) " that im- 
 " ported the authority of governance of the 
 (t land, but one that importeth perfonal 
 " duty." It is plain that the legiilature 
 was reckoned complete during the mino- 
 rity of the king , for the duke of Gloucef- 
 ter is told, that he had no authority in par- 
 liament but as duke of Gloucefter, the king 
 being in parliament at years of meet dif- 
 cretion ; but his executive power was deem- 
 D 
 
 ed
 
 cd defective. In cafes of abfence, where 
 the whole royal authority, of necefiity, was 
 fufpended, no lefs than a Regent, with full 
 royal power, was appointed. It appears 
 alfo, that the right of the elder brother 
 to any legal transfer of royal authority, 
 was, by parliament, acknowledged in the 
 perfon of the duke of Bedford, againft the 
 will of Henry V. and the claim of the 
 younger brother. 
 
 The two precedents referred to during 
 the diforder of Henry VI. cannot be relied 
 on. The nrft preceded the battle of St. 
 Albans, a few months ; and the other fol- 
 lowed the victory and the capture of the 
 king : but even in the protectorate of the 
 duke of York, he is declared, faving the right 
 of the prince of Wales, then fix months 
 old, in the terms of the roll, vol. v. p. 242, 
 " fo that it be not prejudice to my lord the 
 " prince." But I fhall not dwell on pre- 
 cedents in a civil war, which ended by the 
 dethroning and murder of the king, and 
 the reftoration of the elder line of York. 
 The author having miftated all thefe prece-
 
 ( 19 ) 
 
 dents, proceeds to fay, that it is the indif- 
 penfable duty of parliament to allow no de- 
 gree of authority to be exercifed which 
 fhall be incompatible with the maintaining 
 the king in the pofTeffion of his rights, and 
 enabling him to re-afTume the exercife of 
 them whenever his health {hall allow it. 
 This jargon is fo unintelligible, and fo un- 
 accompanied with any ftatement of the fpe- 
 cific authority he thinks would have this 
 efFect, that it is difficult to form any other 
 judgment of it, but that a fimilar jargon 
 might, with equal reaibn, be uttered to 
 parliament with the king on the throne; 
 that it was the duty of parliament to pre- 
 vent any degree of authority being exercifed 
 that (hall be incompatible with maintaining 
 the lineal fyccefllon to the crown, and the 
 full reversionary right of the heir apparent. 
 Whatever are the duties of parliament, 
 when we have got one, I hope and trufl 
 they will perform j but npthing a convention 
 can do, can bind a parliament even to their 
 duty, nor the meaneft fubjeft of the realm; 
 a convention cannot abridge or alter the 
 D 2 rights
 
 ( 20 ) 
 
 fights of the crown, though they can pro- 
 nounce fentence of forfeiture on the owner, 
 without whom no parliament can act ; they 
 cannot alter the conftitution, though they 
 can fill a vacant throne, during the vacancy 
 of which no parliament can act j but no 
 act which parliament can do, is a conven- 
 tion capable of doing. There is, in the 
 prefent cafe, no pretence to fay the throne 
 is vacant ; the rights of the king, therefore, 
 remain unimpeached and fecured by all the 
 weight and force of the laws, and will be 
 by the weight and authority and affection 
 of every future parliament. Nothing that 
 parliament can do, much lefs a convention, 
 can add any thing to fecure allegiance to 
 the king -, can give him better hold on 
 the love and affection of his fubjects than 
 he already has, or remove the fear of trea- 
 fon further from him. The exercife of 
 royal authority, by the heir apparent, can- 
 not take away the king's right no more 
 than the exercife of royal authority by the 
 king can endanger the future rights of the 
 heir apparent. 
 
 Whatever
 
 Whatever authority the public good does 
 not require in the hands of a Regent, is too 
 much in the hands of the king ; I know but 
 one alarming Regency, which is that of 
 ambitious minifters voting themfelves in 
 power, or one hampered in its authority, by 
 men, ambitious, finding an intereil in 
 weakening the accuflomed powers of go- 
 vernment. No heir apparent ever exercifed 
 the limited authority of a protector ; no- 
 thing (hort of the authority of Regent ever 
 was held by an heir apparent. The king, 
 in full enjoyment of his faculties, may pof- 
 fibly himfelf, certainly with concurrence of 
 parliament, appoint any other perfon or per- 
 fons to execute the office of Regent, but the 
 law, prefers no perfon before the heir ap- 
 parent ; who has the fame right of prefer- 
 ence which the duke of Bedford had over 
 his brother. The office of Regent is not 
 a limited office, it is a complete locum tenens ; 
 by which name it is fometimes called. It 
 appears by the anfwer of parliament, to the 
 duke ot Gloucefter, (who having been in 
 the preceding reign, Regent; could not 
 
 digeft
 
 ( 22 ) 
 
 digefl the more limited authority of Proteftor, 
 and enquires into the extent of his authority) 
 that he was Protestor, and not Lieutenant 
 Governor or Regent, nor any name that im- 
 ported the government of the land. Vide 
 Rolls, Vol. v. p. 326. and, therefore, they 
 pray, exhort, and require him to content 
 himfelf with the power aforefaid; and it 
 appears by this anfwer, that the authority 
 of Regent would not have been fo limited. 
 If, therefore, the office of Regent is known 
 to the conftitution, as it certainly is, if 
 alone, jt fills the whole fpace of the throne, 
 without afluming the crown, during the ab- 
 fence of the King, and without impeach- 
 ing his return, what authority, in point 
 of policy, is fo adapted to the prefent occa- 
 iion ? If, on the other hand, a fet of de- 
 iigning men, for their own views, wifh to 
 make the office elective, and liable to limi- 
 tation, will they find themfelves fupported 
 by any perfons, who muft forefee, that 
 Ireland may elett for itfelf, and fill the 
 office with a different Regent with differ- 
 ent limitations i if the Regency devolves 
 
 of
 
 ( 23.) 
 
 of right, it covers equally the three United 
 kingdoms -, who will venture to affert, that, 
 by the Union, the people of Scotland gave 
 up their right of changing their govern- 
 ment to a convention of two eftatesj by 
 what claufe of the Union are the fixteen 
 peers alone to meet in convention, when 
 neceffity forces an election of a third eftate? 
 Certainly, the author of the Pamphlet will 
 not contend with me, that it does not de- 
 volve to the people, for he affirms it does. 
 I truft> therefore, it will appear manifeft, 
 not only that the Heir Apparent is of right 
 fole Regent, with full royal authority, 
 during the incapacity of the king, to a<St 
 for himfelf ; and that it is found policy, as 
 well as law, that it mould be fo -, and that 
 no convention has, or can have power, to 
 change, alter, or abridge the-, royal autho- 
 rity, which preiides over the country; 
 though they muft, when neceffity com- 
 pels, change the perfon, in whom, by the 
 law of the land, it integrally refides for the 
 good of the people. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBILVRY 
 
 A fee of 3c per day is charged for this book which was withdrawn 
 the last date stamped below. 
 
 P HUG 25 
 
 RH7DLD-LRL 
 
 RENEWAL SEP 
 ^SEP 12*970 
 
 7 1970 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS on the War with the TURKS. 
 Tranflated from the French of M. DE VOLNEY. 
 Price as. 6d. 

 
 I PAMPHLET BINDER 
 Syracuse. N. Y. I 
 Stockfon. Colif.