interruption of the personal exercise of the Royal Authority, it devolved
upon the other branches of the Legislature to provide a substitute for
that authority," but that "the Prince of Wales had no more right to
exercise the powers of government than any other person in the realm."

The truth is, the assertion of a _Right_ was equally erroneous, on
both sides of the question. The Constitution having provided no legal
remedy for such an exigence as had now occurred, the two Houses of
Parliament had as little right (in the strict sense of the word) to
supply the deficiency of the Royal power, as the Prince had to be the
person elected or adjudged for that purpose. Constitutional analogy and
expediency were the only authorities by which the measures necessary in
such a conjuncture could be either guided or sanctioned; and if the
disputants on each side had softened down their tone to this true and
practical view of the case, there would have been no material difference,
in the first stage of the proceedings between them,--Mr. Pitt being
ready to allow that the Heir Apparent was the obvious person to whom
expediency pointed as the depository of the Royal power, and Mr. Fox
having granted, in a subsequent explanation of his doctrine, that, strong
as was the right upon which the claim of the Prince was founded, His
Royal Highness could not assume that right till it had been formally
adjudicated to him by Parliament. The principle, however, having been
imprudently broached, Mr. Pitt was too expert a tactician not to avail
himself of the advantage it gave him. He was thus, indeed, furnished with
an opportunity, not only of gaining time by an artful protraction of the
discussions, but of occupying victoriously the ground of Whiggism, which
Mr. Fox had, in his impatience or precipitancy, deserted, and of thus
adding to the character, which he had recently acquired, of a defender of
the prerogatives of the Crown, the more brilliant reputation of an
assertor of the rights of the people.