Page images
PDF
EPUB

in the bill.

friends of the princess, encouraged by the king himself, took up her cause; and, on the motion of Mr. Morton, Chief Justice of Chester, which was not opposed by the ministers, her name was inserted in the bill. The Her name king had been assured that the Commons would strike replaced it out and yet, after the House of Lords had omitted it, on the supposed authority of the king, there were only thirty-seven members found to vote against its insertion, while one hundred and sixty-seven voted in its favour'; and in this form the bill passed.

could Wilkes him

of the Re

gency Act.

Could any lover of mischief, self, -have devised more embarrassments and cross purposes, than were caused by this unlucky Regency Bill? Faction and intrigue had done their worst. The Regency Act2 provided for the nomination by the Provisions king, under his sign-manual, of the queen, the Princess of Wales, or a member of the royal family descended from the late king, to be the guardian of his successor while under eighteen years of age, and "Regent of the Kingdom," and to exercise the royal power and prerogatives. His nomination was to be signified by three instruments, separately signed, and sealed up, and deposited with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the President of the Council. It attached the penalties of præmunire to any one who should open these instruments during the king's life, or afterwards neglect or refuse to produce them before the privy council. It appointed a council of regency, consisting of the king's brothers and his uncle, the Duke of

different directions given to his servants in the two Houses, but still enforced the argument of this being moved by the gentlemen of the Opposition. The king was in the utmost degree of agitation and emotion, even to tears."-Mr. Grenville's

VOL. I.

L

Diary, May 5th, 1765; Grenville
Papers, iii. 154.

í Mr. Grenville's Report of the
Debate to the King; Grenville
Papers, iii. 25, n.; Walpole's Mem.
George III., ii. 129-146.
25 George III. c. 27.

The king's illness in 1788-9.

Cumberland, and several great officers of Church and State, for the time being. In case any of the king's brothers or his uncle should die, or be appointed regent, it gave the king the power of nominating another person, being a natural-born subject, to the council of regency, by instruments under his hand in the same form as those appointing the regent. The act also defined the powers of the regent and council. On the demise of his Majesty, the privy council was directed to meet and proclaim his successor.

The king's next illness was of longer duration, and of a more distressing character. It was the occasion of another Regency Bill, and of proceedings wholly unprecedented. In the summer of 1788, the king showed evident symptoms of derangement. He was able, however, to sign a warrant for the further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th September to the 20th November. But, in the interval, the king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in danger. As no authority could be obtained from him for a further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th November, though they had not been summoned for despatch of business, and no causes of summons could be communicated to them, in the accustomed manner, by a speech from the throne. These circumstances were explained in both Houses; and, on the suggestion of ministers, they agreed to adjourn for a fortnight, and to summon all their members, by circular letters, to attend

1 Tomline's Life of Pitt, ii. 363; Lord Auckland's corr. ii. 240-298. At such times as these, political events pressed heavily on the king's mind. He said to Lord Thurlow and the Duke of Leeds, "Whatever you and Mr. Pitt may think or feel, I, that am born a gentleman, shall

never lay my head on my last pillow in peace and quiet as long as I remember the loss of my American colonies." Lord Malm. Corr., iv. 21. On a later occasion, in 1801, the king's mind showed equally strong feelings as to the supposed dangers of the Church.

at their next meeting. According to long established law, Parliament, without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion, for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had given rise.

tion of the

In order to afford Parliament authentic evidence of Examinathe king's condition, his five physicians were examined king's phyby the privy council on the 3rd December. They agreed sicians. that the king was then incapable of meeting Parliament, or of attending to any business; but believed in the probability of his ultimate recovery, although they could not limit the time. On the following day this evidence was laid before both Houses: but as doubts were suggested whether Parliament should rest satisfied without receiving the personal testimony of the physicians, it was afterwards agreed that a committee should be appointed, in each House, for that purpose. In the Lords the committee was nominated by ballot, each peer giving in a list Commitof twenty-one names. Meanwhile, all other business was suspended. In the Commons, the speaker even entertained doubts whether any new writs could be issued for supplying the places of members deceased; but Mr. Pitt expressed a decided opinion, "that though no act could take place which required the joint concurrence of the different branches of the Legislature, yet each of them in its separate capacity was fully competent to the exercise of those powers which concerned its own orders and jurisdiction." 8 And in this rational view the House acquiesced.

1 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 653, 685. The House of Commons was also ordered to be called over on that day.

2 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 658.
3 Ibid., 688.

tees ap

pointed.

Commit

tees to

The reports of these committees merely confirmed search for the evidence previously given before the privy council; precedents. and the facts being thus established, a committee was

Doctrines

of Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt.

moved for, in either House, to search for precedents "of
such proceedings as may have been had in case of the
personal exercise of the royal authority being prevented
or interrupted by infancy, sickness, infirmity, or other-
wise, with a view to provide for the same." When this
motion was made in the Commons, Mr. Fox advanced
the startling opinion that the Prince of Wales had as
clear a right to exercise the power of sovereignty during
the king's incapacity, as if the king were actually dead;
and that it was merely for the two Houses of Parliament
to pronounce at what time he should commence the
exercise of his right. To assert an absolute right of
inheritance during his father's life, in defiance of the
well-known rule of law, "nemo est hæres viventis,"
was to argue that the heir-at-law is entitled to enter
into possession of the estate of a lunatic. Mr. Pitt, on
the other hand, maintained that as no legal provision
had been made for carrying on the government, it be-
longed to the Houses of Parliament to make such pro-
vision. He even went so far as to affirm, that "unless
by their decision, the Prince of Wales had no more
right-speaking of strict right-to assume the govern-
ment, than other individual subject of the country,'
any
-a position as objectionable in one direction, as that of
Mr. Fox in the other3,-and which gave great umbrage
to the prince and his friends.
ties joined issue.

1 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 707.
2 Ibid., 709.

3 Lord John Russell says, "The
doctrine of Mr. Fox, the popular
leader, went far to set aside the

[ocr errors]

And here the two par

constitutional authority of Parliament, while that of Mr. Pitt, the organ of the Crown, tended to shake the stability of the monarchy, and to peril the great rule of hereditary

a

taken

as to the

the Prince.

When next this matter was discussed, Mr. Fox, Issue being sensible that he had pressed his doctrine of right beyond its constitutional limits, somewhat receded from rights of his first ground. He now spoke of the prince having legal claim rather than a right to the regency, and contended that it was for Parliament to adjudicate upon that claim, which, when allowed, would become an absolute title to the exercise of all the rights of sovereignty, without any limitation. He stated, also, that he spoke merely his own opinion, without any authority; but that if he had been consulted, he should have advised a message from the prince, stating his claim, to be answered by a joint address of both Houses, calling upon him to exercise the prerogatives of the Crown. It was now his main position that no restrictions should be imposed upon the powers of the regent. But here, again, Mr. Pitt joined issue with him; and while he agreed that, as a matter of discretion, the Prince of Wales ought to be the regent, with all necessary authority, -unrestrained by any permanent council, and with a free choice of his political servants; -he yet contended that any power which was not essential, and which might be employed to embarrass the exercise of the king's authority, in the event of his recovery, ought to be withheld.' And as the question of right had been raised, he insisted that it ought first to be determined, -since if the right should be held to exist, Parliament having adjudicated upon such right, need not deliberate upon any further measures.

The same questions were debated in the House of Lords, where the Duke of York said that no claim of

succession."-Memorials of Fox, ii.

263.

1 Dec. 12th. Parl. Hist., xxvii. 727.

The Princedisclaims his right,

of Wales

« PreviousContinue »