Precedent volution of 1688. by direction of the two Houses, why was the fiction needed? The only real authority was that of Parliament, which might have been boldly and openly exercised, during the incapacity of the king. The simplest and most direct course would, undoubtedly, have been for both Houses to agree upon an address to the Prince of Wales, praying him to exercise the royal authority, subject to conditions stated in the address itself; and on his acceptance of the trust, to proceed to give legal effect to these conditions by a bill,—to which the royal assent would be signified by the regent, on behalf of the Crown. Either in earlier or in later times, such a course would probably have been followed; but at that period, above all others, lawyers delighted in fiction, and Westminster Hall was peopled with legal "phantoms" of their creation.1 In proposing to proceed by address, the Opposition of the Re- relied upon the precedent of the Revolution of 1688. On the other side it was contended, and particularly by Sir John Scott, the Solicitor-General, by whose advice the Government were mainly guided, that after the throne had been declared vacant, Parliament solicited the Prince of Orange to assume the royal powers; but here the rights of the lawful sovereign could not be passed by, and superseded.2 His name must be used in all the proceedings: his great seal affixed by the chancellor of his appointment, to every commission; and his authority recognised and represented, though his personal directions and capacity were 1 See Chapter on Law and Admi- Mem. of Fox, ii. 265. He ridicules the "absurd phantom of a royal assent given by the Houses of Parliament to their own act, by a fiction of their own creation." 2 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 825.; Twiss's Life of Eldon, 192. wanting. It is obvious, however, that whatever empty forms were observed, the royal authority was, of necessity, superseded. As the throne was not vacant, no stranger was sought to fill it; but all parties concurred in calling upon the heir apparent to exercise his father's royal authority. The two occasions differed in regard to the persons whom Parliament, in times of nearly equal emergency, proposed to invest with the supreme power: but why a simple and direct course of proceeding was not as appropriate in the one case as in the other, we need the subtlety and formalism of the old school of lawyers to perceive. As regards the conduct of political parties, it can Conduct of political hardly be questioned that, on the one hand, Mr. Fox parties. and his party incautiously took up an indefensible position; while, on the other, Mr. Pitt was unduly tenacious in asserting the authority of Parliament, which the prince had not authorised any one to question, -and which his brother, the Duke of York, had admitted. Yet the conduct of both is easily explained by the circumstances of their respective parties. The prince had identified himself with Mr. Fox and the Whigs; and it was well known to Mr. Pitt, and offensively announced by his opponents, that the passing of the Regency Act would be the signal for his own dismissal. To assert the prince's rights, and resist all restrictions upon his authority, was the natural course for his friends to adopt; while to maintain the prerogatives of the Crown,-to respect the feelings and dignity of the queen, and at the same time to vindicate the paramount authority of Parliament, --was the becoming policy of the king's minister. Mr. Pitt's view, being favourable to popular rights, was supported by the people: Mr. Fox, on the other hand, committed himself to the assertion of prerogative, and in Proceed ings in the of Ireland. Parliament 1 veighed against the discretionary powers of Parliament. Well might Mr. Pitt exultingly exclaim, "I'll unwhig the gentleman for the rest of his life." The proceedings on the regency confirmed the confidence of the king in Mr. Pitt, and his distrust of Mr. Fox and his adherents; and the popular minister had a long career of power before him. While these proceedings were pending, the Parliament of Ireland, adopting the views of Mr. Fox, presented an address to the Prince of Wales, praying him to take upon himself "the government of this realm, during the continuance of his Majesty's present indisposition, and no longer, and under the style and title of Prince Regent of Ireland, in the name and on behalf of his Majesty, to exercise and administer, according to the laws and constitution of this kingdom, all regal powers, jurisdictions and prerogatives to the Crown and Government thereof belonging." The lord lieutenant, the Marquess of Buckingham, having refused to transmit this address, the Parliament caused it to be conveyed directly to his Royal Highness, by some of their own members.2 To this address the prince returned an answer, in which, after thanking the Parliament of Ireland for their loyalty and affection, he stated that he trusted the king would soon be able to resume the personal exercise of the royal authority, which would render unnecessary any further answer, except a repetition of his thanks.3 66 1 Adolphus's Hist., iv. 326, n; and well-exercised discretion."Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 19. 2 Debates of the Parliament of Ireland; Parl. Register of Ireland, ix. 119; Lords Journ. (Ireland), vol. vi. 240; Com. Journ. (Ireland), vol. xiii. 7. 3 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 183. sight of the Soon after his recovery, the king said to Lord Thur- Wise forelow, "what has happened may happen again: for king. God's sake make some permanent and immediate provision for such a regency as may prevent the country from being involved in disputes and difficulties similar to those just over." Lord Thurlow and Mr. Pitt agreed as to the expediency of such a measure; but differed as to the mode in which it should be framed. The former was soon afterwards out of office, and the latter thought no more about the matter.' It is indeed singular that the king's wise foresight should have been entirely neglected; and that on three subsequent occasions, embarrassments arising from the same cause, should have been experienced. In February, 1801, the king was again seized with an illness of the same melancholy character, as that by which he had previously been afflicted.2 If not caused, it was at least aggravated by the excitement of an impending change of ministry3, in consequence of his difference of opinion with Mr. Pitt on the Roman Catholic question.4 The king's illness in 1801. changes. This illness, though not involving constitutional dif- Ministerial ficulties so important as those of 1788, occurred at a moment of no small political embarrassment. Mr. Pitt had tendered his resignation; and was holding office only until the appointment of his successor. Mr. Speaker 1 Lord Malmesbury's Diary, iv. 23. 2 Lord Malmesbury's Diary, Feb. 17th, 1801: "King got a bad cold; takes James's powder; God forbid he should be ill!" Feb. 19th: "This the first symptom of the king's serious illness." Malm. Cor., iv. 11, 13. Feb. 22nd: "King much worse; Dr. J. Willis attended him all last night, and says he was in the height of a phrenzyfever, as bad as the worst period when he saw him in 1788." Ibid., 16; 3 He had been chilled by re- 28. 4 See supra, p. 78 et seq., and Chapter XII., on Civil and Religious Liberty. Addington had received the king's commands to form an administration, and had, consequently, resigned the chair of the House of Commons. The arrangements for a new ministry were in progress, when they were interrupted by the king's indisposition. But, believing it to be nothing more than a severe cold, Mr. Addington did not think fit to wait for his formal appointment; and vacated his seat, on the 19th February, by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, in order to expedite his return to his place in Parliament. In the mean time Mr. Pitt, who had resigned office, not only continued to discharge the customary official duties of Chancellor of the Exchequer1, but on the 18th February, brought forward the annual budget?, which included a loan of 25,500,000l., and new taxes to the amount of 1,750,0001.3 Mr. Addington had fully expected that his formal appointment as First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been completed before his re-election; but this was prevented by the king's illness, and as his election could not legally be postponed, he took his seat again on the 27th, not as a minister of the Crown, but as a private member. On the 22nd the king's condition was as bad as at the worst period of his attack in 1788. Towards the evening of the following day he came to himself, and indicated the causes of disturbance which were pressing on his mind, by exclaiming: "I am better now, but I will remain true to the Church; "5 and afterwards, "the king's mind, whenever he came to himself, reverted at once to the cause of his disquietude." At the beginning of March his fever increased again, and for a time his life 1 Lord Malmesb. Diary, xiv. 28. 2 Parl. Hist., xxxv. 972. It seems that he spoke from the third bench, on the right hand of the chair. Mr. Abbot's Diary: Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 345, n. 4 Lord Malmesb. Diary, iv. 16. ♪ Ibid., 20, 6 Ibid., 28. |