Page images
PDF
EPUB

ministry before the king's recovery.

tomed health, the fall of his favourite minister, Mr. Addington, was impending; and the king was engaged in negotiations with the chancellor and Mr. Pitt, for the formation of another administration. To confer with his Majesty upon questions so formal as his assent to the Mutiny Bills, had been a matter of delicacy: but to discuss with him so important a measure as the reconstruction of a ministry, in a time of war and public danger, was indeed embarrassing. Mr. Pitt's correspondence discloses his misgivings as to the state of the king's mind. But on the 7th May, he was with him for three hours, and was amazed at the cool and collected manner in which his Majesty had carried on the conversation.3 It was probably from this interview that Lord Eldon relates Mr. Pitt to have come out "not only satisfied, but much surprised with the king's ability. He said he had never so baffled him in any conversation he had had with him in his life."4 Yet, on the 9th May, after another interview, Mr. Pitt wrote to the chancellor: "I do not think there was anything positively wrong; but there was a hurry of spirits and an excessive love of talking." "There is certainly nothing in what I have observed that would, in the smallest degree, justify postponing any other steps that are in progress towards arrangement." Nor did these continued misgivings prevent the ministerial arrangements from being completed, some time before the king was entirely relieved from the care of his medical attendants.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The chancellor's conduct, on this occasion, in negotiating for Mr. Pitt's return to office, unknown to Mr. Addington and his colleagues, has exposed him to the severest animadversions.-Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancel

lors, vii. 166; Law Review, Nos. ii. and xi.

2 Letters to Lord Eldon, April 22, May 8; Lord Campbell's Lives, vii. 169, 173.

3 Lord Malmesb. Cor., iv. 306. + Twiss's Life, i. 449.

tions upon

of ministers.

The conduct of the Government, and especially of the ImputaLord Chancellor, in allowing the royal functions to be the conduct exercised during this period, were several years afterwards severely impugned. In 1811, Lord Grey had not forgotten the suspicions he had expressed in 1804; and in examining the king's physicians, he elicited, especially from Dr. Heberden, several circumstances, previously unknown, relative to the king's former illnesses. On the 28th January, fortified by this evidence, he arraigned the Lord Chancellor of conduct "little short of high treason,” — of "treason against the constitution and the country." He particularly relied upon the fact, that on the 9th March, 1804, the Chancellor had affixed the great seal to a commission for giving the royal assent to fifteen bills; and accused the ministers of that day of "having culpably made use of the king's name without the king's sanction, and criminally exercised the royal functions, when the sovereign was under a moral incapacity to authorise such a proceeding." Lord Sidmouth and Lord Eldon, the ministers whose conduct was mainly impugned, defended themselves from these imputations, and expressed their astonishment at Dr. Heberden's evidence, which, they said, was at variance with the opinions of all the physicians, including Dr. Heberden himself, expressed in 1804, while in attendance upon the king. They stated that his new version of his Majesty's former illness had surprised the queen, not less than the ministers. And it is quite clear, from other evidence, that Dr. Heberden's account of the duration and continuous character of the king's malady, was inaccurate.2 Lord Eldon, oddly enough, affirmed,

1

1 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., Lord Sidmouth's Life; and supra, p. 168.

xviii. 1054.

2 Lord Malmesbury's Diaries and

Necessity of a Regency

Act canvassed.

King's ill

ness in 1810.

-in

that on the 9th of March, the king understood the duty
which the Chancellor had to perform, better than he did
himself. This he believed he could prove. A motion
was made by Lord King, for omitting Lord Eldon's name
from the Queen's Council of Regency; and its rejection
was the cause of a protest, signed by nine peers,
cluding Lords Grey, Holland, Lauderdale, and Erskine,
-in which they affirmed his unfitness for that office, on
the ground that he had improperly used the king's name
and authority, during his incapacity in 1804. In the
House of Commons Mr. Whitbread, made a similar
charge against his lordship; and the Lord Chancellor
complained,
not without reason, that he had been
hardly dealt with by his enemies, and feebly defended
by his friends.2

any

In 1804 the propriety of passing a regency bill, to provide for future illness of the king, was once more the subject of grave consideration among the statesmen of the period; but, as in 1789, so now again, no sooner did the king recover, than all further care appears to have been cast aside. Six years later this want of foresight again led to serious embarrass

ment.

The king's last mental disorder commenced in the autumn of 1810. His kingly career was to close for ever. Bereft of reason and nearly blind, the poor old king, who had ruled for fifty years with so high a hand, and so strong a will, — was now tended by physicians, and controlled by keepers. His constitutional infirmity, aggravated by political anxieties and domestic distresses, had overcome him; and he was too far advanced

1 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., 37; Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 151— xviii. 1031-1087. 161.

2 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xix. 87; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii.

3 Lord Malmesbury's Cor., iv. 315.

in years, to rally again. It was a mournful spectacle. Like King Lear, he was

"A poor old man,

"As full of grief as age: wretched in both."

But as physicians will dispute at the bedside of the dying patient, -so the hopes and fears of rival parties, and the rude collisions of political strife, were aroused into activity by the sufferings of the king. The contentions of 1788 were revived, though the leaders of that age had passed away.

Parlia

Parliament stood prorogued to the 1st November, Meeting of and a proclamation had appeared in the "Gazette," ment. declaring the king's pleasure that it should be further prorogued by commission to the 29th. But before this commission could be signed, his Majesty became so ill that the Lord Chancellor, unable to obtain his signature, did not feel justified in affixing the great seal; and in this view of his duty, statesmen of all parties concurred. Following the precedent of 1788, both Houses met on the 1st November; and on being informed of the circumstances under which they were assembled2, adjourned until the 15th, fourteen days being the shortest period within which Parliament may, by law, be summoned for despatch of business. Circular letters were directed to be sent, summoning the members of both Houses to attend on that day. Strong hopes had been entertained by the physicians,

1 Lord Campbell, however, says, "It would have been but a small liberty to have passed this commission, for there had been an order made at a council, at which the king presided, to prorogue Parliament from the 1st to the 29th November, and to prepare a commission for this purpose."-Lives of the Chancellors, vii. 242.

2 In the Commons, the Speaker first took his seat at the table, and explained the circumstances under which the House had met, before he took the chair.-Hansard's Debates, 1st. Ser., xviii. 3. On taking the chair, he acquainted the House that he had issued a new writ during the recess.

Nov. 29.

Dec. 13.

Precedent

of 1788 followed.

Discus

that pre

cedent.

of his Majesty's speedy recovery; and in the interval they were confirmed. Both Houses, therefore, on these representations being made, again adjourned for a fortnight. Before their next meeting the king's physicians were examined by the privy council; and as they were still confident of his Majesty's recovery, a further adjournment for a fortnight was agreed upon, though not without objections to so long an interruption of business, and a division in both Houses.

No longer delay could now be suggested; and at the next meeting, a committee of twenty-one members was appointed in both Houses, for the examination of the king's physicians. They still entertained hopes of his Majesty's ultimate recovery, in spite of his age and blindness; but could not form any opinion as to the probable duration of his illness.

[ocr errors]

Continuing to follow generally the precedent of 1788, ministers proposed, on the 20th December, in a committee on the state of the nation, three resolutions, affirming the king's incapacity, - the right and duty of the two Houses to provide for this exigency, and the necessity of determining by what means the royal assent should be signified to a bill for that purpose.

Again the question of proceeding by bill, or by adsions upon dress was argued. The proceedings of 1788 were exposed to a searching criticism, and all the precedents of constitutional history, presenting any analogy to the present circumstances, learnedly investigated. The expedients which had delighted Lord Eldon in his early career, found little favour with the more philosophic lawyers of a later school. Sir S. Romilly regarded them "in no other light but as a fraudulent trick,” and asked what would be said of " a set of men joining together, and making a contract for another in a state of insanity,

« PreviousContinue »