marriage might be questioned. It had been solemnised without the usual formalities prescribed by the law: but the royal family had been excepted from Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, by the express command of George II., who would not allow restraints, intended only for his subjects, to be imposed upon his own family.' Such restraints might now have postponed, or even prevented this hateful marriage. The alliance of the Duke of Cumberland with a subject, was followed by the public avowal of his marriage by the Duke of Gloucester, whose wife's position would have been seriously compromised by any longer concealment.

The king was now resolved to impose such restrictions upon future marriages in his own family, as had never been contemplated for his subjects. And, in truth, if alliances with persons not of royal blood were to be prevented, the king and his brothers had given proof enough of the dangers to which princes are exposed. In his youth the king had been himself in love with Lady Sarah Lennox2: the Duke of York had been attached to Lady Mary Coke; and now his Majesty was deploring the marriages of his brothers. The prerogative claimed by the Crown, in matters his grand- concerning the royal family, was already considerable. In 1718, King George I., when in open enmity with his son, the Prince of Wales, maintained that he had power, by virtue of his prerogative, to direct the education of his grandchildren, and even to dispose of them in marriage, to the exclusion of the parental authority

King's power over

children.

1 Walpole's Mem. iv. 359.

2 Mr. Grenville relates in his Diary, that the king actually proposed to marry her, and that her engagement with Lord Newbottle was consequently broken off: but

the

she broke her leg while out riding, and during her absence, match was prevented, by representations that she continued her intercourse with Lord Newbottle. Grenv. Papers, iv. 209.

of the prince. A question was submitted to the judges; and ten out of the twelve, led by Lord Chief Justice Parker, afterwards Lord Macclesfield, decided in favour of the king's claim. Even the two dissentient judges, who were of opinion that the education of the king's grandchildren belonged to their father, yet held, "that the care and approbation of their marriages, when grown up, belong to the king of this realm." 2

1772.

It was now proposed to enlarge this prerogative, and Royal Marextend the king's powers, by the authority of the law. ringe Act, On the 20th February, 1772, a message from the king was delivered to both Houses of Parliament, stating that he was desirous "that the right of approving all marriages in the royal family (which ever has belonged to the kings of this realm, as a matter of public concern) may be made effectual; " and recommending to their consideration the expediency of guarding " the descendants of his late Majesty George II." (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families), from marrying without the approbation of the king.

ed in re

gard to

royal mar

riages.

On the following day, the Royal Marriage Bill was Prerogapresented to the House of Lords. The preamble affirmed tive claimthe prerogative, as claimed in the message, to its fullest extent, and the wisdom and expediency of the king's recommendation. The bill provided that no descendant of George II. (except the issue of princesses married into foreign families) should be capable of contracting matrimony, without the king's previous consent, signified under his sign-manual, and declared in council; and that any marriage contracted without such consent, should be null and void. There was a proviso, however, which it seems had not been contemplated,

1 St. Tr. xv. 1195. Lord Camp- 2 St. Tr. xv. 1225. bell's Lives, iv. p. 521.

when the message was delivered, enabling members of the royal family above twenty-five years of age, to marry without the king's consent, after having given twelve months' previous notice to the Privy Council, unless in the mean time, both Houses of Parliament should signify their disapprobation of the marriage. This concession, it is said, was caused by the resignation of Mr. Fox, who intended to oppose the measure, and by the disapprobation of some of the advisers of the Crown.1 It was also provided that any person solemnising, or assisting, or being present at the celebration of such prohibited marriages, should incur the penalties of præmunire.

This was unquestionably the king's own measure, and was reluctantly adopted by his ministers. His views of prerogative were exalted; and in his own family at least, he was resolved that his authority should be supreme. The absolute control which he now sought for, over members of his family of full age, was not a little startling. First, as to his claim of prerogative. Had it ever yet been asserted to the same extent? It had been recognised by the "grand opinion"—as it was called,—of the judges in 1718, so far as regarded the king's grandchildren, but no farther; and it is impossible to read the arguments of the judges in that case, without being impressed with the slender grounds, strained constructions of law and precedent, and far-fetched views of expediency, upon which their conclusion was founded. As a matter of state policy, it may be necessary that the king should be empowered to negotiate alliances for the royal family, and for that purpose should have more than parental

1 Fox's Mem, i. 75 (H. Walpole.)

So com

authority. But the present claim extended to brothers of whatever age, to uncles, and to cousins. prehensive a claim could not be at once admitted.

This question, therefore, was put to the judges: "is the Question to. king entrusted by law with the care and approbation the judges. of the marriages of the descendants of his late Majesty George II., other than his present Majesty's own children, during their minorities?" As this question extended to all descendants of George II., whether within this kingdom or not, nine judges unanimously answered it in the negative; and to another question, more restricted, they replied, "that the care and approbation of the marriages of the king's children and grandchildren, and of the presumptive heir to the Crown (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families) do belong to the kings of this realm; but to what other branches of the royal family such care and approbation extend, we do not find precisely determined."1 It was plain that the bill declared the prerogative to be much more extensive, than that allowed by the judges. Yet in spite of their opinion, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Apsley, with an effrontery worthy of Lord Thurlow, said that "he would defend every clause, every sentence, every word, every syllable, and every letter" in the bill; and "would not consent to any amendment whatsoever!" The prerogative, he asserted, was founded in its "importance to the state:" an argument which might be extended to any other power claimed by the Crown, on the same ground.

The arbitrary character of the bill was conspicuous. Arbitrary It might be reasonable to prescribe certain rules for the of this Act.

principles

1 Parl. Hist. xvii. 387.

marriage of the royal family: as that they should

not marry a subject, a Roman Catholic, or the member of any royal house at war with this country, without the consent of the king: but to prescribe no rule at all save the absolute will of the king himself, was a violation of all sound principles of legislation. Again, to extend the minority of princes and princesses to twenty-five, created a harsh exception to the general law, in regard to marriages. The prohibition of a marriage might continue until the age of twentysix; and required nothing but the vote of a Parliament subservient to the Crown, to render it perpetual; and this not by virtue of any general principle of law -human or divine, but by the arbitrary will of a superior power.

But the personal will of the king triumphed over all opposition, whether of argument or numbers; and he was implacable against those who opposed it.2 The bill was passed rapidly through the House of Lords; though not without one protest, signed by fourteen peers, and another signed by seven, in which the most material objections to the measure were concisely expressed. In the Commons the bill met with a more strenuous and protracted opposition :-the Lords' Journals were searched for the opinion of the judges,-and the most serious arguments against the measure were

1 A squib appeared in answer to the objection that a prince might ascend the throne at eighteen, yet might not marry till twenty-five: "Quoth Tom to Dick,-"Thou art a And little know'st of life: [fool, Alas! 'tis easier far to rule A kingdom, than a wife.””—

Parl. Hist. xvii. 407.

2 Fox's Mem. i. 75. Lord Chat

ham said of the Bill, "the doctrine of the Royal Marriage Bill is certainly new-fangled and impudent, and the extent of the powers given wanton and tyrannical.' Letter to Lord Shelburne, April 3rd, 1772, Corr. iv. 203.

Horace Walpole said, "Never was and for which so little was said"— anAct passed against which so much, Fox's Mem. i. 81.