ably and learnedly discussed. But it was still carried with a high hand. The doors of the House were closed against all strangers,-peers in vain sought admission below the bar, and the Government even went so far as to refuse the printing of the bill, and supported their refusal by a large majority. No amendment was suffered to be made, except one of pedantic form, suggested by the speaker, that the king's consent to a marriage should be signified under the greal seal; and on the 24th March the bill was passed. Attempts have since been made, without success, to repeal this law', and to evade its provisions; but it has been inflexibly maintained. riage of the Prince of Wales. In 1785 the Prince of Wales contracted a clandes- Secret martine marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert, a Roman Catholic. His marriage being without the king's consent, and consequently invalid, the princely libertine ventured to satisfy the scruples of his paramour, and to indulge his own passions; while he was released from the sacred obligations of the marriage tie, and saved from the forfeiture of his succession to the Crown, which would have been the legal consequence of a valid marriage with a Roman Catholic. Even his pretended marriage, though void in law, would have raised embarrassing doubts and discussions concerning the penal provisions of the Bill of Rights; and, if confessed, would undoubtedly have exposed him to obloquy and discredit. The prince, therefore, denied the fact of his marriage; and made his best friend the unconscious instrument of this falsehood and deception.2 1 By Lord Holland, in 1820; Hansard's Debates, New Ser., i. 1099. 2 Parl. Hist. xxvi. 1070. See an excellent letter from Mr. Fox to VOL. I. Q the Prince, Dec. 10th, 1785, dis- Marriages of the Duke of Sussex. The Duke of Sussex was twice married without the consent of the Crown; first, in 1793, to Lady Augusta Murray; and, later in life, to Lady Cecilia Underwood. His first marriage having been solemnised abroad, a question was raised whether it was rendered invalid by the Royal Marriage Act. It was again celebrated in England, where it was unquestionably illegal. The king immediately directed a suit of nullity of marriage to be commenced by his proctor, and it was adjudged by the Court of Arches, that the marriage was absolutely null and void.1 In 1831 the law officers of the Crown were consulted by the government as to the validity of this marriage; and their opinions confirmed the judgment of the Court of Arches. On the death of the Duke of Sussex in 1843, Sir Augustus D'Este, the son of his Royal Highness by this marriage, claimed the dukedom and other honours of his father. The marriage had been solemnised at Rome in 1793, according to the rites of the Church of England, by a clergyman of that establishment, and would have been a valid contract between British subjects but for the restrictions of the Royal Marriage Act ; and it was contended before the House of Lords, that the operation of that Act could not be extended beyond the British dominions. But it was the unanimous opinion of the judges,-in which the House of Lords concurred, that the prohibition of the statute was personal, and followed the persons to whom it applied, out Lord J. Russell's Life and Times of narrative of them will be found in Mr. Massey's History, vol. iii. 315— 331. 1 Heseltine v. Lady A. Murray, Addam's Reports, ii. 400; Burn's Eccl. Law, ii. 433; Ann. Reg. 1794, p. 23. of the realm, and beyond the British jurisdiction. It was accordingly decided that the claimant had not made out his claim.' of Princess The prerogative of the king to direct the education Education of his grandchildren, which had been established in Charlotte, 1718, was again asserted in 1804. The king claimed 1804. the guardianship of the Princess Charlotte; and the Prince of Wales, her father, being perplexed with divided councils, was long in doubt whether he should concede or contest the right.2 At length he appears to have agreed that the king should have the direction of the princess's education. The understanding not being very precise, a misapprehension arose as to its conditions; and it was said that the prince had withdrawn from his engagement.3 But Mr. Pitt ultimately arranged this difference by obtaining the removal of the princess to Windsor, without excluding the prince from a share in the control of her education.4 1 Clark and Finnelly's Reports, xi. 85-154. 2 Lord Malmesbury says: "The two factions pulled the prince different ways; Ladies Moira, Hutchinson, and Mrs. Fitzherbert, were for his ceding the child to the king; the Duke of Clarence and Devonshire House most violent against it, and the prince ever inclines to the faction he saw last. In the Devonshire House Cabal, Lady Melbourne and Mrs. Fox act conspicuous parts, 3 Letters of Mr. T. Grenville to 4 Ibid. 395, 398. 228 CHAP. V. Permanence of British in THE HOUSE OF LORDS:-CONSTANT ADDITIONS TO ITS NUMBERS:-PROFUSE NOTHING in the history of our constitution is more remarkable than the permanence of every institution stitutions. forming part of the Government of the country, while undergoing continual, and often extraordinary changes in its powers, privileges, and influence. The Crown, as we have seen, remains with all its prerogatives undiminished, and with its sources of influence increased ; yet in the exercise of its great powers by responsible ministers, it has been gradually controlled by Parliament and public opinion, until the authority of the Crown in government and legislation, bears as little resemblance to the sway of the Tudor and Stuart kings, as to that of Louis XIV. The House of Peers. So also the House of Lords continues to hold its high place in the state, next to the Crown, and still enjoys the greater part of its ancient privileges. Yet no institution has undergone greater changes. In its numbers, its composition, and its influence, it is difficult to recognise its identity with the "Great Council" of a former age. But the changes which it has undergone have served to bring this great institution into harmony with other parts of the constitution, and with the social condition of the people, upon which time has worked equal mutations. additions The continual additions which have been made to Constant the number of temporal peers, sitting in Parlia- to its numment, have been so remarkable as to change the bers. very constitution and character of the House of Lords. No more than twenty-nine temporal peers received writs of summons to the first Parliament of Henry VII.; and this number had increased at the death of Queen Elizabeth to fifty-nine. The Stuarts were profuse in their creations', and raised the number of the peerage to about one hundred and fifty2; which William III. and Queen Anne further increased to one hundred and sixty-eight. In the latter reign no less than twelve peers were created at once, to turn a majority in favour of the court, which they did on the very day of their introduction. In this Represensame reign were also added, on the Union with Scot- of Scot land, sixteen representative peers,-a number scarcely adequate to represent an ancient peerage, little less numerous than that of England, in a House of 1 James I. created sixty-two; Charles I., fifty-nine; Charles II., sixty-four; and James II., eight; being a total number of one hundred and ninety-three; but during these reigns ninety-nine peerages became extinct, and thus the total addition to the peerage was ninetyfour. From returns delivered to the House of Lords in 1719. As many of these peerages were sold by James I. and Charles II., it is surprising that the creations were not even more numerous. 2 In 1661, one hundred and thirty-nine lords were summoned. In tative peers land. |