LXIV. 1811. CHAP. has any application to the circumstances in which we are now placed. Was the object of parliament, at that period, to provide for the care and custody of the person of the monarch? Was it to provide for his return to the government of the country upon his restoration to health? Was it to erect a temporary sovereignty during the incapacity of the monarch who, it was hoped, would soon be restored to health? Was it not, on the contrary, to provide against the restoration of James-to erect a barrier against his return, and defend the crown, which they proposed to transfer, against the hostile approach of its ancient possessor? 30. the proce "The argument, founded upon the incompetency of Defence of applying the Great Seal to an act of parliament during dure by bill, the incapacity of the sovereign, is founded on no logical principle. Admitting that a fiction of law is adopted—an irregular and absurd proceeding, if you will, carried on when two branches of the legislature authorise the symbol of the consent of the third to be affixed to their bill without the knowledge or consent of that other-does not this arise necessarily from the melancholy event which for a time has resolved government into two of its elements, and compelled them to provide themselves for the public service with only the presumed or feigned consent of the third? It is surely a singular remedy for the unfortunate incapacity of one branch of the constitution, to proceed necessarily to incapacitate the remaining branches. The proceedings at the time of the Revolution were wise, just, and necessary, because there was no other mode of proceeding practicable at that period, when government was dissolved, and no legislative measure, even in the most informal style, could be adopted; but, because such a proceeding was proper then, does it follow that the same precedent should be followed now, when no such necessity exists? And is not the proposal to do so, in the forcible language of Mr Burke, 'to make the extreme medicine of the constitution its daily bread?' CHAP. 1811. 31. "We have now a parliament full, free, and so constituted as to be perfectly competent to provide for the exigency that exists. What analogy is there between such a situation, and that at the Revolution, when the Inapplicability of the very convocation of a parliament was the first step to be precedent of taken, and that could only be done by address to the the RevoluPrince of Orange? Admitting the absurdity of applying the Great Seal, in the King's name, to a bill which has passed both Houses, when there is no sovereign on the throne, the same difficulty exists in as great a degree to the whole proceedings of the regency during the King's life, which, contrary to the fact, speak in the King's name, and profess to utter his will. The question of a regency, it is historically known, was discussed at the Revolution, and rejected as unsuitable to the circumstances which then existed; and this renders that precedent directly hostile to the proceeding by address in the present instance. The older precedents so standing, and such being the equal balance of difficulties or incompetencies on either side, what remains for us but to act upon the latest and most important authority, that of parliament on the king's illness in 1788, which was adopted after the fullest discussion, in circumstances precisely parallel to the present, and with the assistance of all the light to be derived from 1 Parl. Deb. the greatest constitutional lawyers and statesmen who 291. ever adorned the British senate ?"1 2 xviii. 280, xviii. 329, Upon this debate, parliament, by a large majority in both houses, supported the resolutions proposed by Parl. Deb. ministers, that is, the proceeding by bill; the numbers 460. Ann. being in the Commons 269 to 157; in the Lords 100 p. I. to 74.2 Reg. 1811, 32. of the minis The details of the regency bill were afterwards brought forward, and discussed with great spirit and minuteness Diminution in committees of both houses of parliament. Most of the terial majoclauses were adopted with no other than verbal altera- rity, but tions; but a protracted debate took place on the clause mate sucwhich proposed to lay the Regent for twelve months under 31, 1810. their ulti cess. Dec. LXIV. 1811. CHAP. certain restrictions, especially in the royal prerogative of creating peers, or calling the eldest sons of peers to the upper house by writ. These restrictions, however, for that period, were inserted in the bill, by a majority in the lower house of twenty-four; the numbers being two hundred and twenty-four to two hundred-a majority which fell on the matter of the limitation as to creating peers, to sixteen in the Commons, and in the Lords to six. This rapid diminution of the ministerial majority clearly indicated what an insecure tenure ministers were conceived to have of their places, and how strongly the now confirmed malady of the sovereign, and the known partiality of the Prince of Wales for the Whig party, had come to influence that numerous party in parliament—the waverers -in the line of policy they thought it expedient to adopt. The Queen, by the bill, had the appointment of all the offices connected with the King's household, and certain forms were prescribed, according to which she was to take the initiative in paving the way for his restoration to power in the event of his convalescence. But in the all-important matter of the appointment of a ministry, the Regent was invested, without any restriction, with the whole royal prerogative; and it was universally thought that the first use he would make of his newlyacquired power would be to dismiss the present ministers, and call Lords Grey and Grenville to the head of his councils. Thus modified, the bill appointing the Regent passed the House of Lords on the 29th January, by a majority, however, only of eight; and on the 6th February the royal assent was given by commission, and the Great Seal, the object of so much contention, affixed to 1 Parl. Deb. the bill; upon which the Prince of Wales immediately xviii. 1084, entered on the whole functions of royalty, by the title of the Prince Regent.1 Jan. 29, 1811. Feb. 6. 1140. On calmly considering the subject of this vehement contention and narrow division in both houses of parliament, it cannot but strike the most inconsiderate observer, CHAP. LXIV. 1811. sides taken casion by how remarkable it was that the two great parties who divided the state took, upon this constitutional question, sides diametrically opposite to what might have been 33. expected from their previous principles-the Whigs sup- Remarkable porting now, as in 1788, the doctrine of the hereditary on this ocinherent right of the heir-apparent to the regency, during the Whigs a contingency not provided for by the Act of Settlement and Tories. or the constitution, and the Tories exerting all their efforts, equally as in the days of Mr Pitt, to negative the heirapparent's claim de jure to the regency, and to confer it on him by act of parliament only, and under such restrictions as to the two houses of the legislature might seem expedient. A memorable instance of how much, even in the brightest days of national history, the greatest men in public life are influenced by considerations of interest to themselves or their party, in preference to adherence to the political principles which they profess; and of the ease with which the most conscientious minds are unconsciously swayed by the persuasive voice of private advantage or public ambition. 34. on the the question. But if the merits of the arguments adduced on both sides on this occasion are considered, without reference to Reflections the objects of present advantage which either party had merits of at heart, no doubt can be entertained that the Whigs, both in reason and on precedent, had the best of the dispute. Admitting that the constitution, as it at present exists, was originally formed by an exertion of the national will, in opposition to, or in constraint of, the views of the reigning monarch, still no one can doubt that the occasions on which reference is to be made to parliament to appoint the supreme executive magistrate, are extreme ones, and that recourse is not to be had to that ultimum remedium, except in cases where no other mode of solving the difficulty and carrying on the government can be discovered. In Mr Burke's words, already quoted, to act otherwise would be to make the extreme medicine of the constitution its daily bread. An event so little con LXIV. 1811. CHAP. trary to the ordinary course of events that it unhappily occurred twice during the life of the same monarch—viz., the insanity or utter incapacity of the reigning sovereigncan hardly be said to be an extreme case, unprovided for by the constitution, calling for a recurrence to first principles, and warranting two branches of the legislature in disposing of the third and the executive magistracy. The right of hereditary succession-the fundamental principle of the monarchy-interfered with to the smallest possible extent at the Revolution, and then fixed de futuro on the firmest basis, clearly indicates the mode of solving the difficulty. The heir-apparent, if of competent age to undertake the government-if not, the party entitled by law to the regency during his minority-is the person to whom the interim duty of conducting the executive devolves, leaving it to parliament to make what provision they please for the custody of the person of the fatuous monarch. 35. Regent con ministers in power. Feb. 12. The result which followed this interesting discussion The Prince in both houses of parliament was such as was little tinues the anticipated, and one which, had it been foreseen, might possibly have inverted the sides which the Ministerial party and Opposition respectively took upon its merits. From the connexion which, during his whole past life, had subsisted between the Prince of Wales and the Whig party, and the close personal intimacy in which he had long lived with its principal leaders, it was universally expected that his first act, upon being elevated to the office of Prince Regent, would have been to have sent for Lords Grey and Grenville, and intrusted them with the formation of a new administration. In fact, the anticipation of this had, towards the close of the year 1810, sensibly diminished the ministerial majority in both houses of parliament; and, by inspiring government with the belief that their tenure of office was drawing to a close, and that an opposite system would immediately be embraced by their successors, had |