afterwards agreed that a committee should be appointed, in each House, for that purpose. In the Lords the committee was nominated by ballot, each peer giving in a list Committees of twenty-one names.1 Meanwhile, all other busi- appointed. ness was suspended. In the Commons, the speaker even entertained doubts whether any new writs could be issued for supplying the places of members deceased; but Mr. Pitt expressed a decided opinion," that though no act could take place which required the joint concurrence of the different branches of the Legislature, yet each of them in its separate capacity was fully competent to the exercise of those powers which concerned its own orders and jurisdiction." And in this rational view the House acquiesced.

precedents.

Doctrines of

Mr. Pitt.

The reports of these committees merely confirmed the evidence previously given before the privy coun- Committees cil; and the facts being thus established, a com- to search for mittee was moved for, in either House, to search for precedents" of such proceedings as may have been had in case of the personal exercise of the royal authority being prevented or interrupted by infancy, sickness, infirmity, or otherwise, with a view to provide for the same." When this motion was made in the Commons, Mr. Fox and Mr. Fox advanced the startling opinion that the Prince of Wales had as clear a right to exercise the power of sovereignty during the king's incapacity, as if the king were actually dead; and that it was merely for the two Houses of Parliament to pronounce at what time he should commence the exercise of his right. To assert an absolute right of inheritance during his father's life, in defiance of the well-known rule of law, "nemo est hæres viventis," was to argue that the heir-at-law is entitled to enter into possession of the estate of a lunatic. Mr. Pitt, on the other hand, maintained that as no legal provision had been made for carrying on the government, it belonged to the Houses of Parliament to make such provision. He even went so far 1 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 658. 2 Ibid., 688. 8 Ibid., 707.

to

as to affirm, that "unless by their decision, the Prince of Wales had no more right speaking of strict right assume the government, than any other individual subject of the country," 1 a position as objectionable in one direction, as that of Mr. Fox in the other,2—and which gave great umbrage to the prince and his friends. And here the two parties joined issue.

Issue taken

as to the

Prince.

When next this matter was discussed, Mr. Fox, being sensible that he had pressed his doctrine of right rights of the beyond its constitutional limits, somewhat receded from his first ground. He now spoke of the prince having a legal claim rather than a right to the regency, and contended that it was for Parliament to adjudicate upon that claim, which, when allowed, would become an absolute title to the exercise of all the rights of sovereignty, without any limitation. He stated, also, that he spoke merely his own opinion, without any authority; but that if he had been consulted, he should have advised a message from the prince, stating his claim, to be answered by a joint address of both Houses, calling upon him to exercise the prerogatives of the Crown. It was now his main position that no restrictions should be imposed upon the powers of the regent. But here, again, Mr. Pitt joined issue with him; and while he agreed that, as a matter of discretion, the Prince of Wales ought to be the regent, with all necessary authority, restrained by any permanent council, and with a free choice of his political servants; he yet contended that any power which was not essential, and which might be employed to embarrass the exercise of the king's authority, in the event of his recovery, ought to be withheld. And as the ques

1 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 709.

-

un

2 Lord John Russell says, "The doctrine of Mr. Fox, the popular leader, went far to set aside the constitutional authority of Parliament, while that of Mr. Pitt, the organ of the Crown, tended to shake the stability of the monarchy, and to peril the great rule of hereditary succession." - Memorials of Fox, ii. 263.

tion of right had been raised, he insisted that it ought first to be determined, since if the right should be held to exist, Parliament having adjudicated upon such right, need not deliberate upon any further measures.

The same questions were debated in the House of Lords, where the Duke of York said that no claim of The Prince of

Wales dis

right had been made on the part of the prince, claims his who "understood too well the sacred principles right. which seated the House of Brunswick on the throne, ever to assume or exercise any power, be his claim what it might, not derived from the will of the people, expressed by their representatives, and their lordships in Parliament assembled." His Royal Highness, therefore, deprecated pressing for any decision on that point, in which the Duke of Gloucester concurred.1

Pitt's con

Meanwhile, the prince was greatly offended by Mr. Pitt's conduct, and wrote to the chancellor complaining The Prince of that the premier had publicly announced so much fended by Mr. of his scheme of regency, and was prepared, as he duct. conceived, to lay it still more fully before Parliament, without having previously submitted it to his consideration. He desired that Mr. Pitt would send him, in writing, an outline of what he proposed. Mr. Pitt immediately wrote to the prince, explaining his own conduct, and stating that it was not his intention to propose any specific plan until the right of Parliament to consider such a plan had been determined; and that he would then submit to his Royal Highness the best opinions which his Majesty's servants had been able to give.2

On the 16th December the House resolved itself into a

committee on the state of the nation, when Mr. Mr. Pitt's prePitt again enforced the right of Parliament to liminary resoappoint a regent, fortifying his position by ref

8

lutions.

erence to the report of precedents, which had then been re

1 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 678, 684.

2 Tomline's Life of Pitt, ii. 388; where the letter is printed at length.

8 Commons' Journ., xliv. 11; Lords' Journ., xxxviii. 276.

ceived, and arguing ably and elaborately that neither law, precedent, nor analogy could be found to support the claim which had been urged on behalf of the Prince of Wales. He concluded by moving three resolutions; affirming, first, that the personal exercise of royal authority was interrupted; second, the right of the two Houses to supply the defect of the personal exercise of the royal authority, in such manner as the exigency of the case may seem to require; and, third, the necessity of "determining the means by which the royal assent may be given to bills passed by the two Houses respecting the exercise of the powers of the Crown, during the continuance of the king's indisposition."

Mr. Fox argued, ingeniously, that the principles maintained by Mr. Pitt tended to make the monarchy elective instead of hereditary; and that if Parliament might elect any one to be regent, for whatever time it thought fit, the monarchy would become a republic. Nor did he omit to seek for support, by intimations that he should be Mr. Pitt's successor, under the regency.

On the report of these resolutions to the House,1 Mr. Pitt explained (in reference to his third resolution, which had not been clearly understood), that he intended, when the resolutions had been agreed to by both Houses, to propose that the Lord Chancellor should be empowered, by a vote of the two Houses, to affix the Great Seal to commissions for opening the Parliament, and for giving the royal assent to a Regency Bill. The propriety of this singular course of proceeding was much questioned; but, after long debates, the resolutions were agreed to, and communicated to the House of Lords at a conference. In that House the same questions were debated, and Lord Rawdon moved as an amendment, an address to the Prince of Wales, praying him "to take upon himself, as sole regent, the administration of the executive government, in the king's name." Lord

1 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 782. Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 191.

Chancellor Thurlow, though faithless to his colleagues, and intriguing, at the very time, with the queen and the Prince of Wales,1-supported the ministerial position with great force. In answer to Lord Rawdon's amendment, he "begged to know what the term 'regent' meant? where was he to find it defined? in what law-book, or what statute? He had heard of custodes regni, of lieutenants for the king, of guardians and protectors, and of lords-justices; but he knew not where to look for an explanation of the office and functions of regent. To what end, then, would it be to address the prince to take upon himself an office, the boundaries of which were by no means ascertained? . . . What was meant by the executive government? Did it mean the whole royal authority? Did it mean the power of legislation? Did it mean all the sovereign's functions without restriction or limitation of any kind whatsoever? If it did, it amounted to the actual dethroning of his Majesty, and wresting the sceptre out of his hand." 2 All the resolutions were agreed to; but were followed by a protest signed by forty-eight peers.

8

The perplexities arising out of the incapacity of the sovereign, the constitutional source and origin of

Death of Mr.

wall.

authority were now increased by the death of Speaker CornMr. Cornwall, the Speaker of the House of Commons. His Majesty's leave could not be signified that the 1 Nicholls's Recollections, 71; Tomline's Life of Pitt, iii. c. 14; Wilberforce's Life, i. App.; Moore's Life of Sheridan, ii, 31; Lord Campbell's Lives of Chancellors, v. 583, et seq.

2 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 885. The office of regent, however, does not appear to be wholly without recognition, as contended by the chancellor and others. On the accession of Henry III., a minor, the great council of the nation, assembled at Bristol, appointed the Earl of Pembroke regent, as "Rector Regis et Regni" (Matthew Paris, Wats's 2d Ed., p. 245; Carte's History of Eng., ii. 2); and when the Duke of York was appointed protector by the Parliament during the illness of Hen. VI., it is entered in the rolls of Parliament that the title of regent was not given him, because "it emported auctorite of governaunce of the lande." Rot. Parl., v. 242, a. D. 1454; Rymer's Fœdera, v. 55.

8 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 901.