fidence between them and the Prince of Wales,the uncertainty of the king's recovery,-the conduct of the opposition, and their relations to the prince, -together with several constitutional considerations of the utmost difficulty, contributed to the embarrassment of their position.

If it was necessary to authorise the opening of Parliament by a commission under the great seal, this course ought to have been at first adopted; for the law of Parliament does not recognise the distinction then raised, between legislative and any other proceedings. No business whatever can be commenced until the causes of summons have been declared by the crown.' The king having been unable to exercise this function, Parliament had proceeded with its deliberations for upwards of two months, without the accustomed speech from the throne. And if any doubt existed as to the validity of these proceedings, it is difficult to understand how they could be removed by the commission. As the king's authority could not in fact be exercised, and as the great seal, intended to represent it, was affixed by direction of the two Houses, why was the fiction needed? The only real authority was that of Parliament, which might have been boldly and openly exercised, during the incapacity of the king.

The simplest and most direct course would, undoubtedly, have been for both Houses to agree upon an address to the Prince of Wales, praying him to exercise the royal authority, subject to condi

Even the election of a speaker and the swearing of members in new Parliament, are not commenced until the pleasure of the crown has been signified

tions stated in the address itself; and on his acceptance of the trust, to proceed to give legal effect to these conditions by a bill,-to which the royal assent would be signified by the regent, on behalf of the crown. Either in earlier or in later times, such a course would probably have been followed. But at that period, above all others, lawyers delighted in fiction, and Westminster Hall was peopled with legal phantoms' of their creation.'

Precedent

of the Revolution of 1688.

In proposing to proceed by address, the opposition relied upon the precedent of the Revolution of 1688. On the other side it was contended, and particularly by Sir John Scott, the Solicitor-General,-by whose advice the government were mainly guided, that after the throne had been declared vacant, Parliament solicited the Prince of Orange to assume the royal powers: but here the rights of the lawful sovereign could not be passed by, and superseded. His name must be used in all proceedings: his great seal affixed by the chancellor of his appointment, to every commission; and his authority recognised and represented, though his personal directions and capacity were wanting. It is obvious, however, that whatever empty forms were observed, the royal authority was, of necessity, superseded. As the throne was not vacant, no stranger was sought to fill it, and

See Chap. XVIII. Lord John Russell says, 'All reasonable restrictions might have been imposed by Act of Parliament, with the royal assent given by the regent, acting on behalf of the crown.'Mem. of Fox, ii. 265. He ridicules the absurd phantom of a royal assent given by the Houses of Parliament to their own act, by a fiction of their own creation.'

* Parl. Hist., xxvii. 825; Twiss's Life of Eldon, 192.

all parties concurred in calling upon the heir apparent to exercise bis father's royal authority. The two occasions differed in regard to the persons whom Parliament, in times of nearly equal emergency, proposed to invest with the supreme power: but why a simple and direct course of proceeding was not as appropriate in the one case as in the other, we need the subtlety and formalism of the old school of lawyers to perceive.

political

As regards the conduct of political parties, it can hardly be questioned that, on the one hand, Conduct of Mr. Fox and his party incautiously took up parties. an indefensible position; while, on the other, Mr. Pitt was unduly tenacious in asserting the authority of Parliament, which the Prince had not authorised any one to question, and which his brother, the Duke of York, had admitted. Yet the conduct of both is easily explained by the circumstances of their respective parties. The prince had identified himself with Mr. Fox and the Whigs; and it was well known to Mr. Pitt, and offensively announced by his opponents, that the passing of the Regency Act would be the signal for his own dismissal. To assert the prince's rights, and resist all restrictions upon his authority, was the natural course for his friends to adopt; while to maintain the prerogatives of the crown,-to respect the feelings and dignity of the queen, and at the same time to vindicate the paramount authority of Parliament,-was the becoming policy of the king's minister. Mr. Pitt's view, being favourable to popular rights, was supported by the people: Mr. Fox, on the other hand, committed

VOL. I.

himself to the assertion of prerogative, and inveighed against the discretionary power of Parliament. Well might Mr. Pitt exultingly exclaim, I'll unwhig the gentleman for the rest of his life." The proceedings on the regency confirmed the confidence of the king in Mr. Pitt, and his distrust of Mr. Fox and his adherents; and the popular minister had a long career of power before him.

While these proceedings were pending, the Parlia ment of Ireland, adopting the views of Mr. Fox, agreed to an address to the Prince of

Proceed

ings in the Parliament of Ireland.

Wales, praying him to take upon himself 'the government of this realm, during the continuance of his Majesty's present indisposition, and no longer, and under the style and title of Prince Regent of Ireland, in the name and on behalf of his Majesty, to exercise and administer, according to the laws and constitution of this kingdom, all regal powers, jurisdictions and prerogatives to the crown and government thereof belonging.' The lord lieutenant, the Marquess of Buckingham, having refused to transmit this address, the Parliament caused it to be conveyed directly to his Royal Highness, by some of their own members; and censured the conduct of the lord lieutenant as unconstitutional.2

To this address the prince returned an answer, in which, after thanking the Parliament of Ireland for

Adolphus's Hist., iv. 326, n.; Moore's Life of Sheridan, ii. 38. Debates of the Parliament of Ireland; Parl. Register of Ireland, ix. 119; Lords' Journ. (Ireland), vol. vi. 240; Com. Journ. (Ireland), vol. xiii. 7. Plowden's Hist., ii. 236-250. The speech of Mr. Grat tan was peculiarly forcible and well reasoned.

their loyalty and affection, he stated that he trusted the king would soon be able to resume the personal exercise of the royal authority, which would render unnecessary any further answer, except a repetition of his thanks.'

sight of

Soon after his recovery, the king said to Lord Thurlow, 'what has happened may happen Wise foreagain for God's sake make some perma- the king. nent and immediate provision for such a regency as may prevent the country from being involved in disputes and difficulties similar to those just over.' Lord Thurlow and Mr. Pitt agreed as to the expediency of such a measure: but differed as to the mode in which it should be framed. The former was soon afterwards out of office, and the latter thought no more about the matter.2 It is indeed singular that the king's wise foresight should have been entirely neglected; and that on three subsequent occasions, embarrassments arising from the same cause should have been experienced.

illness in

In February, 1801, the king was again seized with an illness of the same melancholy The king's character, as that by which he had been 1801. previously afflicted.3 If not caused, it was at least aggravated by the excitement of an impending

' Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xviii. 183.

2 Lord Malmesbury's Diary, iv. 23.

Lord Malmesbury's Diary, Feb. 17th, 1801: King got a bad cold; takes James's powder; God forbid he should be ill!' Feb. 19th: This the first symptom of the king's serious illness.' Malm. Corr., iv. 11, 13. Feb. 22nd: 'King much worse; Dr. J. Willin attended him all last night, and says he was in the height of a phrenzy-fever, as bad as the worst period when he saw him in 1786. — Ibid., 16; Evid. of Dr. Reynolds, 1810. Hans. Deb., xvii. 134.