avoided by not proposing her name at all.1 The king was taken by surprise, and either misunderstood the proposal, or failed to show his usual firmness and courage in resisting it. Lord Halifax at once proceeded to the House of Lords, and moved the recommitment of the bill, according to the alleged wishes of his Majesty, in order to make an amendment, which limited the regency to the queen, and the descendants of the late king, usually resident in England. Thus, not satisfied with gaining their point, ministers had the cruelty and assurance to make the king himself bear the blame of proposing an affront to his own mother. Well might Horace Walpole exclaim :" And thus she alone is rendered incapable of the regency, and stigmatized by Act of Parliament ! " 8 The king had no sooner given his consent than he recoiled from its consequences, - complained that he had been betrayed, and endeavored to obtain the insertion of his mother's name. He could gain no satisfaction from his ministers; but in the Commons, the friends of the princess, encouraged by the king himself, took up her cause; and, on the motion of Mr. Morton, Chief Justice of Chester, which was not opposed by the ministers, her name placed in the was inserted in the bill. The king had been assured that the Commons would strike it out: and yet, after the House of Lords had omitted it, on the supposed authority of the king, there were only thirty-seven members found to vote against its insertion, while one hundred and sixty-seven voted in its favor; and in this form the bill passed.

Her name re

bill.

4

1 Walpole's Mem., ii. 125.

2 Grenville Papers (Diary), iii. 149, and 154, n.

8 Letter to Lord Hertford, May 5th.

5

4"The king seemed much agitated, and felt the force of what Mr. Grenville said in regard to the different directions given to his servants in the two Houses, but still enforced the argument of this being moved by the gentlemen of the Opposition. The king was in the utmost degree of agitation and emotion, even to tears." — - Mr. Grenville's Diary, May 5th, 1765; Grenville Papers, iii. 154.

5 Mr. Grenville's Report of the Debate to the King; Grenville Papers, ii. 25, n.; Walpole's Mem. George III., ii. 129–146.

Could any lover of mischief, could Wilkes himself, have devised more embarrassments and cross purposes, than were caused by this unlucky Regency Bill? Faction and intrigue had done their worst.

Act.

The Regency Act provided for the nomination by the king, under his sign-manual, of the queen, the Provisions of Princess of Wales, or a member of the royal the Regency family descended from the late king, to be the guardian of his successor while under eighteen years of age, and "Regent of the Kingdom," and to exercise the royal power and prerogatives. His nomination was to be signified by three instruments, separately signed, and sealed up, and deposited with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and the President of the Council. It attached the penalties of præmunire to any one who should open these instruments during the king's life, or afterwards neglect or refuse to produce them before the privy council. It appointed a council of regency, consisting of the king's brothers and his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, and several great officers of Church and State, for the time being.

In case

any of the king's brothers or his uncle should die, or be appointed regent, it gave the king the power of nominating another person, being a natural-born subject, to the council of regency, by instruments under his hand in the same form as those appointing the regent. The act also defined the powers of the regent and council. On the demise of his Majesty, the privy council was directed to meet and proclaim his successor.

The king's ill

1788-9.

The king's next illness was of longer duration, and of a more distressing character. It was the occasion of another Regency Bill, and of proceedings wholly ness in unprecedented. In the summer of 1788, the king showed evident symptoms of derangement. He was able, however, to sign a warrant for the further prorogation of Parliament by commission, from the 25th September to the

15 George III. c. 27

2

20th November. But, in the interval, the king's malady increased: he was wholly deprived of reason, and placed under restraint; and for several days his life was in danger.1 As no authority could be obtained from him for a further prorogation, both Houses assembled on the 20th November, though they had not been summoned for dispatch of business, and no causes of summons could be communicated to them, in the accustomed manner, by a speech from the throne. These circumstances were explained in both Houses; and, on the suggestion of ministers, they agreed to adjourn for a fortnight, and to summon all their members, by circular letters, to attend at their next meeting. According to long established law, Parliament, without being opened by the Crown, had no authority to proceed to any business whatever: but the necessity of an occasion, for which the law had made no provision, was now superior to the law; and Parliament accordingly proceeded to deliberate upon the momentous questions to which the king's illness had given rise. In order to afford Parliament authentic evidence of the king's condition, his five physicians were examof the king's ined by the privy council on the 3d December physicians. They agreed that the king was then incapable of meeting Parliament, or of attending to any business; but believed in the probability of his ultimate recovery, although they could not limit the time. On the following day this evidence was laid before both Houses: but as doubts were suggested whether Parliament should rest satisfied without receiving the personal testimony of the physicians, it was

Examination

1 Tomline's Life of Pitt, ii. 363; Lord Auckland's Corr. ii. 240-298. At such times as these, political events pressed heavily on the king's mind. He said to Lord Thurlow and the Duke of Leeds, "Whatever you and Mr. Pitt may think or feel, I, that am born a gentleman, shall never lay my head on my last pillow in peace and quiet as long as I remember the loss of my American colonies." Lord Malm. Corr., iv. 21. On a later occasion, in 1801, the king's mind showed equally strong feelings as to the supposed dangers of the Church.

2 Parl. Hist., xxvii. 653, 685. The House of Commons was also ordered to be called over on that day.

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." 2 And in this rational view the House acquiesced.

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 precedents. 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.

1

to

as to affirm, that "unless by their decision, the Prince of Wales had no more right speaking of strict rightassume the government, than any other individual subject of the country,' - 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, -unrestrained 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.

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.

8 Dec. 12th. Parl. Hist., xxvii. 727.