the ministers of that day of "having culpably made use of the king's name without the king's sanction, and criminally exercised the royal functions, when the sovereig was under a moral incapacity to authorize such a proceeding."1 Lord Sidmouth and Lord Eldon, the ministers whose conduct was mainly impugned, defended themselves from these imputations, and expressed their astonishment at Dr. Heberden's evidence, which, they said, was at variance with the opinions of all the physicians, including Dr. Heberden himself, — expressed in 1804, while in attendance upon the king. They stated that his new version of his Majesty's former illness had surprised the queen, not less than the ministers. And it is quite clear, from other evidence, that Dr. Heberden's account of the duration and continuous character of the king's malady, was inaccurate. Lord Eldon, oddly enough, affirmed, that on the 9th of March, the king understood the duty which the Chancellor had to perform, better than he did himself. This he believed he could prove. A motion was made by Lord King, for omitting Lord Eldon's name from the Queen's Council of Regency; and its rejection was the cause of a protest, signed by nine peers, including Lords Grey, Holland, Lauderdale, and Erskine, in which they affirmed his unfitness for that office, on the ground that he had improperly used the king's name and authority, during his incapacity in 1804.8 In the House of Commons Mr. Whitbread made a similar charge against his lordship; and the Lord Chancellor complained, not without reason, that he had been hardly dealt with by his enemies, and feebly defended by his friends.*

In 1804 the propriety of passing a regency bill, to provide for any future illness of the king, was once more the

1 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 1054.

2 Lord Malmesbury's Diaries and Lord Sidmouth's Life; and supra, p. 168.

8 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 1031-1087.

4 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xix 87; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 37 Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 151-161

Canvassed.

period;

no

subject of grave consideration among the statesinen of the but, as in 1789, so now again, Necessity of a Regency Act sooner did the king recover, than all further care appears to have been cast aside. Six years later this want of foresight again led to serious embarrassment. The king's last mental disorder commenced in the autumn of 1810. His kingly career was to close forever. King's illness in 1810. Bereft of reason and nearly blind, the poor old king, who had ruled for fifty years with so high a hand, and so strong a will, was now tended by physicians, and controlled by keepers. His constitutional infirmity, aggravated by political anxieties and domestic distresses, had overcome him; and he was too far advanced in years, to rally again. It was a mournful spectacle. Like King Lear, he

was

"A poor old man,

As full of grief as age: wretched in both."

But as physicians will dispute at the bedside of the dying patient, so the hopes and fears of rival parties, and the rude collisions of political strife, were aroused into activity by the sufferings of the king. The contentions of 1788 were revived, though the leaders of that age had passed

away.

Meeting of

Parliament stood prorogued to the 1st November, and a proclamation had appeared in the "Gazette," Parliament. declaring the king's pleasure that it should be further prorogued by commission to the 29th. But before this commission could be signed, his Majesty became so ill that the Lord Chancellor, unable to obtain his signature, did not feel justified in affixing the great seal; and in this view of his duty, statesmen of all parties concurred. Following

1 Lord Malmesbury's Cor., iv. 315.

2 Lord Campbell, however, says, "It would have been but a small liberty to have passed this commission, for there had been an order made at a council, at which the king presided, to prorogue Parliament from the 1st to the 29th November, and to prepare a commission for this purpose." - Lives of the Chancellors, vii. 242.

the precedent of 1788, both Houses met on the 1st November; and on being informed of the circumstances under which they were assembled,1 adjourned until the 15th, fourteen days being the shortest period within which Parliament may, by law, be summoned for despatch of business Circular letters were directed to be sent, summoning the members of both Houses to attend on that day. Strong hopes had been entertained by the physicians, of his Majesty's speedy recovery; and in the interval they were confirmed. Both Houses, therefore, on these representations being made, again adjourned for a fortnight. Before their next meeting the king's physicians were examined Nov. 29. by the privy council; and as they were still confident of his Majesty's recovery, a further adjournment for a fortnight was agreed upon, though not without objections to so long. an interruption of business, and a division in both Houses.

No longer delay could now be suggested; and at the next meeting, a committee of twenty-one members was Dec. 13. appointed in both Houses, for the examination of the king's physicians. They still entertained hopes of his Majesty's ultimate recovery, in spite of his age and blindness; but could not form any opinion as to the probable duration of his illness.

1788 followed.

Continuing to follow generally the precedent of 1788, ministers proposed, on the 20th December, in a Precedent of committee on the state of the nation, three resolutions, affirming the king's incapacity, the right and duty of the two Houses to provide for this exigency, necessity of determining by what means the royal assent should be signified to a bill for that purpose.

and the

Again the question of proceeding by bill, or by address was argued. The proceedings of 1788 were exposed to a

1 In the Commons, the Speaker first took his seat at the table, and explained the circumstances under which the House had met, before he took the chair. - Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 3. On taking the chair, he acquainted the House that he had issued a new writ during the recess.

Discussions upon that precedent.

searching criticism, and all the precedents of constitutional history, presenting any analogy to the present circumstances, learnedly investigated. The expedients which had delighted Lord Eldon in his early career, found little favor with the more philosophic lawyers of a later school. Sir S. Romilly regarded them "in no other light but as a fraudulent trick," and asked what would be said of "a set of men joining together, and making a contract for another in a state of insanity, and employing a person as his solicitor, to affix his seal or his signature to such a deed?"

Considering the recency and complete application of the precedent of 1778, it is not surprising that both ministers and Parliament should have agreed to follow it, instead of adopting a more simple course; but to most minds of the present age, the arguments of those who contended for an address, and against the " Phantom," will appear the more conclusive. The royal authority was wanting, and could be supplied by Parliament alone. So far all were agreed; but those who argued for proceeding by means of a bill, accepted a notoriously fictitious use of the king's name, as an equivalent for his real authority; while those who supported a direct address, desired that Parliament, - openly recognizing the king's inability to exercise his royal authority, should from the necessity of the case, proceed to act without it. Of all the speeches against proceeding by way of bill, the most learned, able, and argumentative, was that of Mr. Francis Horner. Comparing the proceedings of 1788, with those of the Revolution of 1688, he said: "It is impossible not to contrast the virtuous forbearance of all parties at the Revolution, in concurring to provide for the public interests, with the struggle that was made for power in the other instance; and, above all, to contrast the studied delays by which power was then so factiously retained, with the despatch with which our ancestors finished, in one short 1 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 299.

month, their task of establishing at once the succession to the Crown, reducing its prerogatives within limitations by law, and founding the whole structure of our civil and religious liberties." 1

Political

lay.

But independently of precedents and legal forms, the ministers expecting, like their predecessors in 1788, to be dismissed by the regent, were not disposed causes of deto simplify the preliminary proceedings, and accelerate their own fall; while the Opposition, impatient for office, objected to elaborate preliminaries, as much, perhaps, for the delays which they occasioned, as for their hollow subtlety and uselessness.

22.

The resolutions were agreed to, and communicated to the Lords, at a conference. There an amendment Resolutions was moved by Lord Holland, to the third resolu- agreed to Dec. tion, by which an address to the Prince of Wales was proposed to be substituted for the proceeding by bill, inviting the prince to take upon himself the exercise of the powers and authorities of the Crown, but to abstain from the exercise of such powers as the immediate exigencies of the state shall not call into action, until Parliament had passed a bill for the future care of his Majesty's person, and securing the resumption of his authority. The Dukes of York and Sussex spoke in favor of this amendment, and all the seven dukes of the blood royal voted for it: but the resolution was carried by a majority of twenty-six. The royal dukes also signed protests against the rejection of the amendment, and against the third resolution. The chancellor differed widely from the royal dukes, declaring that an address from the two Houses to the Prince of Wales, praying him to exercise the royal prerogatives during the king's life, would be treasonable.5

1 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 306.

2 Ibid., 418.

2

3

8 York, Clarence, Kent, Cumberland, Sussex, Cambridge, and Gloucester 4 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 471.

5 lbid. 459, 713.