1

The next step was to propose, in committee on the state of the nation, resolutions to the effect that the Prince of Wales should be empowered, as regent of the kingdom, to exercise the royal authority, in the name and on behalf of his Majesty, subject to such limitations as shall be provided: that for a limited time the regent should not be able to grant any peerage, except for some singular naval or military achievement: nor grant any office in reversion: nor any office otherwise than during pleasure, except such offices as are required by law to be granted for life or during good behavior: that his Majesty's private property, not already vested in trustees, should be vested in trustees for the benefit of his Majesty that the care of the king's person should be committed to the queen, who for a limited time, should have power to appoint and remove members of the royal household; and that her Majesty should have a council, with power to examine the king's physicians, upon oath, from time to time. It was explained, at the same time, that twelve months would be the period to which the proposed limitations upon the regent's authority would extend.

Four of these resolutions were agreed to in the Commons by small majorities,2 and not without strong arguments against any restrictions upon the authority of the regent. The fifth was amended on a motion of Earl Gower, in such a manner as to leave the queen merely "such direction of the household as may be suitable for the care of his Majesty's person and the maintenance of the royal dignity.":

The resolutions were communicated to the Lords at a conference. There, on the motion of the Marquis of Lans downe, the first resolution was amended by the omission of the last words, viz., "subject to such limitations and restric

1 This exception was subsequently omitted.

2 The first resolution was carried by a majority of 24, the second by 16, the third by 19.

8 Voted by a majority of 13 against the Government, and the resolution as amended agreed to by a majority of 3.

tions as shall be provided "1-thus appointing the regent generally, without restrictions upon his authority. But as the two next resolutions, imposing limitations upon the grant of peerages, places, and pensions, were immediately afterwards agreed to, the words were restored to the first resolution. And thus the restrictions proposed by the Commons were ultimately agreed to without alteration.

The next step, as in 1789, was to lay these resolutions before the Prince of Wales, and to beg him to Resolutions accept the trust, subject to the proposed restric- laid before tions; and in reply, he signified his acceptance. The queen was also attended in regard to the direction of the royal household.

the prince.

Parliament.

Again, it was resolved by both Houses that a commission should issue under the great seal for opening Par- Commission liament; but warned by the precedent of 1788, for opening ministers had taken the precaution of consulting the royal dukes, and by their desire omitted their names from the commission. On the 15th January, Parliament was opened by virtue of this commission; and the Regency Bill was brought in by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the same day. The bill, though still the subject The Regency of much discussion, was rapidly passed through both Houses, with some few amendments. Resolutions were agreed to by both Houses, authorizing the issue of letterspatent under the great seal, for giving the royal assent by commission; and on the 5th February, the bill received the royal assent by virtue of that commission.

Bill passed.

It is worthy of note, that both this commission and that for opening Parliament, deviated materially from Form of the the usual form of such commissions, and instead

commission.

of being issued by the advice of the privy council, it was expressed thus: "by the king himself, by and with the advice of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons in Parliament assembled."

lic money.

During these proceedings, an unexpected difficulty had Issue of pub- arisen. Certain sums of money had already been granted, and appropriated by Parliament, for the service of the army and navy; but in consequence of the king's incapacity, the usual warrants under the privy seal, could not be prepared, directing issues to be made from the Exchequer, for such services. The Lord Keeper of the privy seal was willing to take upon himself the responsi bility of affixing the seal to such a warrant,1 although by the terms of his oath he was restrained from using it "without the king's special command:"2 but the deputy clerks of the Privy Seal held themselves precluded by their oaths of office, from preparing letters to pass the privy seal, until a warrant had been signed by the king himself, for that purpose. The necessities of the public service were urgent; and the Treasury being unable to obtain the money according to the usual official routine, prepared two warrants addressed to the auditor of the Exchequer, directing him to draw one order on the Bank of England for 500,000l., on account of the army, and another to the same amount, for Difficulties the navy. The auditor, Lord Grenville, doubting the authority of these warrants, desired that the law officers of the Crown should be consulted. It was their opinion that the Treasury warrants were not a sufficient authority for the auditor, who accordingly refused to issue the money; and although the Treasury expressly assumed the entire responsibility of the issue, he persisted in his refusal.

raised by

Lord Grenville.

Resolution of

It was now necessary to resort to Parliament to supply the defect of authority which had been discovered; and on the 4th January the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a resolution in committee of the whole House, by which the auditor and offi

both Houses directing the issue of money.

1 Speech of Mr. Perceval, 4th Jan., and of Lord Westmorland, 5th Jan., 1811. Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 759, 798.

2 Speech of Earl Spencer, 5th Jan, 1811. xviii. 797

Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser.

cers of the Exchequer were "authorized and commanded" to pay obedience to Treasury warrants for the issue of such sums as had been appropriated for the services of the army and navy, as well as money issuable under a vote of credit for 3,000,000l. To this resolution it was objected, that it involved a further assumption of the executive powers of the Crown, and was only rendered necessary by the unreasonable delays which ministers had interposed, in providing for the exercise of the royal authority: but the immediate necessity of the occasion could not be denied; and the resolution was agreed to by both Houses. A protest, however, was entered in the Lords' journal, signed by twenty-one peers, including six royal dukes, which affirmed that the principle of the resolution would justify the assumption of all the executive powers of the Crown, during any suspension of the personal exercise of the royal authority; and that this unconstitutional measure might have been avoided without injury to the public service, by an address to the Prince of Wales.1

The Royal

Bill, 1830.

Happily there has been no recurrence of circumstances similar to those of 1788 and 1811: but Parliament has since had occasion to provide for the Sign-Manual exercise of the royal authority, under other contingencies. From an early period in the reign of George IV., his Majesty's health had excited apprehensions.2 In 1826 his life was said not to be worth a month's purchase; but it was not until within a few weeks of his death, that he suffered from any incapacity to exercise his royal functions. In 1830, during the last illness of the king, his Majesty found it inconvenient and painful to subscribe with his own hand, the public instruments which required the sign-man

1 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., xviii. 801.

2 Duke of Buckingham's Court of George IV., i. 313, 336, 447; Ibid., ii. 67, 217. Sir William Knighton's Mem. 88, &c.

3 Mr. Plumer Ward to Duke of Buckingham, April 21, 1826. Court of George IV., ii. 297; Ibid., 300, 301.

ual; and accordingly, on the 24th of May, a message was sent to both Houses, desiring that provision should be made for the temporary discharge of this duty. The message was acknowledged by suitable addresses; and a bill was passed rapidly through both Houses, enabling his Majesty to empower by warrant or commission, under his sign-manual, one or more persons to affix, in his presence, and by his command, signified by word of mouth, the royal signature by means of a stamp. In order to prevent the possibility of any abuse of this power, it was provided that the stamp should not be affixed to any instrument, unless a memorandum describing its object had been indorsed upon it, signed by the Lord Chancellor, the President of the Council, the Lord Privy Seal, the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Secretaries of State, or any three of them. The seal was directed to be kept in the custody of one of these officers, and when used, was required to be attested by one or more of them.

Precedents on

ed.

The course thus adopted was not without precedent. Henry VIII. had issued a patent, authorizing the which found- Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and other persons to apply a stamp, bearing the impress of the royal signature, to warrants for the payment of money out of the royal treasury; and had also issued several proclamations and other instruments, on which his sign-manual had been impressed by means of a stamp. His signature to the commission for signifying the royal assent to the bill for the attainder of the Duke of Norfolk had been given by means of a stamp, affixed, — not by his own hand, but by that of a clerk, and was on that account declared by Parliament to be invalid. Edward VI. had issued two proclamations, to which his signature was affixed by means of a stamp. Queen Mary had issued a proclamation, in the same form, calling for aid to suppress the insurrection of Sir Thomas Wyatt. The same queen

1 Hansard's Debates, New Ser., xxiv. 986, 1001.