sovereign from the realm. delegation. Neither can a commission be granted for the purpose of signifying the royal assent to bills in Parliament, except with respect to specified bills, which have passed both Houses at the date of the commission. Absence of The most general delegation by the crown of its political power has been that which has taken place from time to time in the appointment, by the sovereign, of Lords Justices and Guardians for the administration of the government during the absence of the sovereign from the realm. The powers granted to such persons have usually included every possible exercise of the royal authority, except that of assenting to bills in Parliament, and of granting peerages. But it has been customary to accompany the commission by instructions, requiring the commissioners not to exercise certain of the powers granted (particularly those for the pardon of offenders and the dissolution of Parliament) without special signification of the royal pleasure. During the long reign of George III., the sovereign was never absent from England; and his son and successor, George IV., went abroad once only, in the year 1821, when Lords Justices were appointed by his Majesty in Council. After the accession of the present Queen, her Majesty, in the year 1843, paid a short visit to the King of the French at the Château d'Eu; and again, in 1845, visited Germany. Upon both these occasions, the opinion of the law-officers of the crown was taken, as to whether there was any legal necessity for the issue of a commission appointing Lords Justices during her Majesty's absence. Each time the law-officers were clearly of opinion that it was unnecessary. The question then resolved itself into one of expediency; and considering the great facilities for speedy communication afforded by the general introduction of the railway system, and the circumstance that her Majesty would necessarily be accompanied by a secretary of state, and could therefore perform any royal act It is essential to the due execution of any powers by delegation from the crown, that a special authority, under the royal sign-manual, should be issued for the purpose. This was a difficulty that presented itself in the year Royal 1788, arising out of the melancholy condition of George in abey III., who was first attacked by insanity at that time. The mental disorder which afflicted the king was of such a serious character, that it rendered it imperative upon Parliament to take immediate steps to supply the defect in the royal authority for so long a period as the king's illness might continue. Parliament then stood prorogued for a particular day, upon which, under ordinary circumstances, it is probable that it would not have assembled. But, taking advantage of the authority of the royal proclamation, ministers determined to meet Parliament without further delay, and deliberate upon the posture of affairs. After full enquiries had been instituted, by both Houses, into the state of his Majesty's health, they agreed to a resolution, that it was the right and duty of the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament to provide for the exercise of the royal authority, in such manner as the exigency of the case might appear to require. It was then resolved, by both Houses, that it was expedient and necessary that letters-patent for opening Parliament should pass under the Great Seal. This was done accordingly; Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, in Hans. Deb. August 7, 1845. n. e Campbell's Chanc. vol. iv. p. 125, functions ance during ill ness of George III. Proceedings to supply defect in the kingly office. and, so far as was possible, under these painful and unprecedented circumstances, the usual forms for the opening of Parliament were adhered to, notwithstanding the incapacity of the sovereign. But in the proceedings had upon this occasion, the two leading statesmen, Pitt and Fox, with their respective followers, were at issue. Pitt contended that Parliament alone was competent to make good the deficiency in the executive authority; whilst Fox claimed for the Prince of Wales an inherent moral, if not legal, right to assume the crown, as though the king his father were actually dead. A succinct account of this memorable controversy, will be found in 'May's Constitutional History.' It will suffice here to state the general results arrived at, so far as they establish an important point of constitutional law.h It was argued by Mr. Pitt, who was then prime minister, that in conformity with the principles established by the Revolution of 1688, and by the Bill of Rights, the Lords and Commons represented the whole estates of the people, and were, therefore, legally as well as constitutionally, empowered to supply any deficiency in the kingly office, whensoever that should arise; that this assumption of power was not incompatible with the principle of an hereditary monarchy, but was essential as a safeguard of the throne itself against encroachment from any quarter. Having succeeded in obtaining the concurrence of Parl. Hist. vol. xxvii. p. 653, et seq. The decision of Parliament upon who are curious in such points, it may also be noted that exactly ten years elapsed between the births of the following statesmen, all of them among the most prominent characters of this remarkable era:-Mr. Fox was born in 1749; Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville in 1759; the Duke of Wellington, Lord Castlereagh, and Napoleon Bonaparte, in 1769. (Sir G. C. Lewis, in Edinb. Rev. vol. cviii. p. 312, n.) Moreover, William IV. signed the draft of the Reform Bill on January 31, 1831, the anniversary of the martyrdom of Charles I. Parliament to these conclusions, Mr. Pitt admitted that, as a matter of discretion, the Prince of Wales ought to be called upon to assume the Regency, with all necessary authority, unrestrained by any permanent council, and with a free choice of his political servants. But he 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, should be withheld. This was strenuously opposed by Fox, who maintained that the Regent ought to possess the full authority and prerogatives of the crown, without any diminution. Parliament, however, agreed to the views propounded by Mr. Pitt, and the Prince of Wales consented to accept the Regency upon these terms. The proposed restrictions upon the exercise of the regal authority by the prince were defined and embodied in a bill, which it was intended should be passed by both Houses, and receive the royal assent by a commission to be ordered by the two Houses of Parliament, in the king's name.' The bill actually passed the Commons, but during its progress through the Lords the king's convalescence was announced, and the bill was dropped. the king's malady. In 1801 the king was threatened with a return of insanity, and the premier, Mr. Addington, had determined to follow the precedent established in 1788, when, happily, the king's recovery rendered any such proceedings unnecessary. But in 1810, the king's malady again Return of showed itself, this time destined to remain, and to terminate only with his life. Mr. Spencer Perceval was prime minister at this juncture, and he decided to adhere strictly to the precedent afforded by the proceedings in 1788, in every essential particular. The ministerial plan was warmly opposed in Parliament, but was carried, nevertheless, without alteration. The Opposition did not then maintain that the Prince of Wales, as heir-apparent, 'Pellew's Life of Sidmouth, vol. i. ↓ Edinb. Rev. vol. cviii. p. 329. p. 347. Royal signmanual, pensed with. succeeded of right to the Regency during the king's incapacity. But Mr. Lambe (afterwards Lord Melbourne) -upon the resolution that certain restrictions should be imposed upon the Regent-moved an amendment, That the entire royal power should be conferred upon him, without any restrictions.' This amendment was negatived, by a majority of 224 to 200. Lord Brougham remarks upon these two precedents that they have now settled the constitutional law and practice in this important particular.' If at any time the sovereign should be unable, through physical infirmity, to append the royal sign-manual to the when dis- multifarious papers which require his signature, the intervention of Parliament must be invoked to give legal effect to the arrangements necessary under the circumstances. In the last year of the reign of George IV., an Act was passed authorising his Majesty to appoint one or more persons to affix his royal signature to papers, the state of the king's health being such as to render it painful and inconvenient for him to sign his own name.' And in 1862, with a view to relieve her Majesty from the excessive labour of signing every separate commission for officers of the army, marines, &c., after having already signed a submission paper' authorising the issue of such commission, an Act was passed empowering the Queen in Council to direct that the said commissions may be signed by the commander-in-chief and a secretary of state, and to dispense with the necessity for the royal signature being appended thereto." The urgency for this relief will be apparent when it is stated that in 1862 her Sketches of Statesmen, vol. i. p. 176. Notwithstanding the authority of Lord Brougham, his successor, Lord Campbell, adheres to the Whig doctrine in regard to this question, and stoutly maintains that the Imperial Parliament had no right to interfere with the assumption by the Prince of Wales of the regal authority during the incapacity of the king, his father; but should have imitated the example of the Irish Parliament, in 1789, in acknowledging the right of the prince, and in addressing him to take upon himself the government as regent. (Campbell's Chanc. vol. v. p. 337, vi. 180, 583, vii. 96. See a debate in the House of Commons on the Regency question, on July 6, 1830.) 111 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV. c. 23. m 25 Vict. c. 4. See the debates on this Bill, in Hansard, vol. clxv.; and ibid. vol. clxxvi. p. 2020. |