free representation, and more extended responsibilities, do we see nearly the same families still in the ascendant. Deprived, in great measure, of their direct influence over Parliament, their general weight in the country, and in the councils of the state, has suffered little diminution. Notwithstanding the more democratic tendencies of later times, rank and station have still retained the respect and confidence of the people. When the aristocracy have enjoyed too exclusive an influence in the government, they have aroused jealousies and hostility: but when duly sharing power with other classes, and admitting the just claims of talent, they have prevailed over every rival and adverse interest; and,-whatever party has been in power,-have still been the rulers of the state. In a society comprising so many classes as that of England, the highest are willingly accepted as governors, when their personal qualities are not unequal to their position. They excite less jealousy than abler men of inferior social pretensions, who climb to power. Born and nurtured to influence, they have studied how to maintain it. That they have maintained it so well, against the encroachments of wealth,- an expanding society, and popular influences, is mainly due to their progressive policy. As they have been ready to advance with their age, the people have been content to acknowledge them as leaders: but had they endeavoured to stem the tide of public opinion, they would have been swept aside, while men from other classes advanced to power. 141 CHAP. III. THE PREROGATIVES OF THE CROWN, DURING THE MINORITY OR INCAPACITY tives of the We have seen the prerogatives of the crown wielded Prerogain the plenitude of kingly power. Let us now turn crown in aside for awhile, and view them as they lay inert in abeyance. the powerless hands of a stricken king. The melancholy illnesses of George III., at different periods of his reign, involved political considerations of the highest importance,-affecting the prerogatives of the crown, the rights of the royal family, the duties of ministers, and the authority of Parliament. First ill ness of G. III. The king was seized by the first of these attacks in 1765. Though a young man, in the full vigour of life, he exhibited those symptoms of mental disorder, which in 1765. were afterwards more seriously developed. But the knowledge of this melancholy circumstance was confined to his own family, and personal attendants.1 This illness, however, had been in other respects so alarming, that it led the king to consider the necessity of providing for a regency, in case of his death. The laws of England recognise no incapacity in the sovereign, by reason of nonage; and have made no provision for the guardianship of a king, or for the government of his 1 Grenville Papers, iii. 122; Adolphus, Hist., i. 175, n.; Quarterly Review, lxvi. 240, by Mr. Croker. Regency Act of 1751. The king's first scheme of kingdom, during his minority.1 Yet the common sense of every age has revolted against the anomaly of suffering the country to be practically governed by an infant king. Hence special provision has been made for each occasion, according to the age and consanguinity of the surviving relatives of the minor; and as such provision involves not only the care of an infant, but the government of the realm, the sanction of Parliament has necessarily been required, as well as that of the king. By the Regency Act of 1751, passed after the death of Frederick Prince of Wales, the Princess Dowager of Wales had been appointed regent, in the event of the demise of George II. before the Prince of Wales, or any other of her children succeeding to the throne, had attained the age of eighteen years. This act also nominated the council of regency: but empowered the king to add four other members to the council, by instruments under his sign manual, to be opened after his death.2 But this precedent deferred too much to the judgment of Parliament, and left too little to the discretion of the king himself, to be acceptable to George III. He desired to reserve to himself the testamentary disposition of his prerogatives, and to leave nothing to Parliament but the formal recognition of his power. The original scheme of the regency, as proposed by the king, in 1765, was as strange as some of the incidents a regency, connected with its further progress. He had formed it without any communication with his ministers, who consequently received it with distrust, as the work of 1765. 1 "In judgment of law, the king, as king, cannot be said to be a minor; for when the royall bodie politique of the king doth meete with the naturall capacity in one person, the whole bodie shall have the qualitie of the royall politique, which is the greater and more worthy, and wherein is no minoritie."-Co. Litt., 43. 2 24 Geo. II. c. 24; Walpole's Mem. Geo. III., ii. c. 102. Lord Bute and the king's friends, of whom they were sensitively jealous. The scheme itself was one to invite suspicion. It was obviously proper, that the appointment of a regent should be expressly made by Parliament. If the king had the nomination, there could be no certainty that any regent would be appointed: he might become incapable and die intestate, as it were; and this contingency was the more probable, as the king's mind had recently been affected. But his Majesty proposed that Parliament should confer upon him the unconditional right of appointing any person as regent, whom he should select.2 Mr. Grenville pressed him to name the regent in his speech, but was unable to persuade him to adopt that suggestion. There can be little doubt that the king intended that the queen should be regent; but he was believed to be dying of consumption3, and was still supposed to be under the influence of his mother. Hence ministers feared lest the princess might eventually be appointed regent, and Lord Bute admitted to the council of regency. Some even went so far as to conceive the possibility of Lord Bute's nomination to the regency itself. It was ulti- Modified mately arranged, however, that the king should nominate by the mithe regent, but that his choice should be restricted "to the queen and any other person of the royal family usually resident in England; "5 and the scheme of the regency was proposed to Parliament upon that basis.6 1 Walpole's Mem., ii. 99, 104; Rockingham Mem., í. 183. 2 Grenville Papers (Diary), iii. 126, 129. 3 Walpole's Mem., ii. 98. Ibid., ii. 101, 104. 5 Cabinet Minute, 5th April; Grenville Papers, iii. 15, 16. Lord John Russell says that the ministers "unwisely introduced the bill without naming the regent, nisters. The king's speech. The Regency Bill, 1765. On the 24th of April, 1765, the king came down to Parliament and made a speech to both Houses, recommending to their consideration the expediency of enabling him to appoint, "from time to time, by instrument in writing, under his sign manual, either the queen, or any other person of his royal family, usually residing in Great Britain, to be the guardian of his successor, and the regent of these kingdoms, until such successor shall attain the age of eighteen years,"subject to restrictions similar to those contained in the Regency Act, 24 Geo. II.,-and of providing for a council of regency. A joint address was immediately agreed upon by both Houses,-ultra-loyal, according to the fashion of the time,―approaching his "sacred person" " with "reverence," "affection," "admiration," and "gratitude;" scarcely venturing to contemplate the possibility of "an event which, if it shall please God to permit it, must overwhelm his Majesty's loyal subjects with the bitterest distraction of grief;" and promising to give immediate attention to recommendations which were the result of the king's "consummate prudence," "beneficent intention," "salutary designs," "princely wisdom," and "paternal concern for his people." 1 A bill, founded upon the royal speech, was immediately brought into the House of Lords. In the first draft of the bill, the king, following the precedent of 1751, had reserved to himself the right of nominating four members of the council of regency: but on the 29th April, he sent a message to the Lords, desiring that his four brothers and his uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, should be specified in the bill; and 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 53. |