princesses married into foreign families), from marrying without the approbation of the king. tive claim royal mar On the following day, the Royal Marriage Bill was Prerogapresented to the House of Lords. The preamble affirmed ed in rethe prerogative, as claimed in the message, to its fullest gard to extent, and the wisdom and expediency of the king's rages. recommendation. The bill provided that no descendant of George II. (except the issue of princesses married into foreign families) should be capable of contracting matrimony, without the king's previous consent, signified under his sign-manual, and declared in council; and that any marriage contracted without such consent, should be null and void. There was a proviso, however, which it seems had not been contemplated, when the message was delivered,-enabling members of the royal family above twenty-five years of age, to marry without the king's consent, after having given twelve months' previous notice to the Privy Council, unless in the meantime, both Houses of Parliament should signify their disapprobation of the marriage. This concession, it is said, was caused by the resignation of Mr. Fox, who intended to oppose the measure, and by the disapprobation of some of the advisers of the crown. It was also provided that any person solemnising, or assisting, or being present at the celebration of such prohibited marriages, should incur the penalties of præmunire. This was unquestionably the king's own measure, and was reluctantly adopted by his ministers. His views of prerogative were exalted; and in his own family, at least, he was resolved that his authority should be supreme. The absolute control which he now sought for, over members of his family of full 1 Fox's Mem., i. 75 (H. Walpole). VOL. I. 1 ૨ Question to the judges. age, was not a little startling. First, as to his claim of prerogative. Had it ever yet been asserted to the same extent? It had been recognised by the "grand opinion"—as it was called,-of the judges in 1718, so far as regarded the king's grandchildren, but no farther; and it is impossible to read the arguments of the judges in that case, without being impressed with the slender grounds, strained constructions of law and precedent, and far-fetched views of expediency, upon which their conclusion was founded. As a matter of state policy, it may be necessary that the king should be empowered to negotiate alliances for the royal family, and for that purpose should have more than parental authority. But the present claim extended to brothers, of whatever age, to uncles, and to cousins. So comprehensive a claim could not be at once admitted. This question, therefore, was put to the judges: "is the king entrusted by law with the care and approbation of the marriages of the descendants of his late Majesty George II., other than his present Majesty's own children, during their minorities?" As this question extended to all descendants of George II., whether within this kingdom or not, nine judges unanimously answered it in the negative; and to another question, more restricted, they replied, "that the care and approbation of the marriages of the king's children and grandchildren, and of the presumptive heir to the crown (other than the issue of princesses married into foreign families) do belong to the kings of this realm: but to what other branches of the royal family such care and approbation extend, we do not find precisely determined." It was plain that the 1 Parl. Hist., xvii. 387. bill declared the prerogative to be much more extensive, than that allowed by the judges. Yet in spite of their opinion, the lord chancellor, Lord Apsley, with an effrontery worthy of Lord Thurlow, said that "he would defend every clause, every sentence, every word, every syllable, and every letter" in the bill; and "would not consent to any amendment whatsoever!" The prerogative, he asserted, was founded in its "importance to the state:" an argument which might be extended to any other power claimed by the crown, on the same ground. The arbitrary character of the bill was conspicuous. Arbitrary principles It might be reasonable to prescribe certain rules for the of this Act. marriage of the royal family: as that they should not marry a subject,-a Roman Catholic,-or the member of any royal house at war with this country, without the consent of the king: but to prescribe no rule at all save the absolute will of the king himself, was a violation of all sound principles of legislation. Again, to extend the minority of princes and princesses to twenty-five, created a harsh exception to the general law, in regard to marriages.1 The prohibition of a marriage might continue until the age of twentysix; and required nothing but the vote of a Parliament subservient to the crown, to render it perpetual; and this not by virtue of any general principle of law -human or divine,- but by the arbitrary will of a superior power. But the personal will of the king triumphed over all opposition, whether of argument or numbers; and 1 A squib appeared in answer to the objection that a prince might ascend the throne at eighteen, yet might not marry till twenty-five: "Quoth Tom to Dick,-'Thou art a And little know'st of life: [fool, Secret marriage of the Wales. he was implacable against those who opposed it.' The bill was passed rapidly through the House of Lords; though not without one protest, signed by fourteen peers, and another signed by seven, in which the most material objections to the measure were concisely expressed. In the Commons the bill met with a more strenuous and protracted opposition:- the Lords' Journals were searched for the opinion of the judges,-and the most serious arguments against the measure were ably and learnedly discussed. But it was still carried with a high hand. The doors of the House were closed against all strangers,-peers in vain sought admission below the bar, and the government even went so far as to refuse the printing of the bill, and supported their refusal by a large majority. No amendment was suffered to be made, except one of pedantic form, suggested by the speaker, that the king's consent to a marriage should be signified under the great seal; and on the 24th March, the bill was passed. Attempts have since been made, without success, to repeal this law, and to evade its provisions; but it has been inflexibly maintained. In 1785, the Prince of Wales contracted a clandestine marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert, a Roman Catholic. Prince of His marriage being without the king's consent, and consequently invalid, the princely libertine ventured to satisfy the fair lady's scruples, and to indulge his own passions; while he was released from the sacred obli 1 Fox's Mem., i. 75. Lord Chatham said of the Bill, "the doctrine of the Royal Marriage Bill is certainly new-fangled and impudent, and the extent of the powers given wanton and tyrannical."-Letter to Lord Shelburne, April 3rd, 1772, Corr., iv. 203. Horace Walpole said, "Never was an Act passed against which so much and for which so little was said."-Fox's Mem., i. 81. 2 By Lord Holland, in 1820; Hansard's Debates, New Ser., i. 1099. gations of the marriage tie, and saved from the forfeiture of his succession to the crown, which would have been the legal consequence of a valid marriage with a Roman Catholic. Even his pretended marriage, though void in law, would have raised embarrassing doubts and discussions concerning the penal provisions of the Bill of Rights; and, if confessed, would undoubtedly have exposed him to obloquy and discredit. The prince, therefore, denied the fact of his marriage; and made his best friend the unconscious instrument of this falsehood and deception.1 of the The Duke of Sussex was twice married without the Marriages consent of the crown: first, in 1793, to Lady Augusta Duke of Murray; and, later in life, to Lady Cecilia Underwood. Sussex. His first marriage having been solemnised abroad, a question was raised whether it was rendered invalid by the Royal Marriage Act. It was again celebrated in England, where it was unquestionably illegal. The king immediately directed a suit of nullity of marriage to be commenced by his proctor, and it was adjudged by the Court of Arches, that the marriage was absolutely null and void.2 In 1831, the law officers of the crown were consulted by the government as to the validity of this marriage; and their opinions confirmed the judgment of the Court of Arches. On the death of the Duke of Sussex in 1843, 1 Parl. Hist., xxvi. 1070. See an excellent letter from Mr. Fox to the Prince, Dec. 10th, 1785, dissuading his Royal Highness from the marriage.-Fox's Mem., ii. 278, 284, 287. The prince confessed his 287.-The marriage to Lord Grey; Ibid., 289. Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 177, et seq. Lord Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party, ii. 123-142, 148. Langdale's Mem. of Mrs. Fitzherbert. The general incidents 2 Heseltine v. Lady A. Murray, |