Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

subjects. Governors, commanders-in-chief, and bishops attest her supremacy in all parts of the world; and the greatness of the British empire, while it has redounded to the glory of England, has widely extended the influence of the Crown. As that influence, constitutionally exercised, has ceased to be regarded with jealousy, its continued enlargement has been watched by Parliament without any of those efforts to restrain it, which marked the parliamentary history of the eighteenth century. On the contrary, Parliament has met the increasing demands of a community rapidly advancing in population and wealth, by constant additions to the power and patronage of the Crown. The judicial establishments of the country have been extended, by the appointment of more judges in the superior courts, by a large staff of county court judges, with local jurisdiction, and by numerous stipendiary magistrates. Offices and commissions have been multiplied, for various public purposes; and all these appointments proceed from the same high source of patronage and preferment. Parliament has wisely excluded all these officers, with a few necessary exceptions, from the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons; but otherwise these extensive means of influence have been intrusted to the executive government, without any apprehension that they will be perverted to uses injurious to the freedom, or public interests of the country.

Continued in

great families.

The history of the influence of the Crown has now been sketched, for a period of one hundred years. We have seen George III. jealous of the great Whig fluence of families, and wresting power out of the hands of his ministers: we have seen ministers becoming more accountable to Parliament, and less dependent upon the Crown; but, as in the commencement of this period, a few great families commanded the support of Parliament, and engrossed all the power of the state, so under a more free representation, and more extended responsibilities, do we see nearly the same families still in the ascendant. De

prived 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 influences, 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 endeavored to stem the tide of public opinion, they would have been swept aside, while men from other classes advanced to power.

CHAPTER III.

The Prerogatives of the Crown, during the Minority or Incapacity of the Sovereign. Illnesses and Regency of George the Third. Later Regency Acts.

Prerogatives

We have seen the prerogatives of the Crown wielded in the plenitude of kingly power. Let us now turn aside for a while, and view them as they lay inert of the Crown in the powerless hands of a stricken king.

in abeyance.

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.

[ocr errors]

The king was seized by the first of these attacks in 1765. Though a young man, in the full vigor of life, First illness he exhibited those symptoms of mental disorder, of Geo. III. in which were afterwards more seriously developed.

1765.

But the knowledge of this melancholy circumstance was con fined to his own family, and personal attendants.1 This ill ness, 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 recognize 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 kingdom, during his minority.

1 Grenville Papers, iii. 122; Adolphus's History, i. 175, n.; Quarterly Review, lxvi. 240, by Mr. Croker.

2 “In judgment of law, the king, as king, cannot be said to be a minor:

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 he surviving relatives of the minor; and as such provision involves not only the care of an infant, but the government of the country, the sanction of Parliament has necessarily been required, as well as that of the king.

of 1751.

By the Regency Act of 1751, passed after the death of Regency Act 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.1 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 king's

of a regency,

1765.

The original scheme of the regency, as proposed by the king, in 1765, was as strange as some of the infirst scheme cidents 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 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 appointfor 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.

124 Geo. II., c. 24; Walpole's Mem. Geo. III., ii. c. 102. 2 Walpole's Mem., ii. 99, 104; Rockingham Mem., i. 183.

ment 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. 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 consumption, and was still supposed to be under the influence of his mother. The 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 ultimately arranged that the king Modified by should nominate the regent himself, but that his choice should be restricted" to the queen and any other person of the royal family usually resident in England; "4 and the scheme of the regency was proposed to Parliament upon that basis.5

the ministers

On the 24th of April, 1765, the king came down to Parliament and made a speech to both houses, recom- The king's mending to their consideration the expediency of speech. enabling him to appoint," from time to time, by instrument

1 Grenville Papers (Diary), iii. 126, 129.

2 Walpole's Mem., ii. 98.

8 Ibid., ii. 101, 104.

4 Cabinet Minute, 5th April; Grenville Papers, iii. 15, 16.

5 Lord John Russell says that the ministers "unwisely introduced the bill without naming the regent, or placing any limit on the king's nomination." (Introduction to 3d vol. of Bedford Correspondence, xxxix.) This was not precisely the fact, as will be seen from the text; but ministers were equally blamable for not insisting that the queen alone should be the re gent.

« AnteriorContinuar »