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. might be reasonable to prescribe certain rules for Arbitrary the marriage of the royal family: as that they principles of should not marry a subject, - a Roman Catholic,

this Act.

It

or the member of any royal house at war with this coun try, 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 twenty-six; 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 he was implacable against those who opposed it. The bill was passed

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 fool,

And little know'st of life:
Alas! 'tis easier far to rule

A kingdom, than a wife.'"

Parl. Hist. xvii. 407.

2 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 3d, 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.

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;1 and to evade its provisions; but it has been inflexibly maintained.

In 1785 the Prince of Wales contracted a clandestine

Prince of

Secret mar- marriage with Mrs. Fitzherbert, a Roman Cathoriage of the lic. His marriage being without the king's conWales. sent, and consequently invalid, the princely libertine ventured to satisfy the scruples of his paramour, and to indulge his own passions; while he was released from the sacred obligations 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.2

1 By Lord Holland, in 1820; Hansard's Debates, New Ser., i. 1099.

2 Parl. Hist. xxvi. 1070. See an excellent letter from Mr. Fox to the

Marriages of

Sussex.

The Duke of Sussex was twice married without the consent of the Crown; first, in 1793, to Lady Augusta Murray; and, later in life, to Lady Cecilia Under- the Duke of wood. His first marriage having been solemnized 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.1

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, Sir Augustus D'Este, the son of his Royal Highness by this marriage, claimed the dukedom and other honors of his father. The marriage had been solemnized at Rome in 1793, according to the rites of the Church of England, by a clergyman of that establishment, and would have been a valid contract between British subjects but for the restrictions of the Royal Marriage Act; and it was contended before the House of Lords, that the operation of that Act could not be extended beyond the British dominions. But it was the unanimous opinion of the judges, — in which the House of Lords concurred, that the prohibition of the statute was personal, and followed the persons to whom it applied, out of the realm, and beyond the British jurisdiction. It was accordPrince, Dec. 10th, 1785, dissuading his Royal Highness from the marriage. Fox's Mem. ii. 278, 284, 287. — The prince confessed his marriage to Lord Grey; Ibid. 289. Lord J. Russell's Life and Times of Fox, ii. 177, et seq. Lord Holland's Mem. of the Whig Party, ii. 126, et seq. Langdale's Mem. of Mrs. Fitzherbert. The general incidents of this discreditable marriage do not fall within the design of this work; but a most animated and graphic narrative of them will be found in Mr. Massey's History, vol. iii. 315–331.

1 Heseltine v. Lady A. Murray, Addam's Reports, ii. 400; Burn's Eccl Law, ii. 433; Ann. Reg. 1794, p. 23.

ingly decided that the claimant had not made out his claim.1

Princess

Charlotte,

The prerogative of the king to direct the education of his Education of grandchildren, which had been established in 1718, was again asserted in 1804. The king claimed 1804. the guardianship of the Princess Charlotte; and the Prince of Wales, her father, being perplexed with divided councils, was long in doubt whether he should concede or contest the right.2 At length he appears to have agreed that the king should have the direction of the princess's education. The understanding not being very precise, a misapprehension arose as to its conditions; and it was said that the prince had withdrawn from his engagement. But Mr. Pitt ultimately arranged this difference by obtaining the removal of the princess to Windsor, without excluding the prince from a share in the control of her education.*

1 Clark and Finnelly's Reports, xi. 85-154.

2 Lord Malmesbury says: "The two factions pulled the prince different ways: Ladies Moira, Hutchinson, and Mrs. Fitzherbert, were for his ceding the child to the king; the Duke of Clarence and Devonshire House most violent against it, and the prince ever inclines to the faction he saw last. In the Devonshire House Cabal, Lady Melbourne and Mrs. Fox act conspicuous parts so that the alternative for our future queen seems to be whether Mrs. Fox or Mrs. Fitzherbert shall have the ascendency.". Malm. Diar., iv. 343.

8 Letters of Mr. T. Grenville to the Marquess of Buckingham, Nov. 26th, Dec. 1st and 11th, 1804; Court and Cab. of Geo. III., iii. 372 385, 389, 391. Ibid. 395, 398.

CHAPTER V.

The House of Lords: - Constant additions to its Numbers: - Profuse cre ations in the Reign of George III. and since. — Representative Peers of Scotland and Ireland: - Representative Character of the Peerage: Life Peerages.-The Bishops. - Political Position of the House of Lords: Its Enlargement a Source of Power: - Threatened creation of Peers to carry the Reform Bill.—The Aristocracy, and Classes associated with it.

Permanence

NOTHING in the history of our constitution is more remarkable than the permanence of every institution forming part of the Government of the country, of British inwhile undergoing continual, and often extraordi- stitutions. nary changes in its powers, privileges, and influence. The Crown, as we have seen, remains with all its prerogatives undiminished, and with its sources of influence increased; yet in the exercise of its great powers by responsible ministers, it has been gradually controlled by Parliament and public opinion, until the authority of the Crown in government and legislation, bears as little resemblance to the sway of the Tudor and Stuart kings, as to that of Louis XIV.

Peers.

So also the House of Lords continues to hold its high place in the state, next to the Crown, and still The House of enjoys the greater part of its ancient privileges. Yet no institution has undergone greater changes. In its numbers, its composition, and its influence, it is difficult to recognize its identity with the "Great Council" of a former age. But the changes which it has undergone have served to bring this great institution into harmony with other parts of the constitution, and with the social condition of the people, upon which time has worked equal mutations.