Star.
London, England, 1810-12-28 00:00:00

BEIL 28,

be governed on suet oocasioes as the resent. The
first principle laid down in forming the precedent
of 1788, was, that the hroue must be considered as
always full, and that the political capacitrof the So-
vereign was always in existence, whatever may be
the immediate temporary personal situation of the
Monarch. This I conceive to be a practical dis-
tinction of a nature necessary to insure to the go-
verned the existence of all the advantages to be
derived from the principle of Monarchy. If the
exercise of the royal authority during the life of the'
legal Sovereign must be scrupulously reserved fort
that Sovereign, any departure from this principle on I
every occasion of temporary personal incapacity
might be, to lead to all the inconveniences and I
dangers of a disputed succession. The great object in 1
the establishment of the monarchical system WAS. its
affording a security, and the certainty of its alibrd-
ing a bulwark, against the ambitioos designs of indivi-
duals the object should be, as far as possible, to se-1
cure this system against any interropties, and ao can-
Centre and continue as far as possible the executive
power to the King upon'the Throne. To these, my I
Lords, should be added, the consideration that the 1
law knows no such office as that of Regent. That
office was always created under special circumstances,
and witl(reference to a special exigency. It was the
uniform practice of our ancestors so to act, and
in their wisdom they formed no general prece-
dent for the guidance of posterity upon the point;
they felt the danger of meddling with a principle
of the kind so great., that they thought that wbau►
ever inconveniencies may arise from iti. being left
open and undecided, these were less than what would
result from laying down a general prospective rule,
they thought it right to leave it to the wisdom of
future Legislatures to povide for that species of
Government, according to the special circumstances
of the particular cases, as they may occur. Neither,
my Lords, was it a principle of our ancestors, that
the succession to the Regency should be regulated
by that of the succession to the Monarchy ; nor does
oath a principle, I believe, obtain in other countries
.governed by the Monarchial system. Indeed, in some
countries, the Heir Apparent, or Heir Presumptive,
(upon insufficient grounds I should think) is con-
sidered as the last person in whom such an office
should be vested. Even where the Salique Law
prevails, the nese in succession to the Throne is not
considered as the pmperest to exercise the authorities
of a Regent. The assumed principle of a right vested
in the next in succession to the office of Regent, was
not founded on the principles of the Constitutien r
nor was it to be found in the Statute Book. There
was no instance in the history of the country of a Re-
gent who had not been appointed by the authority of
the existing Legislature. Indeed, an instance of a
claim to the Regency being made, was to be found in
the reign of Henry VI. when thee nett of kin (the
march being then in a state of infancy) claimed
the exercio: of-the royal power. The claim was dis:
cussed in Parliament, and it was the opinion of all
the great authorities of that day, that such a claim
was entirely unfounded ; and it was so determined
by the Legislature. Indeed, all the cases in the his-
tory of the realm evinced that no Regent was ever
appointed except by the authority of Parliament. It
is also apparent, my Lords, from a review of our
history, that there was no instance of a Regency,
with the exception of the Duke of Gloucester, after-
wards King Richard the Third, and the Protector So-
merset, that was not in atone way or other limited and
restrained by Parliament. Even the Duke of York,
in the reign of Henry VI. notwithstanding all his
power and influence, he could not obtain the Regency
otherwise than as * restricted grant. I know, my
Lords, it may be objected, that these cases to which
I refer are drawn from times and pet 'ids of anar-
chy and violence • but they are times to which, in
the opinions of the greatest legal and constitutional
authorities, we should look for the foundatioits of
that liberty which we now enjoy—that these founda-
tions were laid from the accession of Henry 111. to
the reign of Henry VII. But, my Lords, it is not
to precedents formed in these times that we can alone
Infer ; we have them many degrees nearer to the
present time. Ido not now mean the great case
id 1788—that I shall advert to by and bye. The
cases I mean afford us ample proof of the opinion
of the country as to the principle. I allude to the
Act of the Twenty-fifth of George the Second,
made in contemplation of the minority%of his pre..
sent Majesty. I eater not into particular circum-
stances or arrangements, but it chews the prevalence
of the principle at the time, that the nest in suc.
cession was not, as a matter of course, entitled to the '
office or the powers of Regency, and that the office
to be contingently exercised was not created without
limitation or restriction. The Act for the eventual
formation of a Regency, in the early part of the prt-
sent reign, proceeded upon the same principle, the
next in succession to the Throne was not to be in-1
vested wit k the Regency, neither was it to be exer-
;bed withtlut limitation or restriction. All the pre-
toildents and authorities in the Statute Book or in the
page of history, evince the principle that no indivi-
dual whatever has any right to the office of Regent,
save that he derived from Parliament, and that such I
was founded on the best principles of the Constitu-
tion. I shall now proceed to the consideration of the')
mode in which such office, in case of necessity, may I
be conferred by the Legislature—there exists only
two, that by Address and that by Bill. As to the.
person on whom the office should be conferred they I
were all agreed. By the mode of address. his Royal
Highness would be desired to take upcin himself the
Government of the country—by as act of the Legis-
lature it would be provided he should do so, but I
would ask, if any particular individual has no legal
title to the Regency, whether both modes of prone-
ding are of equal efficacy ? Howeiet, it proves) by
your own shewing, that the authority proceeded from
Parliament, whichever mode is adopted. The mode
of Address iA shelf can confer no le al powers, and
in every view I eau take of it. I cenwilet that of pr••

I

V%

eeeding by-Bill the only mode we can adopt. The
Address, ray Lords, cm confer no legal power. it
can form no. record, ran' he tacit notice of in the
Courts beloS;. *Thelidtleese may call forth into itc-
tion any legitl power alechdy in exince. but eat
"touter no power by law whiter did.. n steOr 1,101401p1y
Alight. No objection of this son wild lie against the
mode of proceeding by Bm, which, with the Great
Seal faxed to it, onset be duly regarded its all the
Covets of the Realet. / eastern' that the aneeation
of the Great Seal would have such efeet—theCeants
were bound to obey it —no covenant could be mach
against it k the Courts of law. Here— .
Earl STANHOPE rose to order, bet on its ap-
peerieg the Noble Lord was not generally supplied.
he observecrit was coatpetent for him to rise to corms
a mistake-in a ilembierbf the Committee.
The Ertel of HARROWBY observed. id onaneee,
that his Noble Friend was perfectly in order, a miss
Übe was no transgressing of order.
" The gad of LIVERPOOL teamed ; be taohnr
dad teethe itccuracy of his former position. e The
velidity of the great seals may be questioned by Par-
liament; but it cannot be questioned in any of eh*
Courts below. I cannot better express my opinion on
this head. than by referring to the languap et
great law authority now no, more. I mean the bite
Lord Camden ; he had a particular degree of tor-
rectness in expressing his opinions, and I halve,
from all that I have heard or read upon the midget,
or from all I could collost from any conversation
with persons eminently learned in the law, that 44
opinion of that great law Lord was incontrovertatin
[gem the Noble Earl read the opinion be Aided
to.] In illustrating the great legal authority of Ole
Great Seal, nothing can form a more striking proof
than the effect of its annexation to an Act passed
towards the close of the reign of Henry Vill. where
the royal assent was obtained under such circum-
stances as to render it a matter of doubt whetherithe
assent was duly given. Yet that Act remained in
force, and was never questioned during the roes of
his successor, King Edward VI. This terms a strik-
ing proof of the efficacy of the Great Seal. which,
even where it was doubtful whether the royal assent
was duly obtained, yet for an interval of several years ,
its authority was not attempted to be set aside. It
was 'only in Parliament that the salmi t y of the great
seal can be questioned or revoked. Frozn all I have -
said, my Lords, I must conclude, that in ease of, the
personal incapacity of the King to signify his assent.
there remains no other mode-to provide foe the defi-
ciency, but by legislation ; it lies only in the two.rel
maining branches to provide for filling tip the defi-
ciency ; and of this, as I before oluerved, there' are
numerous precedents.. The principle of she preterit
proceeding, my Lords, goes.. througien=
consideration of the Throne "being I
Courts of Justice are open—that alLthelikersollfliena
fromehewanre in foil-
is alive in all its parts. IttrlciellillittlpU
I6Sti, the case was far otherwise—the T was
vacant—the Courts of Justice teat shut-.dintietat
Seal was destroyed. Under these eircumstaoces there
was then no alternative—they had no powerosontu*
'thority to legislate, and they adapted that modepn-
der the circumstances which appeared so them most
beneficial to the State—they, adopted it on tiktrhzie ,
gency -of the case. Another instante, my Lerch; id,
.'
dues' of the mode of preetioding by Addles', is
As hell-known case of the Irhh Parliament in Ins.
-'mt Body was pleased to determine on the Alba
of Address; but to the immortal honour of- ..1
Noble Marquis who then resided in that countrp as
the Representative of the Sovereign, hr withheld
from it every sanction in his power, dad eve6'ne,
' fused to transmit is to this country. But, my UM,.
a material cow ideration applies to this p
of the Irish Parliament, I mean on the disc
of the question of a Union with that countryi *-
11799, viz. that this very -proceeding of the Piro.
'lament of Ireland, in 17103, by the Mode of Ade
dress, was urg.d as an argument for the Unien.
lie
inasmuch, as the Legislatures in their
state may, on the occurrence of such . to '
choose a different person to fill the Miscall' t
in Ireland, from that chosen to fill the sante its
England. This was admitted, as far as it MIK to
be a conclusive argument. The precediet of 1
Imy Lords, I contend, in all its points and bears e.
is the only one which, under the present and titteriele
similar circutustanees, legally end constioniundily
governs our proceedings: It wan amply and (darts-, 'l.
cussed in both Houses of Parliament at the tiontebat,,-.!
the Resolutions which I have the honour • tbh Pe'
Co submit to you, were tarried in both kkiettel.:
sit
considerable majorities. In addition to oleo Jl.'h eli
already adverted to on this head, is the ct 11,4 07-
that in puemance td the Resolutions of both dilineet,
Parliament was opened by commission - end,. the
great seal, on the 3d of Febniary ; and it-'lli arell.
known, that towards thi close of that month his Mo.
jesty happily recovered ; and on the I Oth of March,
Parliament was regularly opened by a commission,
'tinder the accustothed formalities, the commission
being signed by his Majesty. "By the first cm:ratio-
skin, I should state, that the Cause of the meetiog: of
Parliament under audit circumstance was deli stated.,
In the regular and ordinary commission for openfas
the Session on the 10th of March, the foimer COW.
mission was referred to and recognized. as appeared
from the then Lord ehancellcr's speech tb tbdt
Houses, in the name of his Majesty ; the forrnerCoku-
missioners were continued in the Cominission of' tilt
10th of March, and the act(' and proceedings Tender
the former Commis ion were recognized and etirilirits.
ed by that issued in the euetomaty,
,way, and sigried
by his Majesty himself. In the laterite' between The
Commissions, a variety of Legislative e roeeediegs had
taken place, as private Bills. for which Petitions had
been presented in tbe usual ;way* and :tine bl. .these
wet* considerably advanced in their peeve*: ' Weal
the former Corrirnissioo ;13 which the Greet Seal "was
affixed not on the personal authority of hi,' Aye*/ ,
ilut on that of tha two Houses only, haki to bt inealid

~t
~t
1~
~C

--.,
..--7Purnrwm; -1"" '; . ,t'.lo"."'7lP" -
lc. .41'464niproilt 4,11' 43:0;4:.: 'aft,' .:101,f.............„..
_,...d„.„.. •.
...,,, ~.
' '..,5, '
• . .„ .., '
. "''''' .. '. • -- . ....
. 4 .
.1 • i
...
. • •