State of Parties.--King’s Illness.--Regency Bill.
When the Houses met again after the recess, a very new scene opened to
the public, though unfolded by degrees, and of which all the springs
were not at first discovered. Accident, the rashness of Opposition,
and the intemperance of Ministers concurred and wrought up the ensuing
confusions; but the source lay in the mutual jealousy of the Favourite
and Grenville, on which I have already touched, and which terminated
in lasting mortification to the two rivals, and gave birth to the
various and fluctuating exhibition of politics that took place and
succeeded each other from this period. In truth this was the era of
faction, though it did not immediately predominate. Hitherto it might
be said that the two parties of Whig and Tory still subsisted; though
Jacobitism, the concealed mother of the latter, was extinct. The Court
had indeed admitted few Tories into place, from their total want of
abilities. But though Grenville and the Duke of Bedford had always
called themselves Whigs, and the _Chancellor Northington really was
one_, yet Lord Bute had left the standard of prerogative in the Court,
and his successors had relaxed none of those high-flown doctrines.
Nothing could be more despotic than Grenville’s nature. Bedford was
drawn by the Duchess and Rigby to adopt any principles, however
contrary to his opinion, that favoured her love of power, or Rigby’s
rapacity: and Lord Mansfield retained great weight in a cabinet so
framed to embrace boldly any arbitrary measures that he was always
ready to suggest and always afraid to execute himself. On the other
hand, the Opposition, though headed by Newcastle, who had sailed with
every current, and though composed of great and proud families, dated
from the stand they had made, or by resentment had been forced to make,
to the Favourite’s plan of extending the prerogative. Lord Temple stood
on no ground but popularity; and the cast of Mr. Pitt’s life, contrary
to his temper, had thrown him too on the affections of the people. The
crisis I am going to describe broke these ill-consolidated connections
into several factions; and though one of those factions adhered more
steadily to their professions than the rest, the subsequent contests
were rather a struggle for power, than the settled animosity of two
parties, though the body of Opposition still called itself Whig, an
appellation rather dropped than disclaimed by the Court; and though
the real Tories still adhered to their old distinctions, while they
secretly favoured, sometimes opposed, the Court, and fluctuated
according as they esteemed particular chiefs not of their connection,
or had the more agreeable opportunity of distressing those who
supported the cause of freedom. As their whole conduct was comprised in
silent votes, and never was considerable enough to turn a single scale
in the political changes,[83] I shall seldom mention them any more.
The King’s illness had occasioned a general alarm; but, though he
escaped the danger, his health was so precarious, and he had such
frequent disorders on his breast on taking the least cold, that all
sober men wished to see a Regency settled by Parliament in case of his
death. Yet most of those who possessed or hoped for power, dreaded such
a bill: and even they, who wished best to their country, could not be
without apprehension from it, as it would probably be framed on the
model of the last, which contained the odious and arbitrary clause of
præmunire,[84] and as it would undoubtedly be calculated to continue
the domination of the Princess and the Favourite, or of the Ministers
then in place, an alternative equally threatening to liberty. The
Princess could by no means desire to hear a Regent nominated, as she
could not flatter herself she should be the person in preference to
the mother of the future King. Should even a minority not happen, the
designation of the Queen for Regent would teach mankind whither to
address their homage, and draw from the Princess that court which till
now had been paid to her as all-powerful over the mind of her son. Lord
Bute had brought himself into as disagreeable a predicament. By having
quitted his place in the Cabinet, what pretensions could he have to one
in the Regency? Should he even obtain one by the King’s recommendation
or nomination, could he hope for any influence under the Queen, to
whom the Council would bow? Could he promise himself that the present
Ministers would impart that power to him under a Queen not likely to
be his friend, from which they endeavoured to exclude him now, though
possessing the favour of the King? The Ministers were still more
jealous of any such bill. As, according to the plan of the last, the
great officers in place at the time of the King’s death were to remain
of the Council of Regency, Grenville and his adherents concluded that,
to prevent such a contingency in their favour, they should immediately
be removed. Accordingly those good men who preferred any eventual
confusion to the loss of their places, set themselves roundly to work
to prevent, or if they could not prevent the proposal, to stir up
opposition from every quarter against such a regulation, be it what it
might.
Notwithstanding these various obstacles, the necessity of some
provision surmounted all impediments; and the very opposition made by
the Ministers did but serve to fix the irresolution of the Favourite.
I saw that this was the favourable moment for bringing out the
half-concealed, and, by consequence, for producing a total, rupture
between Lord Bute and the Ministers. I early went to Lord Holland, and
asked him why they did not think of a Regency-bill? He said he had
pressed it on Lord Bute and Lord Mansfield, but the latter was too
timid to propose it. That he himself had written twice to Lord Bute
on that subject, and had given him leave to show his letters to the
King, which he believed he had _not_ done: himself, however, should
not desist from pressing it, as he owned he believed the King in a
consumption, and not likely to live a year. We then talked over all
the considerable persons, and how their affections would probably lie
on such a question. Among others I named Lord Granby, and said, he was
wholly Grenville’s. “Yes,” replied Lord Holland, “and should the King
die, might, if he had sense enough, be king himself; and now,” said he,
“you see the wisdom of not letting any of the princes of the blood be
at the head of the Army.” I was not so dull as not to see deeper into
this hint. It informed me why Mr. Conway had been removed out of the
Army with so much alacrity. It was a context to what Grenville himself
had dropped to me on that head, “_that the King could not trust his
Army in such hands_:”--that is, the Court was determined to insure
the Army for whatever purposes they might have occasion to employ it
in. Another of Lord Bute’s creatures told me about the same time that
Grenville was grown too powerful in the House of Commons. I own I did
not think the Constitution quite ruined, when the House of Commons
could make a Minister formidable to the Crown. These and such like
accidental passages discover how deep the views of the Court had gone.
How happy for the nation that they who had laid such plans were so
unequal to the execution!
A few days afterwards, Lord Holland desired to speak with me. He did
not seem to have anything particular to say, but rather to want to
sound me on the disposition of my friends in the Opposition; and to
learn if, in case of a rupture between Lord Bute and Grenville, they
would soften to the former. As I thought any encouragement from the
Opposition would inspirit Lord Bute, and hasten his breach with the
Ministers, I instilled that assurance as strongly as I could into Lord
Holland, who said Lord Bute complained that the Duke of Cumberland and
the Opposition were as acrimonious as ever. This was true but in part,
for the Duke had already been gained to a certain degree by the King:
and as Lord Holland was very inquisitive to know from me on what cause
the Duke had been sent for to the King, and had been shut up with him
for two hours on the foregoing Sunday, it was a proof that Lord Bute
had not that confidence in Lord Holland which the world suspected.
I did not then know of that private interview of the King with the
Duke. Lord Holland said he guessed it was on the Regency-bill: that
he believed the Ministers had not proposed such a bill to the King,
but that his Majesty had to them,[85] and had ordered them to prepare
one. Lord Holland rejoiced at it,--for he feared for the stocks. He
repeated over and over that he believed things would remain as they
were; but he dropped enough to convince me that that was by no means
the intention of Lord Bute. “Things,” he said, “were not ripe yet;
many things were wanting: he lamented the death of the late Duke of
Devonshire, whose temper was not bitter, and who could have done much:
that Opposition resorted to Mr. Pitt, who would have nothing to do
with them: that Grenville would be glad to be well with Mr. Pitt, but
that he, poor man, was ill in bed.” This tenderness to one he hated so
much, was a clear indication that any assistance against the Ministers
would be welcome. I soon learned how much farther these wishes had gone
than I was then apprized of. I told him he knew enough of the Duke
of Newcastle to be sure that the Court might have him whenever they
pleased; and as Newcastle governed the Opposition, Lord Bute needed not
doubt their concurrence. Still Lord Holland had the weakness to repeat
that Lord Bute would be nothing, and meant no change. To facilitate
my measures, I had it conveyed to the Bedfords, that the Favourite
lost ground; and that Lord Holland was his instigator in promoting the
bill,--an idea which I soon found they eagerly adopted, and as eagerly
showed their resentment of on the first opportunity.
I imparted to Lord John Cavendish the probability of Mr. Pitt coming
into place. He said, “If that should be so, we could no longer oppose:
his family would take nothing, but the young Duke would go to Court.”
This I reported to Lord Holland: he replied, To be sure, if there was
any change, the Duke of Devonshire must be at Court; nor would the King
scruple to say he had been in the wrong in refusing to see the late
Duke.
At length it was declared that a bill of Regency was intended; but to
the great dissatisfaction of mankind, it was declared, too, that the
nomination of the Regent would be reserved by the bill in the King’s
breast. The crowd instantly conceived that this was a mode of bestowing
that important trust on the Favourite; a chimera too wild and much too
dangerous to enter into so dastardly a nature as Lord Bute’s. I have
no doubt but there was an uniform intention of appointing the Queen
Regent; though to save the dignity of the Princess, and to keep up a
dubious attention towards her, she might have obtained this palliative,
with the contingency too, however improbable, of her outliving, and
then occupying the place of the Queen. The Ministers rejoiced at these
murmurs; and to pay their court to the Queen, and to mortify the
Princess and her favourite, spared no pains to heighten this disgust,
which they even pretended to adopt; proceeding so far as to make
representations to the King against his keeping the nomination secret.
His Majesty was obdurate. At last they obtained that the Regent should
be one of the Royal Family: a clear indication of their affecting to
suspect that he had had thoughts of Lord Bute for that high office.
When this was conceded, and yet the Queen was not named, it seemed
to intimate that she was not the person designed. Grenville and the
Bedfords were not men to offend by halves, or to halt when they had
gained ground. Pursuing their blow, they told his Majesty, that the
Queen not being one of the Royal Family, if his Majesty had her in
contemplation, it would be requisite to specify her by name. Even this
point they carried at last. Yet thus had every step of the former
Regency-bill furnished precedents for the most dangerous attempts. A
power had been granted to the late King, of adding by his will four
persons to the Regent’s Council. As prerogative seldom adheres to
the strict letter of a precedent, but builds new pretensions on the
slightest foundation, the Crown now, from four secret nominations, had
jumped at once to demand a secret nomination of the Regent. Newcastle,
one of the three authors[86] of the former bill, was still alive to
behold its copy, as was also Fox, the opposer of it; but Newcastle now
dreaded, and Fox recommended the example!
The four secret nominations in the last bill of Regency had arisen
from the resentment of the Dukes of Grafton[87] and Dorset,[88] Lord
Chamberlain, and Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, that their posts
were not thought of importance enough to be admitted into the Council
of Regency. Yet Dorset would not have profited of the new expedient. It
was thought that the four persons on whom the late King had fixed, were
the Duke of Grafton, the then Duke of Devonshire, who had retired from
business, the Earl of Waldegrave, and Dr. Butler, Bishop of Durham.[89]
On the majority of the successor, it was supposed that the late
King had burned that designation; but his present Majesty told Lord
Mansfield that he had found the paper, though he would not disclose who
had been the persons specified.
This measure of secret nominations was now revived--no doubt with the
view to the admission of Lord Bute to the Council, which the opposition
of the Ministers and the temper of the times would not openly allow
at that moment. The jealousy occasioned by this step was augmented by
no mention being made, in the first concoction of the bill, of his
Majesty’s brothers[90] and uncle.[91] A plan which reserved so much
at the disposal of the secret Junto, and which plan was not concerted
_with_, but dictated by the King _to_ his Ministers, could not leave
the latter a moment’s doubt of their having lost their influence;
nor could fail to point out to them that that influence was restored
in its full force to the Favourite. From that moment the Ministers
assumed almost the style, entirely the conduct, of Opposition; Rigby
scrupled not to say, that, if no opposition was made to the bill, Lord
Bute would grow intolerably insolent: and the new Lord Waldegrave[92]
said artfully to an anti-courtier, “We cannot oppose this bill; but
why do not you?” This conduct of the Ministers taught me my lesson.
The more they laboured to instigate our party to attack the bill, the
more pains I took to dissuade my friends from being warm against it.
For six months I had tried to raise effectual war against Lord Bute
and the Ministers. The strength of their party when united, and the
weakness of ours, had baffled all my endeavours. The happy moment was
now come, when discord had declared itself amongst them: and I was
sure, whichever division of them should remain in possession of the
closet, must court our assistance. I knew my friends too well to think
they were numerous or able enough to form an Administration alone.
Should the King be reduced to admit them to a participation of power,
they had such good principles and such fair characters that they
would be a balance to the rest, and might prevent many of the evil
designs in agitation. In my opinion I inclined most to Lord Bute; for,
though the mischief had sprung originally from him, he had betrayed
a pusillanimity that made him far from formidable. Grenville and the
Bedfords had as bad principles, better heads, and far more courage.
I knew, too, that though my friends, when joined to Lord Bute, might
temporize, might be corrupted, or might not be able to obstruct Lord
Bute’s views, Grenville and the Bedfords, if once fixed in Opposition,
would not be tame and impotent, as we had been. No truth is more
certain to me than this; _though an Administration ought to be composed
of virtuous men, it is by no means desirable that an Opposition should
be so_. It is so seldom that there are good measures to obstruct, that
the mischief done by opposition is small in proportion. It must be
remembered, too, that opposition obstructs rather than prevents; and
the difficulty on opponents is the greater, if the measures are good;
salutary councils making their own way at last, after fascination has
vented its poison. But the bad measures of powerful men can only be
combated with efficacy by a determined party, equally able to expose
their evil tendency, and prompt to venture on any arts to defeat
them. Good men weep over their country when they should defend it.
Cassius killed the tyrant; Cato, himself. If Lord Bute was again to be
Minister, I wished to see Grenville and Sandwich patriots.
The Ministers having struggled in vain, and being reduced at last
to support what they could so ill digest, the King, on the 24th of
April, went to the House of Lords, and sending for the Commons,
recommended to both Houses to provide a bill of Regency[93] on the
plan of the last, but with this singular and material difference, that
his Majesty demanded to be invested with the power of appointing,
from time to time, by instruments in writing under his sign manual,
either the Queen, or any other person of his Royal Family residing
in Great Britain, to be the guardian of his successor, and Regent of
these kingdoms, until such successor should attain the age of eighteen
years. Thus had the Junto flattered themselves that the transient and
loose mention of the Queen’s name would stifle all murmurs, on the
supposition that even so vague a designation would make men presume
that no other person could be preferred to her Majesty, after a
specification that marked her as proper for the trust.
Flattery, more nimble in venting itself than jealousy, poured forth
panegyrics on the magnanimity of so young but provident a monarch. His
grandfather had dared to eye his own tomb; but could an aged Prince,
in conscience, leave his kingdoms and family unprovided of a rule of
government? How far more heroic his present Majesty’s firmness, who,
in the vigour of youth, reflected on his own mortality, and whose
foresight provided against dangers which his most loyal Peers and
Commons prayed to Heaven might never be _heaped on that bitterest
distraction of grief_, the loss of his Royal Person![94] In the Upper
House the Address was moved by Lord Halifax. In the other, Grenville
was _not_ so wrapt in admiration and encomium, but he recollected
himself enough to open more of the contents of the bill than were
necessary to excite only loyal Hosannahs: and he took care to declare
that the measure had flowed from his Majesty, not from the suggestion
of his Ministers. The path thus early chalked out to cavil, Nicholson
Calvert started some objections, though he would not oppose the
Address. Beckford went farther, and said he would not vote for it, as
it mentioned the expedience of the bill, to which he did not agree;
and then talked much nonsense, of Parliament being the guardians of a
minor king. Calvert, who was mad, was convinced by Beckford’s nonsense,
and their two were the only dissenting voices; George Onslow having
checked the debate by observing that the bill was not yet before them.
He, however, and T. Townshend dropped some severe sentences. Grenville
and Lord North, who seconded him, were profuse on the moderation of
the King in accepting so bounded a civil list, and in establishing
the judges for life--proof of dearth of topics for panegyric! I have
mentioned how trifling were the advantages which the King had foregone
in his revenue. By the patents of the judges, not he, but his successor
would be limited. The same measure had been proposed to the late King:
he replied, he was content to have no power of displacing the judges
himself, but he would not bind his heir.
The scope of the bill being now disclosed, it was incumbent on our
party to fix on the measures they would pursue with regard to it. We
had accordingly a meeting of the chiefs, at the Duke of Newcastle’s,
on the 25th. I found the young men warm against the bill, and full of
the idea that it was solely calculated to re-establish the empire of
the Princess and the Favourite. They neither knew, nor would listen,
to the state of factions in the Court. I told them they were doing
the business of the Ministers, who wished for nothing so much as a
vigorous opposition to the bill. The only answer I could obtain was,
they should lose their characters if they did not oppose. If they did
oppose the bill, I thought nothing more likely than that the Ministers
should recover the ground they had lost in the closet, by supporting
the very bill that they were instigating us to oppose. Nay, in the
warmth of debate, the passions of the Ministers themselves might grow
heated; and, as men are always most angry with those from whom they
have received the latest offence, the Ministers, if roughly attacked as
the agents of Lord Bute, might again become so; and he would certainly
resent less from those who should carry through his bill, than from
those whose enmity was inveterate and unalterable. At best, Grenville
and his faction would have leisure to carry on the war against the
Favourite, while they saw him and the Opposition grow daily more
inveterate. My arguments were all in vain. The _listlessness_ of the
party was now converted into blind zeal: and a direct opportunity of
reviling the Princess and Lord Bute seemed already to those warm young
men a triumph over them. As we parted, I told Lord John Cavendish that
I thought it much more for the interest of our country to break the
Ministry, than to oppose a single bill; “but,” said I, “there is not
a trap the Ministers set for you, but what you fall into”--words that
soon proved to be prophetic.
On the 29th the King sent a message to the Lords, desiring, instead
of the four secret nominations, to have his four brothers and his
uncle[95] specified in the bill; reserving only to himself the power
of filling up their places if they died. This step seemed to exclude
Lord Bute; but if ever he had been designed to be admitted, this
measure was only a plausible evasion. Frederick, the youngest prince,
was in a deep consumption. The Duke of Cumberland’s life was not less
precarious; and without any such contingency, a place in the Cabinet
Council would entitle the Favourite to one in the Regency. The bill
was then read for the first time. It was followed by another bill sent
from the other House, and brought in there by Lord John Cavendish,
to oblige Peers and members of Parliament to appear to suits, and to
allow suits to proceed, if such privileged persons refused to appear
and make answer. This was occasioned by the indecent refusal of Lord
Halifax to appear to Wilkes’s complaint. The Ministers had suffered
the bill to pass the Commons, intending to have it rejected by the
Lords. The Peers had read it twice, and were now going to commit it,
when Lord Suffolk[96] moved to have it put off for three weeks--Lord
Weymouth for two months, a method seldom used before the Committee
has attempted to correct a bill. Lord Temple proposed to adjourn the
consideration for a week, that their minds might not be diverted from
the important consideration of the Regency-bill; but Lord Suffolk’s
motion was carried by 61 to 52, though Lord Mansfield and Lord Bute
voted _for_ the bill. This was a more explicit declaration of
hostilities than the Favourite had yet attempted; at least it was
paying court to the Opposition, and canvassing for their support to
the Regency-bill. Still so great was the confidence of the Ministers
in their own strength, or their want of judgment so capital, that
they lost the moment of ruining the Favourite, and of establishing
themselves at his expense. Had they peremptorily refused to carry the
Regency-bill through, or had they resigned their places, pleading their
disapprobation of it, the whole odium had fallen on Lord Bute; and as
they would have been joined by the Opposition in that clamour, the
Court must have yielded to any terms they had thought fit to impose.
Instead of such strenuous conduct, they heaped nothing but disgrace and
mortification on their own heads. The Court obtained its bill, however
modified, but was equally offended at the Ministers. The nation beheld
them with contempt, while they promoted obstruction to a bill, which
they confessed they disapproved, and yet submitted to support. They
flattered without humouring, impeded without preventing, and offended
without hurting. This timid and double conduct they changed into open
treachery and provoking insolence, when the moment was come in which
they ought to have studied nothing but reconciliation.
On the 30th, the bill was read for the second time. Lord Lyttelton made
a fine speech against giving unconstitutional powers, such as that of
appointing an unknown person Regent. It was asking them, he said, to
put out their own eyes. He hinted a wish of having the Queen named, and
was going to make a proposal tending that way, but was stopped by Lord
Halifax, for no better reason than that her Majesty might not always
be a proper Regent, though she was so then. The Duke of Newcastle
having been so deep in the fabrication of the former bill, dared not
object to anything similar in the present, and therefore said he had
no objection but to the reserve of specifying the Regent, a power
that ought not to be entrusted to any King. The Chancellor,[97] in
his rough style, treated the Duke and the former bill with contempt
and acrimony. The last bill, though drawn by all-wise, all-patriotic
Ministers, had been, he said, most imperfect. This would correct
it. Lord Lyttelton had ascribed the last bill to the late Earl of
Hardwicke,[98] whom the Chancellor ridiculed, and said it had been
calculated for his own power, and that of Newcastle and Pelham: and he
asked bluntly why they had not substituted in that bill the Duke of
Cumberland in case the Princess had died? That they were guilty, if
the faults of the bill had been owing to craft. The Princess had been
at that time so long resident in England, that it was reasonable to
appoint her Regent. The youth of the Queen and her little acquaintance
with the country rendered her less proper. Would their Lordships wish
to place her Majesty in so invidious a situation, and wrest her out
of her subjection to the King? Who would wish to have his own wife so
independent? Would they determine that the same person should be Regent
for seventeen years,[99] to whom they would entrust such power for
three years? The Duke of Newcastle replied, that the age of the present
King had been so far advanced as had made no substitution of Regents
necessary. He had never known till within a few days, that in the eye
of the law the Queen is not of the Royal Family. Lord Shelburne said
the Constitution was secure in itself, and knew no minority. Parliament
supplied all deficiencies. His objection was not to parts, but to the
whole bill. Lord Sandwich said he was informed that our laws made no
provision for a minority, but that whoever got possession of the infant
King’s person, was King. In that case military force would be most
likely to govern. The next thing he should dread would be a democracy:
a popular orator,[100] backed by turbulent magistrates, might seize
the government. Lord Temple said he appealed from Cæsar ill-advised to
Cæsar well-advised; _was himself of no party, nor connected with any
party_; was, and had been, against all Regency-bills. Lord Mansfield
answered, that the King had heard so much of regencies formerly, that
of this bill he had thought himself. If their Lordships did not think
a bill of Regency necessary, his Majesty was under a mistake: but he
feared they were sowing the dragon’s teeth. By the ancient Constitution
the Parliament was dissolved at the King’s death. The Queen or great
men secured a majority, and then called a Parliament to confirm their
power. Bills of indemnity, restitution, and regency flowed properly
from the Crown itself. Regency was a trust, not power. What would be
good for his Majesty’s children, would be good for his people. At least
there would be a foundation for Government to set out upon: unless
it was thought that deliberation would be wiser, when men should be
heated by the crisis, than now, when they could coolly provide against
a distant period. The Parliament had not acted so negligently in Queen
Anne’s reign, but settled a regency, and got stability before the
event happened. Last time it had been considered whether it were not
wise to make a perpetual act; but it was answered that the bill, then
passed, would be a precedent, and change of circumstances might not
make exactly the same provisions always proper. Lord Temple shrewdly,
and bitterly, with allusion to Lord Mansfield’s friends, family, and
supposed principles, asked him, Supposing the Parliament had left to
Queen Anne the secret nomination of her successor, whom his Lordship
thought she would have appointed?
Between six and seven the House divided, 120 for the bill, and only
9 against it, Newcastle and his whole party retiring, either from
shame of contradicting their former conduct, or not being determined
to give openly the offence which they had sounded so high in private;
or that Newcastle was biassed by the Duke of Cumberland, whom the
King had consulted secretly, both on the bill and on the subsequent
measures which he wished to pursue. Thus Lord Temple, with his small
faction, and one or two of Mr. Pitt’s friends, was deserted, after
the most sanguine expectations of a vigorous opposition. He resented
this desertion with his usual _intemperance_; yet what claim had he
on the concurrence of those with whom he had sedulously declined all
connexion? His resentment on this occasion was, I do not doubt, a
leading step to a new alliance into which he soon after hurried. His
companions in the vote I have mentioned were the Dukes of Grafton and
Bolton, the Earls of Shelburne, Thanet, Ferrers, and Cornwallis, the
Viscount Torrington, and Lord Fortescue. The Duke of Grafton’s[101]
vote thus early pointed out that he looked more towards Lord Chatham
than to Newcastle. Lord Lyttelton, more temperate than his cousin
Temple, had withdrawn with Newcastle and the others to avoid voting,
the Chancellor having forced a division by declaring the _non-contents
had it_. Lord Lyttelton then read his motion to address the King,
to name the person or persons whom his Majesty would successively
recommend for Regents, as there was no precedent of _devising_ regal
power. The Duke of Bedford moved to adjourn the motion till the next
day, for which he was grossly abused by the Chancellor, who was averse
to all admission of the motion.
On the morrow Lord Lyttelton made his motion accordingly, urging that
the Crown cannot devolve its power on unknown persons. Was it prudent
to give the King absolute power, on the presumption that he would do
nothing but for the good of his successor? Lord Mansfield replied, that
giving such power was not _contrary_ to precedent, though _not founded_
on precedent. The usage and precedent of Parliament formerly had been
to make no precedent at all. If all the persons substituted should
fail, it would be necessary to frame a new bill. It was wise not to let
the person designed for Regent be acquainted with that designation.
The longer time the King should have to determine on the choice of the
person, the better that election would be. The Duke of Richmond,[102]
though declaring he disapproved of Lord Lyttelton’s motion, said he
wished to know _who the Royal Family were_? He wished to have it
defined, or to learn from the judges. Was the Princess Dowager of the
Royal Family? Were the Princess Amalie, and the Princess of Hesse[103]
and her children? Were the hereditary Prince[104] and the King of
Prussia?[105] The hereditary Prince had been naturalized: might he, if
resident in England, be Regent? How long time constitutes residence?
He should not like the Prince for Regent, though it was indifferent
to him who was so, for he hoped the laws were sufficient. By the Act
of Settlement her Majesty could not be Regent: nor could she, though
naturalized; for an act of naturalization must have a disqualifying
clause, or is invalid. Had her Majesty been naturalized? His Grace
declared himself of no opposition; that he hated and had always opposed
opposition. Lord Denbigh pronounced that all who are prayed for by
the Common Prayer-book are of the Royal Family. Would it be prudent,
he asked, to put a question to the judges before the bill was framed?
By her marriage, he thought the Queen was naturalized of course. Lord
Pomfret with great violence opposed the motion, but was called to
order by Lord Lyttelton for having quoted the speeches and vote of the
preceding day, the latter declaring that he acted from conscience, not
by concert. The Duke of Grafton professed great gratitude to the King
for the bill; though, when framed, it must be considered as the act
of the Ministers; and that, unless it was perfect, it were better to
have no bill. It could not please the people, for everything was left
in doubt. It took from the King the joy of seeing the whole nation
pleased with the nomination of her Majesty. Would not this be casting
a slur on her? Though built on the last bill, the present, with regard
to her, widely differed. On the sixteenth of the month the Queen would
be twenty-one. The delay of a single fortnight would have seen her of
age. The bill was precipitated now after it had been declared that
all business was over. Lord Mansfield said, mysteriously, that he had
his private opinion on who are of the Royal Family; but he should
not declare it. (He and the Chancellor had both told the King that
neither the Queen nor the Princess Dowager were of the Royal Family.)
Lord Talbot, who had opposed the bill of the last reign, said he had
liked on the preceding day to see certain Lords (Newcastle, &c.) in
the majority, when they did not direct the majority. He hoped this
motion would not be mentioned out of the House, lest it should get into
seditious papers. He thought the present bill left too little power to
the Regent: it must be the Queen. He understood the Royal Family to
be the Queen, the Princess Dowager, the royal dukes, and the Princess
Amalie. Lord Shelburne spoke well for decision and precision. It is
urged, said he, that the King can have no views: what views could
Parliament have, but the security of liberty and property? The Duke
of Bedford said it was great condescension in the King to limit the
Council of Regency to a certain number: but the Act ought not to be
irrevocable for sixteen years together. He looked _on the Royal Family
to be those who are in the order of succession one after another_,
and usually resident here in England. (This definition was evidently
laid down to exclude the Princess Dowager.) The Administration had no
merit or demerit by this act; it was purely the deed of his Majesty.
Lord Egmont[106] said it must be more agreeable to the Queen to be
named Regent by the King than by Parliament (a poor argument, as
the recommendation of the King must have been more agreeable to her
than silence out of respect to his mother). The Opposition supposed
possible infirmities in his Majesty: could there be none in the Queen?
More respect had been shown to her than to him. Lord Dartmouth summed
up very ably all the arguments of the courtiers; and concluded with
observing in answer, that some few would certainly know whom the King
destined for Regent, and might form their intrigues accordingly. The
motion had indeed taken its rise from the Crown, but he supposed his
Majesty had taken advice on the mode.
The House then divided, and Lord Lyttelton’s motion was rejected by
89 to 31; Newcastle and his friends, and the Bishops attached to him,
chiefly forming the minority: Lord Temple sullenly staid away.
But while the debate had been going on, an event happened which gave
birth to all that followed. The Duke of Richmond had drawn up a
question which he intended to put to the judges, to ascertain who were
persons of the Royal Family. He had stated the Princes and Princesses
in their order of succession. I happened to be standing on the steps
of the throne: the Duke showed me the sketch of his motion. I observed
that he had omitted the Princess Dowager; and instantly reflecting,
from the behaviour of the Ministers, and from what has just dropped
from the Duke of Bedford, that they wished to exclude her from the
possibility of being Regent; and concluding, too, that if she was
stated as one of the Royal Family, they would be rash enough to oppose
it, I said, “My Lord, your Grace is not in Opposition, and do not
mean any offence by this motion: why then do not you insert the name
of the Princess? By omitting her she will think you purposely intend
to affront her.” The Duke was struck with my advice and inserted the
Princess’s name. The Ministers, more violent and insolent than even I
had expected them to be, plunged headlong into the snare I had laid for
them; and as will soon be seen, wantonly, cruelly, and treacherously,
gave such provocation, both to the King and Princess, as scarce the
most intemperate Opposition could have been guilty of.
The Duke of Richmond then read to the House his intended motion,[107]
and proposed that the judges should be ordered to attend on the morrow.
Lord Mansfield said it would be better to correct the words of the
bill: the judges could not be consulted till some words were settled.
He would not point out any words, lest he should pledge his opinion
for the passing them. The Duke of Richmond replied, the words had been
proposed by the King--and was going to proceed; but Lord Sandwich,
already alarmed at the name of the Princess, suddenly moved the House
to adjourn.
On the 2nd of May the Duke made his motion. The Chancellor said, he had
been too much fatigued to answer his Grace the day before. The question
was now, whether the Queen could be naturalized? Himself would be for
rejecting the bill if her Majesty could not be Regent. He thought she
was naturalized by her marriage, and incorporated one of the Royal
Family, the Christian religion having been adopted into the common
law. By a law of Edward III. all the King’s children are naturalized
whereever born. That her Majesty was not disabled by the acts of
William III., or George I. If she was not effectually naturalized,
she had got a bad settlement for her jointure. The clause in the Act
of Settlement was futile, for one Parliament cannot bind a succeeding
one. However, if any doubt remained, he hoped his opinion would not be
conclusive, but that the judges would be consulted. He could not tell
who were of the Royal Family; but he knew who were not--the Pretender
and his sons. He desired to have the Princess understood to be of the
Royal Family. The other branches, while they have an establishment
abroad, were not within the present Act. If the hereditary Prince
should die, and his Princess come over, she would be within the Act.
The Duke of Richmond replied, that if there was nothing positive in
the common law to show the Queen was _ipso facto_ naturalized, there
was in the statute law to prove the contrary: and therefore asked,
if part of the clause in the Act of George I. must not be repealed?
That clause declaring, that no person naturalized could hold land or
office, and enjoining that they should not be naturalized without such
a clause. Many doubts, he said, had already been expressed in the
House, whether the Princess was of the Royal Family: without doors
there were still more doubts. He had been stopped the day before by a
trick of adjournment. Lord Mansfield had owned he had an opinion, but
would not declare it: it was therefore the more necessary to have that
uncertainty cleared away, for which end he had a motion ready drawn in
his hand.
The House then resolving itself into a committee, the Duke proposed to
state his amendment, unless their Lordships would consult the judges.
The Chancellor said, it would be improper to ask the judges who are
of the Royal Family, but not whether the Queen was naturalized. The
judges could only interpret laws passed. Lord Halifax pretending to
plead against delay, laboured to prevent the Duke from stating any
question that might declare the Princess of the Royal Family; but
Richmond, with inimitable firmness and address, maintained his ground,
and moved to insert the words _Her Royal Highness the Princess Dowager
and others descended from the late King, now resident in England_;
though Lord Halifax had tried to substitute a distinction between a
Royal Family of _consanguinity_, and a Royal Family of affinity. After
a long squabble the Duke’s motion was rejected, and the ministerial
party having allowed that the judges might be consulted on the Queen’s
naturalization, Lord Folkestone moved to put the question to them
on the morrow. Lord Mansfield, from fear of being pressed to give
the answer he had given to the King, or to change it, or from some
apprehension equally unworthy of his situation, absented himself. The
Chancellor appeared there, as has been seen, and contradicted himself.
On the 3rd the Judges, by the mouth of the Lord Chief Justice Pratt,
declared that the Queen was naturalized by her marriage, and capable
of being Regent; but how great was the astonishment of mankind at what
followed! Lord Halifax, hastening impetuously into the House, went up
to the Duke of Richmond, and asked if his Grace was satisfied? The Duke
replied, “By no means: you have rejected my motion and left my doubt in
full force.” “Then, my Lord,” said Lord Halifax, “if you will move it
again, I will satisfy you”--and standing up in his place, he delivered
an intimation (not a message) that it would be agreeable to his Majesty
to have the bill recommitted; which being complied with, Lord Halifax,
on the same mysterious authority, proposed to insert the motion of
the Duke of Richmond, rejected the day before, specifying the several
persons of the Royal Family, _only omitting the Princess Dowager_.[108]
This wonderful proposal took place instantaneously; and, it being early
in the day, several Lords and others, whose curiosity was carrying them
to see the conclusion of so interesting a scene, met the Ministers
returning from the House with exultation at their success; and could
scarce believe, and less comprehend, the meaning of so daring and
improbable an enterprize.
Daring in truth it was, and perhaps not to be paralleled. The fact
happened thus:--Lord Halifax[109] and Lord Sandwich (the latter of whom
had probably machinated so treacherous a step) had posted to Buckingham
House a little hour before the Lords assembled, and surprising the
King alone, had most falsely, and contrary to all likelihood, assured
him, that the House of Commons would certainly strike the name of
the Princess Dowager out of the bill; and therefore that the most
decent and prudent method to save the honour of his Majesty and her
Royal Highness would be, for his Majesty to permit it to be hinted
to the Lords, that he himself desired their Lordships would omit his
mother’s name, before they transmitted the bill to the Commons. The
young inexperienced monarch, taken by surprise, alarmed at the insult
announced, and not having time, or not having presence of mind to
demand time for consulting his mother and his Favourite, answered with
good-nature, _that he would consent if it would satisfy his people_.
The traitors seized that assent, and, hurrying away with double
rapidity to the House of Lords, procured in the very name of their
master that indelible stigma on his own mother!
Intoxicated as they were with presumption, or blind with the thirst
of revenge, still it is hard to conceive how the Ministers dared to
venture on so provoking and desperate an insult. Could the King pardon
such an insult on his understanding, or the Princess submit to such
an affront to her dignity and character? Could the Crown retain a
shadow of power without discarding such servants? Could the wildness
of Opposition have imagined such an act of aspersion, or have found a
sufficient number so destitute of hopes and of flattery, as to fix a
stain on the whole royal blood? That Sandwich should have conceived a
plot so base, especially when surprise and stratagem were to be the
ingredients, was not marvellous: that Grenville should have embraced
it, and lost all sight of ambition in the glut of his revenge, proved
what dominion every bad passion had over him in its turn; that the Duke
of Bedford should have closed with it, was but another instance of the
empire his associates had over a mind naturally good--that none of the
connexion, composed of men devoted to fortune, should have started
at a proposition so big with ruin to their hopes of favour, evinced
that when they had lost sight of honesty and decorum, they flattered
themselves that no position could be so desperate, from which they
might not recover by as bad arts as those which brought them into the
dilemma. Their subsequent conduct showed that they were determined to
storm the Cabinet they could not retain by address.
It is not less worthy of remark that this bill, so carefully planned
to save the honour or humour of the Princess, became the instrument
of loading her with disgrace; while the Duke of Cumberland and the
King’s brothers, who had been sedulously passed over in silence, saw
themselves reinstated in the very bill from which the Princess was
alone excluded: the Queen, who had been sacrificed to the jealousy of
her mother-in-law, was the sole person that reaped both honour and
a certain view of power from an act in which she had been so little
respected. The Duke of Bedford and Lord Sandwich were overturned by
this, as they had been by the last bill of Regency in the preceding
reign.[110]