The ministry, however, had a decided majority in both Houses, and the bill became and remains the law of the land, though fourteen peers, including one bishop, entered a protest against it on nine different grounds, one of which condemned it as 'an extension of the royal prerogative for which the great majority of the judges found no authority;' while another, with something of prophetic sagacity, urged that the bill 'was pregnant with civil discord and confusion, and had a natural tendency to produce a disputed title to the crown.'
It may be doubted whether the circumstances which had induced George III. to demand such a power as that with which the bill invested him justified its enactment. He was already the father of a family so numerous as to render it highly improbable that either of his brothers or any of their children would ever come to the throne; while, as a previously existing law barred any prince or princess who might marry a Roman Catholic from the succession, the additional restraint imposed by the new statute practically limited their choice to an inconveniently small number of foreign royal houses, many of which, to say the least, are not superior in importance or purity of blood to many of our own nobles.
Nor can it be said to have been successful in accomplishing his Majesty's object. It is notorious that two of his sons, and very generally believed that one of his daughters, married subjects; the Prince of Wales having chosen a wife who was not only inferior in rank and social position to Lady Waldegrave or Mrs. Horton, but was moreover a Roman Catholic; and that another of his sons petitioned more than once for permission to marry an English heiress of ancient family. And our present sovereign may be thought to have pronounced her opinion that the act goes too far, when she gave one of her younger daughters in marriage to a nobleman who, however high in rank, has no royal blood in his veins. The political inconvenience which might arise from the circumstance of the reigning sovereign being connected by near and intimate relationship with a family of his British subjects will, probably, always be thought to render it desirable that some restriction should be placed on the marriage of the heir- apparent; but where the sovereign is blessed with a numerous offspring, there seems no sufficient reason for sending the younger branches of the royal house to seek wives or husbands in foreign countries. And as the precedent set in the case of the Princess Louise has been generally approved, it is probable that in similar circumstances it may be followed, and that such occasional relaxation of the act of 1772 will be regarded as justified by and consistent with the requirements of public policy as well as by the laws of nature.[29] Generally speaking, the two Houses agreed in their support of the ministerial policy both at home and abroad; but, in spite of this political harmony, a certain degree of bad feeling existed between them, which on one occasion led to a somewhat singular scene in the House of Commons. The Commons imputed its origin to the discourtesy of the Lords, who, when members of the Commons were ordered by their House to carry its bills up to the peers, sometimes kept them 'waiting three hours in the lobby among their lordships' footmen before they admitted them.' Burke affirmed that this had happened to himself, and that he 'spoke of it, not out of any personal pride, nor as an indignity to himself, but as a flagrant disgrace to the House of Commons, which, he apprehended, was not inferior in rank to any other branch of the Legislature, but co-ordinate with them.' And the irritation which such treatment excited led the Commons, perhaps not very unnaturally, to seek some opportunity to vindicate their dignity. They found it in an amendment which the Lords made on a corn bill. In the middle of April, 1772, resolutions had been passed by the Commons, in a committee of the whole House, imposing certain duties on the importation of wheat [30] and other grain when they were at a certain price, which was fixed at 48s., and granting bounties on exportation when the price fell below 44s. The Lords made several amendments on the bill, and, among others, one to strike out the clause which granted bounties. But when the bill thus amended came back to the Commons, even those who disliked the principle of bounties resented this act of the Lords in meddling with that question, which they regarded as a violation of their peculiar and most cherished privilege, the exclusive right of dealing with questions of taxation. Governor Pownall, who had charge of the bill, declared that the Lords had forgotten their duty when they interfered in raising money by the insertion of a clause that 'no bounty should be paid upon exported corn.' And on this ground he moved the rejection of the bill.[31] In the last chapter of this volume, a more fitting occasion for examining the rights and usages of the House of Lords with respect to money-bills will be furnished by a series of resolutions on the subject, moved by the Prime-minister of the day. It is sufficient here to say that the power of rejection is manifestly so different from that of originating grants-which is admitted to belong exclusively to the Commons-and that there were so many precedents for the Lords having exerted this power of rejection in the course of the preceding century, that they probably never conceived that in so doing now they were committing any encroachment on the constitutional rights and privileges of the Lower House. But on this occasion the ill-feeling previously existing between the two Houses may be thought to have predisposed the Commons to seek opportunity for a quarrel. And there never was a case in which both parties in the House were more unanimous. Governor Pownall called the rejection of the clause by the Lords 'a flagrant encroachment upon the privileges of the House,' and affirmed that the Lords had 'forgotten their duty.' Burke termed it 'a proof that the Lords did not understand the principles of the constitution, an invasion of a known and avowed right inherent in the House as the representatives of the people,' and expressed a hope that 'they were not yet so infamous and abandoned as to relinquish this essential right,' or to submit to 'the annihilation of all their authority.' Others called it 'an affront which the House was bound to resent, and the more imperatively in consequence of the absence of a good understanding between the two Houses.' And the Speaker, Sir John Cust, went beyond all his brother members in violence, declaring that 'he would do his part in the business, and toss the bill over the table.' The bill was rejected
Notes:
[Footnote 16: A motion was, indeed, made (but the 'Parliamentary History,' xvi., 55, omits to state by whom) that the House should 'humbly entreat his Majesty, out of his tender and paternal regard for his people, that he would be graciously pleased to name the person or persons whom, in his royal wisdom, he shall think fit to propose to the consideration of Parliament for the execution of those high trusts, this House apprehending it not warranted by precedent nor agreeable to the principles of this free constitution to vest in any person or persons not particularly named and approved of in Parliament the important offices of Regent of these kingdoms and guardian of the royal offspring heirs to the crown.' But 'it passed in the negative,' probably, if we may judge by other divisions on motions made by the same party, by an overwhelming majority.]
[Footnote 17: No one doubted that this choice had been made under the influence of Lord Bute, and was designed for the preservation of that influence.-Lord Stanhope,
[Footnote 18: In his speech in the House of Lords on the Regency Bill of 1840, the Duke of Sussex stated that George III. had nominated the Queen as Regent in the first instance, and, in the event of her death, the Princess Dowager.]
[Footnote 19: 'Lives of the Chancellors,' c. cxli.]
[Footnote 20: It appears from these dates that it was not yet understood that Parliament could not be prorogued for a longer period than forty days.]
[Footnote 21: These words occur in a speech attributed to Lord Mansfield. There is no detailed account of the debates on this subject in either House. All that exists in the 'Parliamentary History' is a very brief abstract of the discussion in the Commons, and a document occupying above sixty pages of the same work (pp. 251-314), entitled 'A Speech on behalf of the Constitution against the Suspending and Dispensing Prerogative,' etc., with a foot-note explaining that 'this speech was supposed to be penned by Lord Mansfield, but was, in fact, written by Mr. Macintosh, assisted by Lord Temple and Lord Lyttleton.' It certainly seems to contain internal evidence that it was not written by any lawyer, from the sneers at and denunciations of lawyers which it contains, as a class of men who 'have often appeared to be the worst guardians of the constitution, and too frequently the wickedest enemies to, and most treacherous betrayers of, the liberties of their country.' But, by whomsoever it was 'penned' and published, the arguments which it contains against the dispensing power were, probably, those which had been urged by the great Chief-justice, and as such I have ventured to cite them here.]
[Footnote 22: In his 'Lives of the Chief-justices' (c. xxxvi., life of Lord Mansfield), Lord Campbell says, with reference to this case: 'The Chief-justice's only considerable public exhibition during this period was his attack on the unconstitutional assertion of Lord Chatham and Lord Camden, that, in a case of great public emergency, the crown could by law dispense with an act of parliament. The question arising from the embargo on the exportation of
