"Finally," said one speaker, who perhaps was Lord Mansfield himself, "he is not a moderate minister who would rashly decide in favor of prerogative in a question where the rights of Parliament are involved, nor a prudent minister who, even in a doubtful case, commits the prerogative, by a wanton experiment, to what degree the people will bear the extent of it. The opposite course was that by which a minister would consult the best interests of the crown, as well as of the people. The safety of the crown, as well as the security of the subject, requires the closing up of every avenue that can lead to tyranny."[22]
These arguments prevailed, and the indemnity bill was passed, to quote the words of the "Annual Register"-at that time written by Burke-"very much to the satisfaction of the public." And that it should have been so accepted is creditable to the good-sense of both parties. The precedent which was thus established does, indeed, seem to rest on a principle indispensable to the proper working of a constitutional government. In so extensive an empire as ours, it is scarcely possible that sudden emergencies, requiring the instant application of some remedy, should not at times arise; and, unless Parliament be sitting at the time, such can only be adequately dealt with if the ministers of the crown have the courage to take such steps as are necessary, whether by the suspension of a law or by any other expedient, on their own responsibility, trusting in their ability to satisfy the Parliament, instantly convoked to receive their explanation, of the necessity or wisdom of their proceedings; and in the candor of the Parliament to recognize, if not the judiciousness of their action, at all events the good faith in which it has been taken, and the honest, patriotic intention which has dictated it. The establishment of the obligation instantly to submit the question to the judgment of Parliament will hardly be denied to be a sufficient safeguard against the ministerial abuse of such a power; and the instances in which such a power has since been exercised, coupled with the sanction of such exercise by Parliament, are a practical approval and ratification by subsequent Parliaments of the course that was now adopted.[23]
The next year a not very creditable job of the ministry led to the enactment of a statute of great importance to all holders of property which had ever belonged to the crown. In the twenty-first year of James I. a bill had been passed giving a secure tenure of their estates to all grantees of crown lands whose possession of them had lasted sixty years. The Houses had desired to make the enactment extend to all future as well as to all previous grants. But to this James had refused to consent; and, telling the Houses that "beggars must not be choosers," he had compelled them to content themselves with a retrospective statute. Since his time, and especially in the reigns of Charles II. and William III., the crown had been more lavish and unscrupulous than at any former period in granting away its lands and estates to favorites. And no one had been so largely enriched by its prodigality as the most grasping of William's Dutch followers, Bentinck, the founder of the English house of Portland. Among the estates which he had obtained from his royal master's favor was one which went by the name of the Honor of Penrith. Subsequent administrations had augmented the dignities and importance of his family. Their Earldom had been exchanged for a Dukedom; but the existing Duke was an opponent of the present ministry, who, to punish him, suggested to Sir James Lowther, a baronet of ancient family, and of large property in the North of England, the idea of applying to the crown for a grant of the forest of Inglewood, and of the manor of Carlisle, which hitherto had been held by Portland as belonging to the Honor of Penrith, but which, not having been expressly mentioned in the original grant by William III., it was now said had been regarded as included in the honor only by mistake. It was not denied that Portland had enjoyed the ownership of these lands for upward of seventy years without dispute; and, had the statute of James been one of continual operation, it would have been impossible to deprive him of them. But, as matters stood, the Lords of the Treasury willingly listened to the application of Sir James Lowther; they even refused permission to the Duke to examine the original deed and the other documents in the office of the surveyor, on which he professed to rely for the establishment of his right; and they granted to Sir James the lands he prayed for at a rent which could only be regarded as nominal. The injustice of the proceeding was so flagrant, that in the beginning of 1768 Sir George Savile brought in a bill to prevent any repetition of such an act by making the statute of James I. perpetual, so that for the future a possession for sixty years should confer an indisputable and indefeasible title. The ministers opposed it with great vehemence, even taking some credit to themselves for their moderation in not requiring from the Duke a repayment of the proceeds of the lands in question for the seventy years during which he had held them. But the case was so bad that they could only defeat Sir George Savile by a side-wind and a scanty majority, carrying an amendment to defer any decision of the matter till the next session. Sir George, however, was not discouraged; he renewed his motion in 1769, when it was carried by a large majority, with an additional clause extending its operation to the Colonies in North America; and thus, in respect of its territorial rights, the crown was placed on the same footing as any private individual, and the same length of tenure which enabled a possessor to hold a property against another subject henceforth equally enabled him to hold it against the crown. The policy not less than the justice of such an enactment might have been thought to commend it to every thinking man as soon as the heat engendered by a party debate had passed away. It had merely placed the sovereign and the subject on the same footing in respect of the security which prescription gave to possession. And it might, therefore, have been thought that the vote of 1769 had settled the point in every case; since what was the law between one private individual and another, and between the sovereign and a subject, might well have been taken to be of universal application. But the ministry were strangely unwilling to recognize such a universal character in the late act, and found in the peculiar character of ecclesiastical bodies and ecclesiastical property a pretext for weakening the force of the late enactment, by denying the applicability of the principle to the claims of ecclesiastical chapters. In 1772 Mr. Henry Seymour, one of the members for Huntingdon, moved for leave to bring in a bill, which he described as one "for quieting the subjects of the realm against the dormant claims of the Church;" or, in other words, for putting the Church on the same footing with respect to property which had passed out of its possession as the crown had been placed in by the act of 1769. He contended that such a bill ought to be passed, not only on the general principle that possessors who derived their property from one source ought not to be less secure than they who derived it from another, but also on the grounds that, as ecclesiastical bodies occasionally used their power, "length of possession, which fortified and strengthened legal right and just title in every other case, did in this alone render them more weak and uncertain," from the difficulty which often occurred in finding documentary proof of very ancient titles; and that this was not an imaginary danger, since a member of the House then present had recently lost L120,000 by a bishop reviving a claim to an estate after the gentleman's family had been in undisturbed possession of it above a hundred years. The defence of the Church, however, was taken up by Mr. Skinner, Attorney-general for the Duchy of Lancaster, who argued that though, in the case of the crown, the nullum tempus which it had formerly claimed, and which had been put an end to in 1769, was "an engine in the hands of the strong to oppress the weak, the nullum tempus of the Church was a defence to the weak against the strong," as its best if not its sole security "against the encroachment of the laity." The "Parliamentary History" records that in the course of a long debate Lord North opposed the bringing in of the bill, as did "the Lord-advocate of Scotland, who gave as a reason in favor of the bill, though he voted against it, that a law of similar nature had passed in Scotland, and that the whole kingdom, clergy as well as laity, found the very best effects from it."[24] Burke argued in favor of the bill with great force, declaring that in so doing "h
e did not mean anything against the Church, her dignities, her honor, her privileges, or her possessions; he should wish even to enlarge them all; but this bill was to take nothing from her but the power of making herself odious." But the ministerial majority was too well disciplined to be broken, and Mr. Seymour could not even obtain leave to bring in the bill.
The year 1772 was marked by the discussion of a measure which the King seems to have regarded as one of private interest only, affecting his personal rights over his own family. But it is impossible to regard transactions which may affect the right of succession to the throne as matters of only private interest. And indeed the bill was treated as one involving a constitutional question by both sides of both Houses, and as such was discussed with remarkable earnestness, and with vehemence equalling that of any other debate which had as yet taken place since the commencement of the reign. The bill had its origin in the personal feelings of the King himself, who had been greatly annoyed at the conduct of his brother, the Duke of Cumberland, in marrying a widow of the name of Horton, daughter of Lord Irnham, and sister of the Colonel Luttrell whom the vote of the House of Commons had seated as member for Middlesex; and perhaps still more at the discovery that his other brother, the Duke of Gloucester, to whom he was greatly attached, had married another subject, the widowed Lady Waldegrave. His Majesty's dissatisfaction was, perhaps, heightened by the recollection that he himself, in early manhood, had also been strongly attracted by the charms of another subject, and had sacrificed his own inclinations to the combined considerations of pride of birth and the interests of his kingdom. And, though there was a manifest difference between the importance of the marriage of the sovereign himself and that of princes who were never likely to become sovereigns, he thought it not unreasonable that he should be empowered to exercise such a general guardianship over the entire family, of which he was the head, as might enable him to control its members in such arrangements, by making his formal sanction indispensable to the validity of any matrimonial alliances which they might desire to contract. A somewhat similar question had been raised in 1717, when George I., having quarrelled with the Prince of Wales (afterward George II.), asserted a claim to control and direct the education of all the Prince's children, and, when they should be of marriageable age, to arrange their marriages. The Prince, on the other hand, insisted on his natural and inalienable right, as their father, to have the entire government of his own offspring, a right which, as he contended, no royal prerogative could be enabled or permitted to override. That question was not, however, brought before Parliament, to which, at that time, the King could, probably, not have trusted for any leanings in his favor; but he referred it, in an informal way, to the Lord Chancellor (Lord Cowper) and the Common-law Judges. They investigated it with great minuteness. A number of precedents were adduced for the marriage and education of the members of the royal family being regulated by the sovereign, beginning with Henry III., who gave his daughter Joan, without her own consent, in marriage to the King of Scotland, and coming down to the preceding century, at the commencement of which the Council of James I. committed the Lady Arabella Stuart and Mr. Seymour to the Tower for contracting a secret marriage without the King's permission, and at the end of which King William exercised the right of selecting a tutor for the Duke of Gloucester, the son of the Princess Anne, without any consultation with the Princess herself; and finally the judges, with only two dissenting voices, expressed their conviction that the King was entitled to the prerogative which he claimed. The case does not, however, seem to have been regularly argued before them; there is no trace of their having been assisted in their deliberations by counsel on either side, and their extra-judicial opinion was clearly destitute of any formal authority;[25] so that it came before Parliament in some degree as a new question.
But George III. was not of a disposition to allow such matters to remain in doubt, and, in compliance with his desire, a bill was, in 1772, introduced by Lord Rochfort, as Secretary of State, which proposed to enact that no descendants of the late King, being children or grandchildren, and presumptive heirs of the sovereign, male or female, other than the issue of princesses who might be married into foreign families, should be capable of contracting a valid marriage without the previous consent of the reigning sovereign, signified under his sign-manual, and that any marriage contracted without such consent should be null and void. The King or the ministers apparently doubted whether Parliament could be prevailed on to make such a prohibition life-long, and therefore a clause was added which provided that if any prince or princess above the age of twenty-five years should determine to contract a marriage without such consent of the sovereign, he or she might do so on giving twelve months' notice to the Privy Council; and such marriage should be good and valid, unless, before the expiration of the twelve months, both Houses of Parliament should declare their disapproval of the marriage. The concluding clause of the bill made it felony "to presume to solemnize, or to assist, or to be present, at the celebration of any such marriage without such consent being first obtained."
The bill was stoutly resisted in both Houses at every stage, both on the ground of usage and of general principle. It was positively denied that the "sovereign's right of approving of all marriages in the royal family," which was asserted in the preamble of the bill, was either founded in law, or established by precedent, or warranted by the opinion of the judges. And it was contended that there never had been a time when the possession of royal rank had been considered necessary to qualify any one to become consort of an English prince or princess. It had not even been regarded as a necessary qualification for a queen. Three of the wives of Henry VIII. had been English subjects wholly unconnected with the royal family; nor had the Parliament nor the people in general complained of any one of those marriages; moreover, two of his children, who had in their turn succeeded to the crown, had been the offspring of two of those wives; and in the last century James II., while Duke of York, had married the daughter of an English gentleman; and, though it had not been without notorious reluctance that his royal brother had sanctioned that connection, it was well known that Charles II. himself had proposed to marry the niece of Cardinal Mazarin. In the House of Peers, Lord Camden especially objected to the clause annulling a marriage between persons of full age; and in the Commons, Mr. Dowdeswell, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Rockingham's administration, dwelt with especial vigor on the unreasonableness of the clause which fixed twenty-five as the age before which no prince or princess could marry without the King's consent. "Law, positive law," he argued, "and not the arbitrary will of an individual, should be the only restraint. Men who are by law allowed at twenty-one[26] to be fit for governing the realm may well be supposed capable of choosing and governing a wife."[27] Lord Folkestone condemned with great earnestness the expression in the preamble that the bill was dictated "by the royal concern for the honor and dignity of the crown," as implying a doctrine that an alliance of a subject with a branch of the royal family is dishonorable to the crown-a doctrine which he denounced as "an oblique insult" to the whole people, and which, as such, "the representatives of the people were bound to oppose." And he also objected to the "vindicatory part," as he termed the clause which declared those who might assist, or even be present, at a marriage contracted without the royal permission guilty of felony.[28]
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 justifi
ed 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.
The Constitutional History of England From 1760 to 1860 Page 6
