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.