Viewing page 52 of 285

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

92*] ANNUAL REGISTER

[[2 Columns]]

upon the preamble and most of the clauses, whether each, in itself, should be left totally out; and again, upon the omission of particular parts, and for amendments to others. One of the principal amendments proposed was, that the operative powers of the crown should be restrained to the children and grand-children of the reigning king, and the presumptive heir to the crown; another was that the restrictive limitation of age should be placed at twenty-one, instead of twenty-five years of age. These questions, and every other, were over-ruled by a majority of considerably more than two to one; and, at the third reading, the bill was carried without any amendment, by a still greater majority, the number, including proxies, amounting on the one side to ninety, and only to twenty-six on the other. It was however attended, on its passage, by a protest of great length and force, signed by fourteen lords and by another, not for long, signed by six lords only. 
 This bill met with a still greater opposition in the house of commons, where every inch of the ground being also disputed, and the numbers on both sides more nearly on an equality, the debates were longer continued. As the opinion of the judges seemed to call in question the legality of some assertions in the message, which were notwithstanding repeated and acknowledged in the preamble to the bill, and it was said, that the manner in which the bill was hurried, looking as if it was intended to take an advantage of the absence of the gentlemen of the law, who were mostly engaged on the circuits, it was therefore moved, to have the journals of the lords inspected, that the house might receive the best information that it could be in that respect. [["March 4th." wrapped within the text]] This being agreed to, a motion was made that the bill might be printed, that the house might have it in the most exact manner for their consideration; this was refused by administration, who said the bill was so short, that every member might have time to read it before the second reading came on in the house; this refusal, in a matter of such a magnitude, and so remote in its consequences, was represented as very indecent, if not unfair; the question being however put, it was rejected by a great majority, the numbers being 193 against, to 109, who supported the motion.
 Notwithstanding the issue of this first essay of strength, every part of the bill continued to be controverted and debated with the greatest vigour. The house was generally pretty full, and sat always very late. The greatest numbers, and the closest division, that appeared upon any question, was upon a motion for omitting those words in the preamble, which acknowledge and confirm the prerogative asserted by the crown in the message. [["13th." is wrapped within the text]] Upon this division, the numbers were 164 for, and 200 against, the motion.
 The arguments on this question turned principally upon historical facts, our general jurisprudence, the opinion of ten judges in the year 1717, and the late opinion of the judges in the house of lords. It was said on one side, that our kings always possessed this prerogative, and that the foundation of the King's right to the care and approbation of the marriages of

For the YEAR 1772.   [*93

[[2 Columns]]

of the royal family, was their importance to the state. The exercise of this prerogative was shewn in a variety of historical instances, wherein our kings had treated with foreign princes for intermarriages, had granted powers by commission to treat of the marriage of persons in their family with foreign princes, and wherein different branches of the royal family had obtained the King's licence to marry. They also brought instances in which the King had compelled noblemen to marry his daughters; others, in which he had confined the persons of those who had married without his consent, and where the star-chamber had fined persons who were privy to such marriages.
 they said, that the opinion of ten judges, in the year 1717, was a confirmation of the legality of this prerogative, which admitted the King's right to the care of the marriage and education of the children of the royal family; and that the late opinion acknowledges, that the King had the care of the royal children and grand-children, and the presumptive heir to the crown; but could not tell to what other branches it extended; and that this opinion plainly shewed the prerogative of the crown, though the extent of it was not clear.
 On the other side it was insisted, that this prerogative, in the extent it was now claimed, was not known to the constitution, was not founded in law, was not supported by the opinions of the judges, nor warranted by history. That, if it had been originally a part of the constitution, it must, in its natural consequences, have long since become the object of half our statute laws, and the subject of the greater part of our history. That, on the contrary, till the present time, this prerogative was unheard of in English jurisprudence; that there was no remedy in law appertaining to such pretended right in the crown, nor any court of law in which a prosecution could be carried on for such pretended offences; as therefore there could be no right without a remedy, it was evident that this prerogative never had any existence. That the act which regulated other marriages, expressly excepted the royal family; and it is well known that the common law, until that period, left all men to their natural liberty: had it been otherwise, had any provision been made, or had the paternal authority, exercised in Rome, been a part of our constitution, such a statute would have been absurd and ridiculous, because useless and unnecessary.
 As to the instances brought from history, some of them, if they proved any thing, proved much more than was intended, and what every body knew before, that in arbitrary times, some of our kings made an illegal and unjustifiable use of their power; that, with respect to the others, some of them were not in point, and the remainder were mis-stated; that in most of the, the King's interference being considered as a particular mark of honour, and generally attended with advantage, it was no wonder they should be submitted to; and that as to the fines and punishments mentioned, some of them were for other offences, and not for marriage; and the others were by arbitrary power, and not by law, which was evident from there