Page images
PDF

dent is so sturdy a partisan of Mr. Canning, them unawares on the side of the mi.

I may, upon a future occasion, give a few specimens of the manner, in which that gentleman conducted a political publication ; a publication which the Editor may now wish to be forgotten, perhaps, and, to say the truth, that wish is not far from being accomplished. It may be thought cruel to revive, for a moment, the work here alluded to ; but, let Mr. Canning's friends, then, be poore tolerant; let them forbear to accuse every opponent of Mr. Pitt of “scurri'lity and defamation.” Here would have followed some remarks upon what my correspondent has said relative to the Corn-bill, and the Test-laws; but they must be postponed till my next. PRINCEss CHA R lotte of Wales.— This is a subject, upon which it would have been perfectly proper for all the public prints to have observed strict silence. Such a line of conduct would have shown real respect of His Majesty and the royal family; but it has been broken through. The ministerial prints have, as usua', begon to exert their efforts to prepossess the public mind, as to the point in dispute, and even to give a party turn to the motives whence the opposition to the minister's wishes proceed. This has been done particularly in the SUN newspaper of the 21st instant. It, therefore, be. comes me to endeavour to lay before my readers a true statement of the case; first premising, that I regard, as the constitution to aches me, the minister, and not the King, as the person to whom the proposed measure is to be ascribed.— The Courier (a paper now as furiously ministerial as it was formerly lobespierrean) has published a narrative of the dispute, and I believe it to be tolerably correct. I': on this narrative, it appears, that the measure proposed, is, to place the Princess Charlotte of Wales under the cate of the King, leaving it to his Majesty to appoint persons to attend to her education; that, to this measure the Prince objects; that the Princess Charlotte of Wales is at Carleton House; and that Lord Moira has been sent for from Scotland (he has now arrived) by Mr. Pitt, in order to assist in settling the dispute.—Here the subject ought to have rested, till something had been settled, but, the ministerial papers, as if forewarned as to the result, have with more art, than one would be inclined to ascribe to their editors, thrown out such hints and insinuations as appear to have no other object than that of drawing the people into an error, and of committing

nister. The subject, whenever it shall coune to be discussed (if, unhappily it must be discussed at all), will divide itself into two distinct questions, one of law, the other of expediency The question of law, has been thus anticipated by the ministerial newspapers, particularly the Morning Post of the 20th instant. “ In consequence of “ the reports which have for some days pre“vailed, respecting supposed differences in a high and illustrious family, upon the “subject of the education and care of a “ minor branch of it, we déem it not im. “ proper to state, that in 1718, upon a “ question referred to all the Judges by “ King George the First, it was resolved, “ by the opinion of ten against the other ** two, that the education and care of all “ the King's grand children, while minors, “ did belong of right to his Majesty, as King “ of the realm, during their father's life." This statement, though true in itself, must, according to the rules of sound morality, be considered as a criminal falsehood, because it keeps out of sight a part of the truth. The question here spoken of, in the reign of George I. was referred to the twelve judges in their chamber. There was no discussion in public ; no decision of either House of Parliament; nothing in the way of trial even before the judges themselves, but the question merely put to them, in private, by the King, they being fully apprized before-hand of the King's wishes upon the subject. And, observe, that we are told, the question was decided by the judges, ten against two. So it was i but, the two accompanied their decision with the most

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

cogent arguments in favour of the Prince's

claim ; whereas the ten gave no reasons at all,—The decision of the twelve judges, supposing them to have been unanimous; was not law. The question, still remained for legal discussion. The decision afforded authority; but it was authority unsupport by arguinent, against authority supported by argument. In this state the question has descended to us; and, for the present, I shall content myself with saying, that, as to precedents, they are clearly in favour of the Prince ; that, as far as I am able to judge, the law is, as to every point, do cidedly with him; and, I will just add, that, with regard to the question of to: pediangy, I do hope that the partisans of the minister, if they have not too much decency, will, at least, have too much Pru. dence to force it forward for discussion.

[ocr errors]

Prinued by Cox and Baylis, No. 75, Grot Queen Street, and published by R. Bagshaw, Bow Street, Cowen' Garden where former Numbers mu be had ; sold also by J. Budd, Crown and Mitre, Pall-Mall.

[ocr errors]

vol. vi. No.20. LoNDON, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 29, iso, [Pluco on.

“In short, it appears by no means improbable, that, when the nation shall become to artily weary of this linger ing war, and when to that we ariness skull be added the discontent as o “ing from the high price of provisions, we shall be transferred again to the core of the . . . dingtons, who, whatever may be thought to the contrary, will never be found in an opposition to toe present ministry.”—Political Register, 18th August, 1804.

1027] - TO THE READER. Owing to an error of the PRINto R, the preceding sheet was paged wrong. It begins with p, 995, instead of 961; so that there is, in the paging, a chasin of 34 pages. This erratum is thus conspicuously inserted to prevent the trouble which readers might otherwise experience from supposing there to be a chasm in the work.

P R IN C E S S C H A R LOTT E (; F W A L ES.

This subject, notwithstanding the extreme delicacy of it, continues to be forced forward by the m nisterial prints, and, in some instances, in a manner that it would be almost criminal not to animadvert upon. As was before observed, great pains have been taken to prepossess the public mind; to commit the people on the side of the minister; but, it was hardly to be imagined, that there would have appeared publicatious of so indecent a nature as that of the following one, taken from the ministerial paper, THE Obs: Ryeo, of the 23d instant. “ A question respecting the guardianship of “ the Princess Chorlotte, has very inocorowsly “ become the subject of newspaper discus“sion.—The high respect and duty which “we owe to all to parties at issue, makes “ us lane at the existence of any difference “ amongst then, or that their private fel“ ings and conduct should be exposed to “ the rude a titratnent of public opinion. The desire of each is unquestionably the * hoppiness and advantage of the innocent “ and interesting object of contention : the “ disposition and obligation to discharge the “ important duty claimed by each, is, no “ doubt, alike in all, and the question thus “ becomes narrowed to the consideration of “ who is legally entitled to a preference.-“ Lord Thurlow, and other high authori“ ties, are stated to have declared that the “ law, strengthened by recent precedents, “decidedly places this illustrious infant un“ der the immediate guardianship of his Majesty, who, it is added, is induced to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

“ her Royal Highness remains under her “Aresert control, she may ultimately become “subject to, and contaminated by, the same

is hardly possible that the writer could have

press his right by an apprehension that if

- [1028 calamitous ascendency which has been so fatal to the happiness of her parents. But it, surely, cannot become a question whether to artiable Princess of If ale; or Mrs. Fitzherbert is the most e 'gift.” A corres; of the inson: Princes; ; nor can we for an instant question the solicitode of the Prince “ to guard the religion and the viole of his. “ child from the influence of an exacole hostile to both. We must, therefore, is {er “ the matter to the question of tow, and “ content ourselves with the hope that the “ decision will be maiked by equity, and “ contribute to the advantage of the soval Infaut, whose happiness now so powerfully interests the empire, and whose cond ict “ may influence its destities." The decorowsnes of this writer will, doubtless, need no illustration The pressing of Lord Thurlow into the service is most scandalously inpudent; but, this is an earnest of what we may expect ; it is a pretty strong assuranco, that the prints on that side are determined to stick at nothing. The apprehension, by no means equivocally expressed, that, if, the Princess Charlotte of Wales remain under the control of her Royal Father, she will become “contaminated,” is something 'so outrageous that words cannot be found sufficiently strong to express a proper degree of abhorrel:ce at it. The question, as stated in the next sentence, is a gross and shameful misrepresentation of the fact, and of this it

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

been ignorant.—Leaving this publication to that general abhorrence, which it so well merits, and which, I trust, it will meet with, I shall now lay before my readers those opinions of the twelve Judges upon this subject, which opinions were alluded to in the preceding sheet of this work Before I do this, however, there are two points upon which it appears necessary to say a few words. The first relates to the origin of the proposed measure. for reasons too evident to need stating, choose to represent the desire of withdrawing the infant Princess from the care of her Royal Father as having originated with His Majesty. This is their constant practice, when they have to defend any measure, the defence of which they find difficult. Every one must remember how liberally they blamed the King for the obstacles which were thrown in the way of the forming of a broad administration in the month of May last; though, since that time, they have congratulated the country, that such an administration was not formed. But, if there be, in our constitution, one maxim more indisputable than any other, it is, that the King can do no wrong. Out of this maxim arises another not less indisputable ; to wit ; that the King's minister is responsible for every measure adopted and enforced in the King's name. It is this, indeed, and this alone, that constitutes the essential difference between an absolute, and a limited monarchy : there being, in the former, no responsibility at all. The application is too evident to need pointng out : but, the proposed measure is, even n form, a measure of the cabinet ; it cannot be otherwise regarded; and, therefore, the attempts that have been made, by the ministerial prints, to represent it as arising so cly from the desire or will of the King, is, to say the least of it, daringly unconstitutional...—The other point relates to the com/cience of the twelve Joges in this case. They certainly were fully competent to advise His Majesty King George I. to give him their opinion as to any question of law ; but, I repeat, that such opinion, so given, is not law; aud, as there was a difference of opinion quicngst the Judges themselves, we are to judge between th in according to the arguments advanced by tach site respectivelv. he opinos, suo toed to the King by the ten Judget was accompanied with no ar. gu merit or authority in support of it; that of the to was, as will be seen, accoup. nutd with very cogout org.inents. In the chambe conference, low ever, all the Judges spo e i pon the ubject; and, by one of the tea, M. Baron to a resau. ALAND, a le* , " - " - o

The ministerial writers,

port of all the speeches, has been given. It would be quite useless to copy the whole of them ; but, it would not be fair to lay before the public the arguments of the two dissentient Jedges, withcut, at the same time, laying before them that of Mr. Baron FosTesau e AlAs D, whose speech, having been written out at leisure by himself, contains, as may be readily conceived, every argument of any weight, in favour of the claim of the King —Of Fort esque Alan D's accuracy in point of historical statement, there is a pretty good specimen in his argument drawn from the articles of impeachment against the Duke of Suffolk, in the 28th year of Henry VI. He says, that the Prince of Wales was “then living;" but, aay one may satisfy himself, that the Prince of Wales was not born till between three and four years after the impeachment of Suffolk. As a specimen of the arguments advanced by the other nine concurring Judges, take that of Mr. Baron Most A Guf, who had found, “ in the sole patent for the making of cardi, “ that the King was called Aaren's Zatoir, et custos regni, et (..*. totius regri;" and hence he concluded, that the King had the authority of a father over the children of the Prince of Wales How desperate must have been the case, in support of which an argument like this was seriously urged 1– But, the ten Judges, do indeed, by the mouth of Forres au E ALAND, completely stustify themselves at the very out-set, by declaring, that the question, upon which they are called on to decide, “is too great to be go“verned by the narrow rules of Arivate Aro“Arroy;” that is to say, that it is not a question of law, but a great question of state; and, of course, that they, as the twelve Judges of England, were no more competent to decide it than any other twelve men, and, perhaps, less competent than any other twelve men of sense and learning, --- With these few introductory observations, I should now leave the reader to the perusal of the documents themselves; but, an expression or two that has dropped, in some of the public prints, relative to the state of depondence, in which the Judges appear to be supposed to be held, at the epoch referred to, demands a few words. The advocates of the minister and of his proposed measure, seem willing to concede to us, that the Judges of England were not so independent of the King (or rather of the minister) in the reign of George I. as they are at this time; but troth will met suffer us to accept of the concession. We have been taught to repeat by rote, that his present Mäjesty; upon coming to the throne, teleto the Judges “ that he nobly resolved to render the Judges “ independent even of himself." sure, be it what it would, was the minister's, and not the King's ; and, I think, it will be found, that it was by no means such as to merit the pompons eulogia that have been bestowed on it. Nothing is more common MR. Baron force AND M R. Just 1 ce RY RE's op! N10 N Upo N The PR 1N ce's c As E, FEB. 1, 1717. o To the King's Moor Excellent Majesty.— “ May it please your Majesty.—ln humble obedience to your Majesty's commands, signified to your Judges by the right honourable the Lord Chancellor, we have taken into consideration the following question (as given above).—And we are humbly of opinion, that the education and care of the persons of your Majesty's grand children, the ordering the place of their abode, and appointing their governors. governesses and other instructors, attendants, and servants, belong to the Prince, their father. But that the care and

[ocr errors]

generally believed, that, until his present Majesty came to the throne, the Judges held their commissions during pleasure. This is, nevertheless, a gross error. Previous to 13 Willian its the commissions of the Judges were held during pleasure ; but, then it was that the tenure was changed; and it was enacted, that they shorld in future hold their commissions during good behaviour, just as they hold them to this day. The allera

tion which was made in the 1st year of the

present reign, as to these commissions, was simply this: the Judges' commissions, iike all other commissions, ceased with the demise of the Crown, and, of course, the suc‘cessor conid refuse to renew them, if he thought proper. The prerogative, however, mever had, I believe, been exercised in this ungracious way: his Majesty, upon coining "to the throne, had renewed the commissions

granted by his stoyal Grandfather: if, therefore, the new law was fective in any way

whatever, its effect could not be to render the Judges more independent of himself than they were before, and the only purpose it could possibly answer seems to be that of rendering his Judges more independent thin they otherwise would have been of bis suc. cessor.—Whether the new regulation were a wise one, or tot; whether it were better calculated for the obtaining of transient ministerial popularity, than for perpetuating the principles and securing the permanent interests of the monarchy, are questions which we are not called upon now to discuss; it being quite enough for our present purpose to have shown, that, at the time when the question relative to the King's right of custody and education of the children of the Heir Apparent was submitted to the twelve Judges, those Judges were just as independent of the King, as the twelve Judges of this day are of his present Majesty. * * * ——— o PIN to N of the Junges upo N THE QUEsTI ON II ER EA FTER st ATP D, AND w H cit QUEST lon WAS SU E M ITT ED TO TH FM 1 N THE REIGN of Georg E 1, Ax D on Tus E 221) of J A NU sy. 1717. To the King's Most Exce"ent Majesty.— “ May it please your Majesty.—In humble obedience to your Majesty's commands, sig

LECEMBER 20, isos.-Opinion of the Judget. from their dependent state. The phrase is,

The nea

[ocr errors]

nified to us by the right honourable the Lord Chancellor, requiring the opinion of as' your Majesty's Judges upon the following question, viz. “Whether the education and “ the care of the persons of his Majesty's grand children row in England, and of “ Prince Frederick, eldest son of his Royal “Highness the Prince of Wales, when his Majesty shall think fit to cause him to come into England, and the ordering the place of their abode, and appointing their governors and governesses, and other instructors, attendants, and servants, and the care and approbation of their marriages, when grown up, belongs of right to his Majesty as King of this Realm, or not f" —We whose names are hereunto subscribed, being ten of your Majesty's Judges, together with the other two Judges, having taken the same into consideration, and after the most diligent search that we could in this time make into acts an I proceedings of Parliament, treaties, public instruments and records, histories and law books, and consideration of the powers and prerogatives which from time to time, in very many instances, have been exercised and owned to belong to your Majesty's royal ancestors and predecessors, with relation to the marriages and care of the persons of the branches of the Royal Family, and of the great concern of the whole kingdom in so important a trust, and after having, pursuant to your Majesty's farther command, signified in like manner to us, heard a learned Serjeant at Law, who, by the command of his Royal Highness, laid before us several things relating to the question aforesaid : and after conferences and deliberations upon all the matters aforesaid, and what occurred to us and the other Judges thereupon, we are humbly of opinion, that the education and the care of the persons of your Majesty's rand children now in England, and of #. H rederick, eldest son of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, when your Majesty shall think fit to cause him to come into England, and the ordering the place of their abode, and appointing their governors and their governesses, and other instructors, attendants and servants, and the care and approbation of thrir marriages when grown up, do belong of right to your Majesty, as King of this realm.—All which we most humbly submit to your Royal Alajesty's great wisdom.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

our grand children belong to your Majesty

as King of this realm, we desire to be understood as speaking of a care and approbation not exclusive of the Prince their father. But as your Majesty's care will be always employed for the good of the Royal Family and the welfare of your people, so it is a duty incumbent upon every member of the Royal Family to apply to your Majesty, and receive your royal approbation upon every occasion of this kind, for we find that all negotiations of marriages in the Royal Fa. mily, have been carried on by the intervention of the Crown, and such marriages as have been contracted without the royal consent and approbation, have been thought contempts of the regal authority; but we find no instance where a marriage has been treated by the Crown for any person of the l'oyal Family, without the consent of the father, and we beg leave to assure your Majesty that there is no one expressiou in any of our law books that warrants any such assertion.—As to the other part of the question, in answer to which we cannot concur with the other Judges, it is our duty humbly to lay before your Majesty, that in our opinion the father bath in all cases a right to the custody and education of his children, and this we take to be clear from the general rule of the law —This right of the father, is said in our books to be founded ure natura, and to be annexed by nature to the person of the father. In case of younger children

it never was disputed, and in regard to the

tldest son or daughter, and heir, to whom lands descended from a collateral ancestor, the right of the father obtained even against the lord, though his seiguential right to the wardship of his tenant during the minority,

prevailed against the grandfather, and all

other ancestors lineal and collateral. Littleton, Coke, and Vaughan, all agree that none can have the custody of a man's son, and heir apparent from the father, and in the common case of a tenure in soccage, even the mother has the 1ight of guardianship after the death of the father, preferable to the grandfather. From hence we take it to be the general rule of the law, that the guardianship of the children is a right common to every subject in this kingdom who is a father, without exception.— Upon the best search we have been able to make, we can find but two books written by English lawyers, that can possibly induce a contrary opinion (Bracton and Fleta). Bracton, treating de patria Aotestate, says, Qui ex filia two et ejus axore narcitur, i.e. molas tuur et notis, arque in tua/totestate sunt, et/ronestos et Aronates, et do incois carteri; and, in Actestate Aatrum furt filii qui nascuntur in justo et legitimo matrimonia, iden in ne/otibus et/iron/iotibus, quantum adawi et Arcavo, Aaternor; which Fleta has also said in almost the same words, and which both have taken from Justinian's Institutes. This shews it to have been a part of the Roman law, but it neither is, nor as we conceive ever was, a part of the law of England. It is well known that Bracton and Fleta wrote their several treatives upon the pian of the Imperial laws, and it is as well known that those laws never obtained here, through the general aversion this nation (always zealous of its liberties), had towards them, and accordingly, wherever these writers differ from our year books and authentic reports, they are not allowed to be of authority. And as to this part of the Roman law in particular, which relates to the Aatria Aotestas, it is acknowledged by all, even by Justinian himself, that it was so peculiar to the Romans, that it never obtained among any other people whatsoever. Jus attem/iotestatis, quad in liberos habemus, Arqorium est civium Romanorum; midli euim sunt homines, qizi talem in liberas haérant /latestatem, qualem no hašenus.-But to give a more particular answer to these pas

sages, which are the only ones that have the

least appearance of law, it is evident they

cannot be made to affect the case of the

Royal Family by any other construction than what will equally affect every other family

in England. But that from these passages nothing can be concluded to determine the

extent of the patria Actestar in any family

here, is clear from the reason on which the

power of the grandfather among the Romans

is founded.—Now the reason of the Roman

law why children should not be in the pow

er of the tainer, but of the grandfather ex

« PreviousContinue »