The Lords Justices are further required in the commission of 1719, in the execu tion of theirpowers, punctually to observe his majesty's will and pleasure, as it might be from time to time more clearly and distinctly expressed in instructions signed by the royal hand ; and the com mission was accompanied by a set of in structions, also printed in the Report of the Committee of 1788, and stated to be nearly the same that had been issued, as far as was known, on similar occasions before and since. The rules prescribed are twenty-one in number, the most im portant things directed in which are, that no livings or benefices in the gift of the crown which may become vacant shall be disposed of without his majesty's direc tions as to the persons, to be signified from beyond the seas under the sign manual ; that no orders or directions concerning the disposition of money at the treasury shall be given before his majesty's pleasure shall have been signi fied thereupon ; and that there must be no exercise of the power of dissolving the parliament, or calling a new one, without special signification of the royal pleasure. The same restriction is put upon the ex ercise of the power of pardoning, and some of the other powers. In case, how ever, they should hold it necessary or ex pedient for the public service, the Lords Justices are authorized to fill offices im mediately, and also to reprieve criminals ; and they are permitted to continue the existing parliament by short proroga tions, until they should be otherwise di rested under the royal sign manual, and to summon the privy council to meet as often as they shall see occasion.
The government was in the same manner intrusted by George I. to Lords Justices when he again went abroad in 1720, 1723, 1725, and 1727. It is strange that the Report of 1788 should notice only the second of the several regencies of Queen Caroline, in the earlier portion of the reign of George IL Her majesty so long as she lived was always intrusted with the administration of the govern ment when the king went abroad ; which he did in 1729, in 1732, in 1735, and in 1736. An act, the 2 Geo. IL chap. 27; was passed in 1729, "To enable her ma jesty to be regent of this kingdom, during his majesty's absence, without taking the oaths;' on the 15th of May thereafter, according to Salmon's ' Chronological Historian,' a commission passed the great seal constituting her guardian and lieu tenant of the kingdom during the king's absence ; and the same authority state, her to have been appointed guardian in 1732, and regent on the two other occa sions. According to the Report of the committee of 1788, a patent, with the like powers as that issued to the Prince of Wales in 1716, passed in 1732, ap pointing Queen Caroline guardian and lieutenant of the kingdom in the king's absence. Most probably all the four appointments were made in the same manner and in the same terms. After the death of Queen Caroline, the govern ment was always left during this reign in the hands of Lords Justices when the king went abroad ; as he did in 1740, 1741, 1743, 1745, 1748, 1750, 1752, and 1755. On all these occasions the com
missions and the accompanying instruc tions were nearly the same with those issued in 1719.
George III. during his long reign never left England. When George IV. went to Hanover in September, 1821, nineteen guardians and Lords Justices were ap pointed, the Duke of York being the first. In an important article which appeared in the Morning Chronicle' for August 11th, 1845, the writer, after stating that Lord El don considered it indispensably necessary that Lords Justices should be appointed on that occasion, adds :—" One good effect arose from their appointment, that the Lords Justices during his (the king's) ab sence signed an immense number of mili tary commissions and other documents, which had been accumulating since his accession to the throne." This writer contends that " the royal authority of an English monarch cannot be personally exercised in a foreign country." " We take it," he adds, "to be quite clear, that a patent sealed with the great seal in a foreign country would be void. To guard against any such irregularity, the law re quires that the patent shall state the place where it is signed and sealed as aped Wesintonasterium." Nevertheless, no provision such as had been customary on such occasions was made for the exercise of the royal au thority, either when her present majesty made her short excursion to the French coast in 1843, or when she made her late more extended visit to Germany (in Au gust and September, 1845). On the latter occasion the subject was brought forward in the House of Lords by Lord Campbell, who, on the 7th of August (two days be fore the prorogation of Parliament), after stating at some length the course which he maintained had been uniformly taken down to the year 1843, asked if it was the intention that Lords Justices should be now appointed ? The lord chancellor, how ever, replied that the government had no such intention. " On the occasion of her majesty visiting the king of the French," his lordship is reported to have said, "the then law officers of the crown, the present lord chief baron and the late Sir William Follett, had been consulted. . . . And after mature deliberation, these learned persons gave it as their decided opinion that it was not at all necessary in point of law that such an appointment should take place. . . . In the present instance also, the law-officers of the crown had been consulted as to whether it was necessary in point of law for her majesty to appoint a regency during her absence, and their reply was, that it was in no degree ne cessary ; an opinion in which he entirely concurred." Both the speech with which Lord Campbell prefaced his question, and the subsequent article in the 'Morn.