The moment a regent is appointed, a king to all in tents and purposes is appointed, and the order of that regent, in the king's name, to use the seal, is not a fic tion. It is an exercise of royal authority. The regent is pro temfiore king. He uses the king's name not as a fiction, but as a reality. He is, in the eye of the law, the king, from the time he has accepted the address. He has a discretionary veto upon the proceedings of parlia ment. But when parliament proceed by bill, they make themselves pro te?rzpore both to the first, and second, and third estate. It is said that the first act of the regent, after being appointed by address, would be signing the king's consent to his own appointment, by desiring the chancellor to affix the great seal to a commission. To this it should be answered, that the substance of royalty has already passed to him, and he signs that consent in the name of the king : but he is already king himself for the time ; he is the executive ; he puts the executive seal to the consent of the royal power which he himself represents, not to the consent of the afflicted individual, who ceases to be king during the period of his malady. Let us examine the difference between the regent giving assent to the act of parliament which calls him by ad dress, and the act which appoints him by bill. In the latter instance, the bill is passed without any executive power. In the former instance, an executive power. not a dead seal, but an active and real will, a will essentially royal, is created to complete the act of parliament. In defence of the restrictions of the regency, it has been said, that a temporary regent should not have the power of extending his influence beyond the period of his re gency, i. e. by creating peers. By the same argument it should be admitted, that a king should not have the pow er of creating honours or emoluments which can survive himself. Having carried the point of appointing the regency by bill, the minister proceeded, on the 31st of December, to propose the restrictions to be imposed on the power of the regent. Four resolutions to this effect were carried, by majorities so small on the side of mi nisters, as to mark an anticipation of their declining. The substance of the first resolution, was the expedien cy of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales being appointed regent ; of the second, to restrain him from creating a peerage in any case, except as a reward for some important military or naval achievement ; of the third, to prevent him from granting any office in rever sion, or any office, salary, or premium, except such offi ces as are by law required to be granted for life, or during The substance of the fourth resolution was, to vest in trustees whatever part of his majesty's property as was not already so vested.
On the first of January 1811, the minister proposed a fifth resolution respecting the royal household, in which he was left in a minority. The resolution, as amended by the opponents of ministry, was, that the care of his majesty's person during his illness should be committed to the queen, together with the sole direction of such portion of his majesty's household, as should be deemed suitable to a due attendance and regard to his royal per son.* The other most important articles of the regency bill were in substance as follows : Her majesty was to have a council, to assist in the discharge of the trusts committed by the act to her majesty.
Her majesty's council may examine the physicians, and others in attendance on his majesty, upon oath.
Her majesty's council shall meet at stated times, to declare the state of his majesty's health, and transmit a report to the president of the privy council, who shall publish a copy in the London Gazette.
Her majesty and council are eventually to notify his majesty's restoration to health, by instrument sent to the privy council. After such instrument has been receiv ed dud entered by the privy council, his majesty may, by sign manual, require the privy council to assemble.
If his majesty, by the advice of his privy council. shall signify his royal pleasure to resume the personal exer cise of his authority, and require a proclamation to that effect to be issued, the powers of the act shall cease.
In case of the death of the regent, or her majesty, or the resumption of the royal authority by his majesty, parliament, if then adjourned or prorogued, shall meet ; or if dissolved, the members of the last parliament shall meet. Members of the two houses so meeting, shall be deemed the two houses of parliament ; but not to conti nue to sit longer than six months.
The election of members is to he declared void, by appointment to office by the regent, or her ma jesty.
The debates on the bill occupied both houses till the end of the first week of February 18 I I, at which period his Royal highness entered upon his office of re gency.
In concluding our view of public affairs at the close of 1810, we regret that we cannot record the termina tion of our dispute with the states of America. The orders in council, as far back as November 1807, had put an end to all neutral commerce, except by licence from England. By way of retaliation for these new and additional restrictions, Bonaparte issued from Milan, in the December of the same year, his decree, which bears the name of that place ; and as the British orders had declared, that they should be continued in force till the Berlin decree was revoked, so this decree from Mi lan declared, that its restrictions and penalties should remain in force till the orders in council should be re voked. Each of the belligerents informed America
(unhappily now the only neutral nation,) that they en forced the measure of retaliation, not from hostility to wards her, but in self defence. Each of them desired America to compel their enemy to respect her flag; unless she did so, they declared that they must enforce their retaliation. America protested against the grounds of justification taken up by both parties : she declared that both had violated her rights; but she at last deter mined to submit, for the present, whilst she endeavour ed to prevail upon one party or the other to give way first, and to revoke thei. orders or decrees. After long and fruitless efforts to this effect, she passed, on the first of May 1810, an act, in which she provided, that if either Great Britain or France should, before the 31st of Nay 1811, revoke, or modify her edicts so that the neu tral commerce of America should be no longer violated, the fact should be declared by the President of the United States by proclamation ; and that then, if the other nation should not, in three months from that time, revoke or modify her edicts in like manner, the non intercourse act should be revived against that nation. On the 5th of August 1810, the French minister for foreign affairs communicated to Mr Armstrong, the American minister at Paris, that the decrees or Berlin and Milan were revoked, and that, from the 1st of No vember 1810, they would cease to be in force ; it being understood that, in consequence of this revocation, the British should revoke their orders in council, and re nounce the new principles of blockade which they had attempted to establish. Mr Armstrong having commu nicated this notification to Mr Pinkney, the American minister in London, the latter wrote, on the 25th of August 1810, to Lord Wellesley, our secretary of state for foreign affairs, informing him of what had been done in France, and at the same time observing, that he took it for granted that the revocation of the British orders in council would follow as a matter of course, and that he hoped to be able to announce to his government that such revocation had taken place. Lord Wellesley's an swer was as follows : " I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, under date the 25th instant. On the 23d of February 1808, his majesty's minister in America declared to the government of the United States, his majesty's earnest desire to see the com merce of the world restored to that freedom which is necessary for its prosperity, and his readiness to abandon the system which had been forced upon him, whenever the enemy should retract the principles which had ren dered it necessary. I am commanded by his majesty to repeat that declaration, and to assure you, that, when ever the repeal of the French decrees shall have actual ly taken effect, and the commerce of neutral nation5 shall have been restored to the condition in which it stood previously to the promulgation of those decrees, his majesty will feel the highest satisfaction in relin quishing a system which the conduct of the enemy compelled him to adopt." The Americans were dissa tisfied with this answer, because, in an answer to a di rect act of the French government, we only gave a con ditional promise. In February 1808, our minister in America had declared, in the king's name, to the gov ernment of the States, that his Britannic majesty would readily follow the example, in case the Berlin decree should be rescinded, or would proceed narinassu with France in relaxing the vigour of our measures. The Americans asked, if this was sheaving a readiness to fol low the example of France, in restoring to America the enjoyment of what we acknowledged to be her just rights, and only infringed upon by necessity ? The mo tive of our government might, perhaps, be distrust of France ; yet, independent of the circumstance of our national faith being pledged to keep pace in retractation with France, we had ourselves very recently held infe rior diplomatic communication with France, and trusted to their faith when officially given. In the late negotia tions For a cartel, our government even promised to liberate French prisoners, if the French government would certify, that an equal number of English prisoners was liberated in France. It was asked, then, with what consistency we refused to make a direct promise, in return for a French promise, respecting America, whilst we agreed to act by anticipation on the faith of a pro mise respecting prisoners from that same government ? The Americans evidently trusted to the faith of France respecting the revocation of the decrees, and acted upon the promise of the 5th of August, by issuing proclama tions to admit French vessels within their waters. It is evident, therefore, from our delaying to retract the or ders in council, that we either doubted the faith of the enemy, or were determined to uphold the orders inde pendent of all considerations. The answer of Lord Wellesley certainly was not proceeding pari fias8u with France ; and the policy of retracting from our promise to that effect may be questioned, on other grounds than the intrinsic nit rits of the orders in council. It is a ques tion of good faith, and no consideration of interest ought to stand in the way of that faith being fulfilled.