HER MAJESTY'S VISIT TO GERMANY. (Hansard, 7 August 1845)

Lord Campbell
I rise to put a question of great constitutional importance, of which I have given notice, to my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack, connected with Her Majesty's approaching visit to Germany. No one in Her Majesty's dominions would wish to interpose any impediment in the way of that visit. There is no longer any foundation for the jealousy which induced Parliament to provide, by the Act of Settlement, that the Sovereign should not leave the kingdom without the consent of both Houses: we have upon the Throne a Queen born and bred in England, and fortunately without any foreign dominions which do not belong to the British Crown; nor is there now any reason to dread the meetings of Sovereigns, which it was formerly said, with too much truth, boded no good to their subjects. At the present day such meetings may have a strong tendency to preserve the tranquillity of Europe. It is perhaps to be regretted that George III., during a very long life and very long reign, was never out of England, nor indeed more than one hundred miles from the place of his birth; if he had visited the flourishing provinces on the banks of the Rhine, which Her Majesty is said to be going to survey, and had seen how harmoniously and happily men of different religions there live with equal rights under the same Government, he might have been less adverse to the emancipation of his Roman Catholic subjects. No one, therefore, can feel regret that Her Majesty, if she so wills, should for a short time be absent from England. If circumstances had permitted, I should have rejoiced could the Irish have had the high satisfaction which my countrymen have twice enjoyed, of seeing their beloved Sovereign among them. I do not presume to offer any opinion as to the expediency of deferring this visit, although I cannot doubt that Her Majesty would now be received in Ireland with universal affection and reverence, whatever diversity of opinion there may be respecting the conduct 1511 of Her Ministers. But the subject of my question is the exercise of the royal authority during Her Majesty's absence. It has been declared by Parliament to be part of the privileges belonging to the Crown by the Common Law, that our Sovereigns may leave the realm at their pleasure; but, as far as I am aware, the invariable practice has been, that on going abroad they have provided for the exercise of the royal authority during their absence. In the early reigns, the great officers called the "Grand Justiciary" acted as Regent. When that office was abolished, a Regent or Lords Justices were named by the Sovereign on each particular occasion. But I come to the times subsequent to the Revolution. King Edward VI., Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth, King James I., King Charles I., King Charles II., and King James II., till after his expulsion, never were absent from England from the time when they mounted the Throne. But after the Revolution, down to the reign of George III., cases of the absence of the Sovereign were frequent. King William III., as is well known, went abroad yearly to fight his campaigns, and to carry on his negotiations. While his Consort Queen Mary lived she acted in his absence as Regent; for although she was Queen Regent, yet the Act of Parliament passed at the Revolution prevented her taking any share in the Government. After her death he yearly appointed Lords Justices, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lord Chancellor being placed at the head of the Commission, and the Princess Anne of Denmark, though the heiress to the Crown, not being included in it. The Session of Parliament was then brought to a conclusion in the spring, and the King generally announced his intentions in the following form:— The circumstances of affairs making it necessary for me to be out of the kingdom for some time, I shall take care to leave the administration of the Government, during my absence, in the hands of such persons as I can depend upon. The prospect of the family of Hanover—possessed of foreign dominions—succeeding, induced the introduction of the clause into the Act of Settlement to which I alluded:— That no person who shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall go out of the dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland, without consent of Parliament. 1512 But this was immediately repealed on the accession of George I., the Statute 1 Geo. 1. c. 51, reciting— That it is agreeable to the ancient Constitution of these kingdoms, that the person of the King or Queen should freely enjoy all and every the just and undoubted rights, liberties, and privileges of the Crown. Among which must be considered the power of leaving the realm at pleasure. George I. exercised this right in 1716, and intimated his intention of going abroad in his Speech at the close of the Session. He said— I design in the approaching recess to visit my dominions in Germany, and I have provided for the peace and security of the kingdom during my absence by constituting my beloved son the Prince of Wales guardian of the realm. There afterwards arose an unfortunate misunderstanding between the Prince of Wales and the King, and on subsequent occasions the Prince was not so appointed, but the King always nominated Lords Justices. In 1719, George I. being about again to visit Germany, a Commission was issued under the Great Seal, by which thirteen Lords Justices were appointed, and the King made a declaration to the following effect in the Privy Council:— May 9, 1719.—His Majesty in Council this day declaring his intention of going out of the kingdom for a short time, was pleased to approve of the annexed draft of a Commission for the administration of the Government during His Majesty's absence. It is ordered by His Majesty in Council that one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State do prepare a warrant for His Majesty's royal signature, in order to the passing of the said Commission under the Great Seal of Great Britain. Another declaration a little varying from this, occurs in 1723:— May 26.—His Majesty in Council this day declaring his intention of going out of the kingdom for a short time, was pleased to nominate the Archbishop of Canterbury. &c., to be Lords Justices for the administration of the Government during his absence and Commission ordered. On the accession of George II., as long as Queen Caroline lived, on the King going abroad, she was left Regent. I give, as an instance, the entry in the Privy Council books, May 16, 1735:— His Majesty in Council was this day pleased to declare that he intended to visit 1513 his dominions in Germany; and that he had appointed his dearest Consort the Queen, to be Regent during His Majesty's absence. A Commission to that effect accordingly passed the Great Seal. After the death of Queen Caroline, as often as the King went abroad, he appointed Lords Justices, like George I., and he usually announced his intention to Parliament. So things went on till his death; and I believe I may venture to say, that he never was absent for any period, long or short, without either appointing a Regent or Lords Justices. In the long reign of George III. it is well known that the Sovereign never was absent from England. George IV. went abroad once, and, I believe, once only, when the same course was pursued. I read the entry from the books of the Privy Council:— September 17, 1821.—His Majesty, in Council, was this day pleased to declare his inteution of going out of the kingdom for a short time, whereupon the annexed draft of a blank Commission, for appointing Guardians and Justices for the administration of the Government during His Majesty's absence, was read at the board and approved. And his Majesty was farther pleased to declare and nominate the following persons to be the said Guardians and Justices, viz.:—Duke of York, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, and other great Officers of State appointed. Now, after these uniform precedents, from the most ancient times down to the present day, I humbly apprehend that Her Majesty should be advised to appoint Lords Justices to exercise the Royal authority during her absence from the country. I am not aware of any change of circumstances that can authorize a change of practice. Railroads, it is true, have been introduced; but railroads cannot alter the Constitution. Various circumstances may arise in which it may be indispensably necessary that the Royal authority should be exercised, and when there may be no opportunity for the personal exercise of that authority by Her Majesty during her absence. I may refer to the pardon of criminals, and other matters with respect to which great public inconvenience may result from the want of the exercise of the Royal authority. But there is another reason which makes it expedient, in my opinion, to appoint Lords Justices during Her Majesty's absence. I am a lover of limited monarchy, as the form of government which 1514 gives the greatest influence to enlightened public opinion, and as best calculated for the prosperity and happiness of this Empire. I should not like to see the Royal authority in abeyance for any period; and it seems to me inconsistent with the monarchical principle, that the country should be left for any period without the means of exercising the Royal authority, as occasion may require. Of course it is the prerogative of Her Majesty to select of her free will whomsoever she may choose to represent her, and to govern in her name. Dutifully and loyally expressing an ardent wish for Her Majesty's happiness while she is abroad, and for her safe return to her dominions; I conclude by asking the question, whether it is not the intention that Lords Justices should be appointed during Her Majesty's absence?

The Lord Chancellor
acknowledged the courtesy of his noble and learned Friend in having given him notice of his intention to ask this question. He had not, however, given him notice of his intention to discuss how far going up the Rhine might have modified the religious and political opinions of George III., and he should not therefore, enter upon that question. He would give a distinct and short answer to the question which had been put to him by his noble and learned Friend. It was not the intention of the Government to advise Her Majesty to issue a Commission appointing Lords Justices during Her absence while on the short tour She was about to make. On a former occasion, previous to Her Majesty's visit to the King of the French, the law officers of the Crown of that time, the present Chief Baron and the late Sir William Foiled, were consulted on this point, and they were clearly of opinion, after considering the subject with great deliberation, that it was by no means necessary in point of law that such appointment should take place; and he had then entirely concurred with them in opinion. The opinion of the present law officers of the Crown had also been taken on the subject, and they were entirely of the same opinion; and he also, on a review of the subject, concurred with them that in point of law the appointment of Lords Justices was not necessary. The question, therefore, resolved itself into one of expediency; and in the present state of the country, and with the facilities of communication at present existing, it was considered equally unnecessary and inexpedient 1515 predent to issue such a Commission as his noble and learned Friend had adverted to. Her Majesty, as his noble and learned Friend had stated, had as free a right to visit the Continent as any of her subjects; and any act which She could do as Sovereign, would have as much validity and effect if done on the Continent of Europe as if done in Her own dominions. It should be borne in mind, too, that Her Majesty would be accompanied by a Secretary of State, and that she could return from the furthest point to which she was going in the short period of two days. It was, therefore, quite unnecessary that a Commission should be appointed to exercise the Royal authority during Her Majesty's absence. His noble and learned Friend had referred to precedents; but they did not appear to have any application to the present state of circumstances. In every instance to which his noble and learned Friend had adverted, the Sovereign went to the Continent for the purpose of residing for a considerable time.

Lord Campbell
It is stated in the Commissions that the absence from this country was to be for a short time.

The Lord Chancellor
; Yes; in all the Commissions those words "short time," were introduced; but it was matter of fact and matter of history, that on all the occasions to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, the intention of the Sovereign (and that intention was carried into execution) was to remain for some considerable period of time on the Continent, or to transact there some matter of business, either military or civil, which might have extended to a considerable period of time. Let their Lordships take into consideration the actual condition of the Continent at that time, and the means of communication then existing. Most of the cases to which his noble and learned Friend had referred were cases of the Sovereign going to Hanover, a journey which at that time might have occupied eight or ten days. It was therefore necessary, under these circumstances, that, as a matter of convenience, some power should have been given to persons in this country to exercise some of the functions of Royalty during the absence of the Sovereign. His noble and learned Friend had talked of the Royal authority being in abeyance during Her Majesty's absence, unless Lords Justices should be appointed by Commission; but, as his noble and 1516 learned Friend had doubtless examined the Commissions to which he had referred, he must be aware that they were all subject to restrictions; and if he had looked to those restrictions, he would have found that they pared down the authority in so many important particulars, that it was in reality rendered merely nominal; so that upon all important occasions, it would be necessary to have immediate and personal communication with the Sovereign. Considering, then, the altered state of circumstances—considering that the tour which Her Majesty was about to take, was circumscribed in its limits, and would last but for a short time—considering, too, that Her Majesty was to be accompanied by a Secretary of State; and that communication between Her Majesty and this country would be most easy, whenever it might be necessary, it had been thought quite unnecessary to appoint such a Commission as his noble and learned Friend had directed their Lordships' attention to. It was on these grounds, that it had not been thought necessary to advise Her Majesty to go through the form of appointing a cumbrous Commission, really for no practical purpose.

Lord Campbell
said, that his noble and learned Friend had entirely passed over the precedent of George IV., in 1821.

The Lord Chancellor
said, he had not passed it over. That was a visit of six or seven weeks, at a time when the communication with Hanover occupied eight or nine days, and perhaps ten.

Lord Campbell
would not longer argue the question; but would only observe, that his noble and learned Friend had not cited one instance in favour of the course which the Government proposed to follow, and which introduced an innovation in the practice of the Constitution.