REGENCY BILL. (Hansard, 28 July 1910)

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl the Leader of the House has had time to consider my Amendment since last night. The event which I contemplate is so remote, so exceedingly unlikely, that it would be almost absurd for me to detain your Lordships upon it; but the contingency provided for in Clause 5 is itself so remote and unlikely that it seems fit and proper that if we make any such enactment at all we should make it complete. It appears to me on the face of it that in the event contemplated—namely, that the office of Regent is vacated because of the conversion of the Regent to the Roman Catholic faith or other such analogous proceeding on her part—there would be no provision made for carrying on the Government of the country. There is, of course, also the possible case of the death of the Regent, in which a similar difficulty would arise.
What is really suggested in this clause of the Bill is to put the Regent in a similar position to the Sovereign himself. Under the Act of Settlement, I think it is, if the Sovereign becomes a Roman Catholic the office of the Sovereign is vacated, and the object of the clause is to put the Regent in the same position but there is this difference, that in the case of the Crown Parliament has made provision for what 551 is to be done in that event, because it is provided that it shall be treated as if the Sovereign were dead—that is to say, the next heir to the Throne would necessarily succeed. There is, however, no similar provision if the same circumstances should happen in the case of the Regent. Therefore it certainly seems that some change is required. Moreover, we are not without some historical knowledge of the difficulties. On the first occasion when George III was incapacitated there was considerable difficulty as to how the Regent was to be appointed. I do not Mean to say you can provide for every case, and, of course, Parliament does not attempt to provide for what is to be done in the still more unlikely case of the same misfortune happening to the Sovereign as happened to George III.
When George III was first incapacitated nobody knew what to do, and the two Parliaments—the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland—acted in totally different ways. The Parliament of Ireland presented a joint address to the Prince of Wales, asking him to assume the office of Regent; but the Parliament of Great Britain, on the other hand, was subject to a difference of opinion between the leaders of the two Parties at that time. As a result they could not agree to present this joint address to the Prince of Wales, and they adopted the rather remarkable device of asking the Lord Chancellor to affix the Great Seal to an Address—I think it was from this House —to the Prince of Wales without authority. That was done. But the fact that that Parliament was driven to such expedients as I have indicated shows how necessary it is in certain events to make provision. With these few words I venture to move the Amendment standing in my name, but I need not say that as far as the words are concerned I am entirely in the hands of His Majesty's Government, and if they agree to the Amendment but would prefer other words, I would willingly accept them.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF CREWE)
My Lords, since yesterday I have had an opportunity of looking into this matter. Of course, it is one, as the noble Marquess has indicated, on which one is greatly disposed to be bound by precedent. The noble Marquess has mentioned the case of the first attack which affected King George III, and at the time of the second attack, the appointment of the Regency in 1811, a similar procedure was devised—that is to say, authority was given for the Great Seal being put to a Commission without the Sign Manual, because the King was not in a condition to affix it, and the Commissioners were then empowered to give the Royal Assent to the Regency Bill. Of course, that is not what the noble Marquess proposes in this instance. He proposes that it shall be lawful for both Houses to present an Address to the Sovereign praying that a person named in such Address may be appointed Regent.
On the general question I confess that I am in agreement with what was laid down by those who were formerly responsible in some of these cases, that it is inadvisable to attempt to provide for all possible contingencies and that as much as possible should be left to the Parliament which at some future time may conceivably have to deal with it. In 1840, when the Regency Bill was introduced a somewhat similar proposition was made in another place, and Sir Robert Peel said that in his view nothing was so unwise as to go beyond the necessity of the case by attempting to foresee every contingency that could arise, and to tie up the hands of future Parliaments by making provisions for remote contingencies such as the demise of the Regent, and he thought it would be much better provided for by the Parliament in being at the time when the necessity arose. I understand that the noble Marquess would not quarrel with that statement, because in a sense that is what he proposes to do; but, on the other hand, I think I can persuade him that the procedure which he proposes is not necessary. There is no reason, I am given to 553 understand, should such an unfortunate contingency arise, either that contemplated under Clause 5 of the Bill or that of the demise of the Regent., why Parliament should not proceed as it is proceeding now, by Bill. There is no difficulty in the Royal Assent being given by a Sovereign at any time. It can be given by a Sovereign from his or her cradle; and that being so, I think it is on the whole desirable not to introduce the more or less novel procedure suggested by the noble Marquess, but to leave the future Parliament to deal with the question, should necessity arise, by the ordinary method of procedure by Bill.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I am quite satisfied, of course, with what the noble Earl has said. I understand from him that he is advised, on the best authority, that there is no difficulty in obtaining the Royal Assent from a Sovereign, still being an infant, if the case which he and I are bound to contemplate for the purposes of this discussion should really arise. If he is quite satisfied that there is no difficulty in having a valid assent from a Sovereign, being a minor, in the event contemplated, there would be no difficulty at all.

§ THE EARL OF CREWE
I am certain that is so.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Then I do not press the Amendment.