The king's illness in 1804. ministers were unanimous that he should only perform this single act on that day.' But even after the king had transacted business, and his recovery had been formally announced, his health continued to cause great anxiety to his family and ministers. Apprehensions were entertained lest "his intellectual faculties should be impaired so much as never to recover their former tone." 2 Writing in August, 1801, Mr. T. Grenville says: "The king has seen the chancellor for two hours, and the ministers give out that the king will hold a council in a day or two at farthest." 3 On this occasion his Majesty's illness, however alarming, passed over without any serious hindrance to public business. It occurred while Parliament was sitting, and at a time when the personal exercise of the royal authority was not urgently required, except for the purposes already noticed. The constitutional questions, therefore, which had been so fully argued in 1788,though gravely considered by those more immediately concerned, -did not come again under discussion. It must be admitted that the king's speedy recovery affords some justification of the dilatory proceedings adopted regarding the regency, in 1788. Too prompt a measure for supplying the defect of the royal authority, would, on the king's recovery, have been alike embarrassing to his Majesty himself, the ministers, and Parliament. In 1804 the king was once more stricken with the same grievous malady. In January he was attacked with 1 Life of Lord Sidmouth, i. 401. 2 Lord Malmesbury's Diary, 20th March; Correspondence, iv. 51. 3 Court and Cabinets of Geo. III., iii. 167. 4 It was suggested that both parties, who had opposed each other so violently in 1788 upon the question of a regency, should now make mutual concessions, and, if possible, avoid the discussion of their conflicting opinions. In this view, it seems, Lord Spencer, the Duke of Portland, Mr. T. Grenville, and Mr. T. Pelham concurred; but Mr. Pitt appears not to have entirely acquiesced in it.-Lord Malmes. Cor., iv. 19. rheumatic gout, and about the 12th February, his mind became affected.1 He gradually recovered towards the end of the month2; yet his malady continued, with more or less severity, so as to make it requisite to spare him all unnecessary exertion of mind, till the 23rd April, when he presided at a council. He remained under medical care and control until the 10th June. For a time his life was in danger; but his mind was never so completely alienated as it had been in 1788 and 1801.4 On the 26th February the archbishop offered a thanksgiving for the happy prospect of his Majesty's speedy recovery; and on the same day, the physicians issued a bulletin, announcing that any rapid amendment was not to be expected.5 Meanwhile, the ordinary business of the session was proceeded with. On the 27th February, the king's illness was adverted to in the House of Commons: but ministers were of opinion that a formal communication to the House upon the subject was not required, and could secure no good object. Mr. Addington stated that there was not, at that time, any necessary suspension of such royal functions as it might be needful for his Majesty to discharge. That very day the cabinet had examined the king's physicians, who were unanimously of opinion that his Majesty was perfectly com 1 Lord Malmesbury says, although "there was a council held about the 24th January at the queen's house, yet before the end of that month it was no longer to be concealed that the king had a return of his old illness."-Cor. iv. 292. But it appears from Lord Sidmouth's life, that the king's reason was not affected until about the 12th of February. Lord Sidmouth's Life. ii. 246, et seq. 2 Lord Sidmouth's Life, ii. 249, et seq. 3 Evidence of Dr. Heberden, 1810. He had otherwise been indisposed for a month previously, with symptoms of his old malady. Lord Malmesbury's Cor., iv. 292; Fox's Mem., iv. 24, 35, 37. 4 Lord Malmesbury's Diary, iv. 293. 5 Lord Sidmouth's Life, ii. 250. 6 Hansard's Deb., 1st Ser., i. 307, 526, 530. petent to understand the effect of an instrument to which his sign-manual was required; but that it would be imprudent for him to engage in long argument, or fatiguing discussion. The delicate and responsible position of the ministers, however, was admitted. The king having already been ill for a fortnight, how much longer might they exercise all the executive powers of the state, without calling in aid the authority of Parliament ? At present they accepted the responsibility of declaring that the interference of Parliament was unnecessary. On the 1st March, similar assurances were given by Lord Hawkesbury in the House of Lords: the Lord Chancellor also declared that, at that moment, there was no suspension of the royal functions. On the 2nd March, the matter was again brought forward by Mr. Grey, but elicited no further explanation.2 On the 5th, the Lord Chancellor stated that he had had interviews, on that and the previous day, with the king, who gave his consent to the Duke of York's Estate Bill, so far as his own interest was concerned; and on the same day the physicians were of opinion "that his Majesty was fully competent to transact business with his Parliament, by commission and message. On the 9th, Mr. Grey adverted to the fact that fifteen bills had just received the royal assent, -a circumstance which he regarded with "uneasiness and apprehension." Among these bills were the annual Mutiny Acts, the passing of which, in the midst of war, could not have been safely postponed. On this day also, the Lord Chancellor assured the House of Lords, "that not satisfied with the reports and assurances of the medical attendants, he had thought it right to "3 1 Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 421. 4 3 Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 422. obtain a personal interview with the sovereign, and that at that interview due discussion had taken place as to the bills offered for the royal assent, which had thereupon been fully expressed." In reference to this interview, Lord Eldon states in his Anecdote Book, that the king had noticed that he was stated in the commission to have fully considered the bills to which his assent was to be signified; and that to be correct, he ought to have the bills to peruse and consider. His Majesty added, that in the early part of his reign he had always had the bills themselves, until Lord Thurlow ceased to bring them, saying: "it was nonsense his giving himself the trouble to read them." If there was somewhat of the perverse acuteness of insanity in these remarks, there was yet sufficient self-possession in the royal mind, to satisfy Lord Eldon that he was justified in taking the sign-manual. On the 23rd March, seventeen other bills received the royal assent; and on the 26th March, a message from the king, signed by himself, was brought to the House of Commons by Mr. Addington: but no observation was made concerning his Majesty's health. There is little doubt that his Majesty, though for some months afterwards strange and disordered in his family circle, was not incapacitated from attending to necessary business with his ministers.2 The Opposition, however, and particularly the Carlton House party, were disposed to make the most of the king's illness, and were confidently expecting a regency.3 Before his Majesty had been restored to his accus- Change of 1 Hansard's Debates, 1st Ser., i. 162; Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 419. 2 Twiss's Life of Eldon, i. 422; Lord Malmesbury's Cor., iv. 317, 325, 327, 344; Lord Sidmouth's Life, ii. 248, et seq. 3 Mr. Pitt, on being told that the Prince of Wales had asserted that ministry before the king's recovery. tomed health, the fall of his favourite minister, Mr. Addington, was impending; and the king was engaged in negotiations with the chancellor and Mr. Pitt, for the formation of another administration.1 To confer with his Majesty upon questions so formal as his assent to the Mutiny Bills, had been a matter of delicacy: but to discuss with him so important a measure as the reconstruction of a ministry, in a time of war and public danger, was indeed embarrassing. Mr. Pitt's correspondence discloses his misgivings as to the state of the king's mind. But on the 7th May, he was with him for three hours, and was amazed at the cool and collected manner in which his Majesty had carried on the conversation. It was probably from this interview that Lord Eldon relates Mr. Pitt to have come out "not only satisfied, but much surprised with the king's ability. He said he had never so baffled him in any conversation he had had with him in his life."4 Yet, on the 9th May, after another interview, Mr. Pitt wrote to the chancellor: "I do not think there was anything positively wrong; but there was a hurry of spirits and an excessive love of talking." "There is certainly nothing in what I have observed that would, in the smallest degree, justify postponing any other steps that are in progress towards arrangement." Nor did these continued misgivings prevent the ministerial arrangements from being completed, some time before the king was entirely relieved from the care of his medical attendants. The chancellor's conduct, on this occasion, in negotiating for Mr. Pitt's return to office, unknown to Mr. Addington and his colleagues, has exposed him to the severest animadversions.-Lord Campbell's Lives of the Chancel lors, vii. 166; Law Review, Nos. ii. and xi. 2 Letters to Lord Eldon, April 22, May 8; Lord Campbell's Lives, vii. 169, 173. 3 Lord Malmesb. Cor., iv. 306. Twiss's Life, i. 449. |