TOPICS OF' THE DAY , .
THE SIGN-MANUAL.
A MESSAGE, we have seen, was brought down to both Houses of Parliament on Monday, stating that his Majesty's continued indis- position rendered it painful and inconvenient for him to affix the sign-manual to the numerous documents daily presented to him for that purpose, and calling on Parliament to make adequate provision for preventing the delay that might accrue to the public service in consequence. We have heard that there are several thousands of papers at present waiting for signature, and that great inconvenience has already been felt fromhis Majesty's illness. The physical incapacity of the Sovereign, thus publicly announced, has led to some discussion without-doors as well as within. Within- doors, a bill has been introduced, which will probably, ere these lines reach the eyes of our readers, be converted into a law, au- thorizing the fabrication of two stamps, one with" George R." the other with" G. R." engraven on it, for the purpose of imitating the Royal signature, and authorizing the imitation to be made in the presence of the King, by such persons as his Majesty shall see fit to appoint as Commissioners in that behalf. The topics that present themselves in considering this law are— the nature of the evil which it is meant to remedy, and the effi- ciency of the remedy.it offers. What are the documents that require the sign-manual? We believe that ninety-nine in a hun- dred of them are papers prepared in the respective offices of Government, and submitted to the King as a mere piece of routine —that are never inspected by him, nor meant to be so. The heads of the different departments are responsible for them, not in a general and constitutional point of view, but strictly and per- sonally. We may cite one instance ;—all commissions in the regu- lar Army are signed by the King. Does any one imagine that commissions are granted otherwise than through the official repre- sentations of the Commander-in-Chief, or that the signature of the King in such cases is not purely ministerial ? Why, then, instead of the ridiculous machinery of stamps, which go to assimilate the functions of royalty to the operations of a steam-engine, is not the King relieved, not by a temporary measure suited to a temporary impediment, but by a permanent enactment, from the most unne- cessary labour which these ministerial acts impose on him ? Why may not the Commander-in-Chief sign the commissions of the Army, as the Lords of the Admiralty do the commissions of the Navy? And why, similarly, may not the formal and ordi- nary documents in every department be signed by the head of that department ? When this is done, there will remain for the signa- ture of the King only such papers as he must have read over to him, and must consider previous to signing—papers, the signing of which does in fact constitute the very essence of royalty, for it is the only indication of the royal will eitherlegislative or deliberative. . Now, what remedy does the bill in question propose in the case of this last class of papers ? Why, it proposes just no remedy at all. If the King's only ailment were an affection .of his right hand, s---we wish to God it were nothing more—the new Commissioners of Stamps might be a relief to him and a convenience to the pub- lic; but what is the fact ? We say not that his Majesty's sickness will be unto death—far be it from us to limit the workings of that Power by whom kings reign ; but grant a recovery to be as pro- bable as it is desired, what can more effectually retard that event than the perpetual annoyance of consultation on numerous and perplexing questions, in which, even when in perfect health, the King can take but a feeble interest ? And if, as we much fear, the King's recovery be all but hopeless, what can be more cruel than - to intrude unnecessarily the cares of office on moments so much better devoted to the soothings of friendship and the consolations e religion ? The King is a man and a Christian ; reason, reli- gion, and common feeling revolt against his being harassed 'either with papers or Commissioners in his hours of pain and languish- What would be said, were he a private individual, of those o under such afflicting circumstances sought to call back his mind from its aspirations after a higher and abetter kingdom, to the low cares of this ? While, therefore, we say that the signature of routine papers is a task from which the King ought to be perma- nently relieved, we say also that the care and labour of consulta- tion is one which, during his heavy sickness, be it long or be it short, he ought to be spared, by the plain, effectual, and constitu- tional means of a Council of Regency. There has been some idle argument on this topic ; and perhaps the idlest is that which would persuade us that no such provision can be called for while the mental health of the King is sound. We remember only two cases in the history of the English mo- narchy where the intellectual weakness of the Sovereign called for such an expedient, and only one in which it was applied, while ltegencies from other causes have been numerous. To come to the latest, and such as are most exactly in point—do the people who talk about mental incapacity recollect the Regencies in the time of GEORGE the Second? A summer jaunt to Hanover was then deemed a sufficient reason for the appointment of such a Council ; and does not the long-continued and severe indisposition of the Sovereign furnish a much stronger one than a casual absence of a Month or two ?
If it were asked of us who was to be the head of such a Council, we should answer, he, of course, whose relation to the Monarch gives him the best and most unquestioned title—the Duke of CLARENCE. That Prince is not only every way qualified for the exercise of so delicate a task, but, what is of equal importance, he possesses the perfect confidence of his King and brother, as well as of the people over whom' in the course of nature, he will be called on to reign. The bill of the Ministers is useless, or it' is dangerous ; its only consequence must be a sacrifice of the com- fort or of the• atithority, Of th0 King. No doctrine has ever been propounded, by the wildest Radical, more fatal to sovereign power, than the doctrine of putting royalty in commission, so clearly deducible from the whole tenor of this measure. The plan of a Council of Regency would have equally consulted the personal ease and the official honours of the King ; the plan of Ministers provides for neither, and can hardly fail to prove injurious to both.
Previous page
