The Royal Assent. Money bills, known as " supply," do not re quire the attention of the House of Lords in any shape or form. After each declaration by the Clerk, a gentle inclination of the head is given by the Queen, indicating her assent. If, upon the other hand, the royal assent were to be refused, the Clerk would say, "La Reyne s'avisera." (The Queen will think about it.) This sentence, however, has not been made use of since the time of Queen Anne, as I propose to explain. When the royal assent is given by Com mission, the Lords Commissioners read the Commission and exactly the same formality is observed as if the monarch were present. Before proceeding further, it may be well to note that at the time of the Common wealth, Cromwell's assent to statutes was given in English, but at the Restoration, the old form of words, in vogue since the reign of Henry VII., was resorted to, and only one attempt has since been made to abolish it, when, in 1706, the House of Lords origi nated and passed a bill to abandon the use of the French tongue in all parliamentary pro ceedings; this bill did not pass the House of Commons, and the ancient custom of giving expression to the royal assent in NormanFrench seems likely to continue for an in definite period. There have been occasions, though not many, on which the royal assent has been refused. Indeed, if bills were vetoed in Britain as often as they have been by some United States Presidents, the chances are that the people of " the tight little isle" would long ago have abolished the system of monarchy. It is recorded in the Journal of the House of Lords that the prerogative of refusing assent was exercised by Queen Eliz abeth at the close of the session in 1597; and the refusal extended to no fewer than forty-eight bills. Again, in 1692, William III. refused to sign an act for the establish ment of triennial parliaments. He was, how ever, induced some two years later to allow the bill to become law by giving his assent
603
in the usual manner. As has already been mentioned, the last occasion upon which the royal assent was withheld was in 1707, when Queen Anne declined to sign a bill entitled, "An Act for settling of the militia of the part of the Kingdom called Scotland." A hundred years later, when Lord Howick (afterwards Earl Grey) introduced a bill to allow Roman Catholics to serve both in the army and navy, it is said that George III. strongly intimated that he would rather ab dicate than give his assent to such a statute, because he considered that his coronation oath prohibited him from admitting Catholics to any office in the State. When, at length, in 1829, the act had passed both Houses, George IV. at first refused his assent to it, but yielded on learning from Lord Eldon that the withholding of the assent would in volve the resignation of the Cabinet. Sir Archibald Alison, the historian, deals with the matter in touching detail, showing the agony of mind of the King during the prog ress of the measure through Parliament, and concludes his account by saying, " Such was the despair of the King that the unhappy monarch threw his arms round Lord Eldon's neck and wept, entreating him not to desert him, for he had no other to advise with." Circumstances have arisen when the strict formula observed in reference to obtaining the royal assent has necessarily been aban doned, as at the passing of the Regency Bill in 1811, when the assent to the measure was obtained under peculiar circumstances. The King (George III.) being insane and incap able of exercising any authority, the Great Seal was nevertheless affixed to a Commis sion for giving the royal assent. Again, in 1830, when it became painful to George IV. to sign with his own hand, recourse was had to a special statute, passed for the purpose, by which he was enabled to appoint one or more persons with full power and authority to each to affix, in the king's presence and by his command, the royal signature by means of a stamp made for the purpose.
