Notes: 

[Footnote 16:  A motion was, indeed, made (but the “Parliamentary History,” xvi., 55, omits to state by whom) that the House should “humbly entreat his Majesty, out of his tender and paternal regard for his people, that he would be graciously pleased to name the person or persons whom, in his royal wisdom, he shall think fit to propose to the consideration of Parliament for the execution of those high trusts, this House apprehending it not warranted by precedent nor agreeable to the principles of this free constitution to vest in any person or persons not particularly named and approved of in Parliament the important offices of Regent of these kingdoms and guardian of the royal offspring heirs to the crown.”  But “it passed in the negative,” probably, if we may judge by other divisions on motions made by the same party, by an overwhelming majority.]

[Footnote 17:  No one doubted that this choice had been made under the influence of Lord Bute, and was designed for the preservation of that influence.—­Lord Stanhope, History of England, v., 41.]

[Footnote 18:  In his speech in the House of Lords on the Regency Bill of 1840, the Duke of Sussex stated that George III. had nominated the Queen as Regent in the first instance, and, in the event of her death, the Princess Dowager.]

[Footnote 19:  “Lives of the Chancellors,” c. cxli.]

[Footnote 20:  It appears from these dates that it was not yet understood that Parliament could not be prorogued for a longer period than forty days.]

[Footnote 21:  These words occur in a speech attributed to Lord Mansfield.  There is no detailed account of the debates on this subject in either House.  All that exists in the “Parliamentary History” is a very brief abstract of the discussion in the Commons, and a document occupying above sixty pages of the same work (pp. 251-314), entitled “A Speech on behalf of the Constitution against the Suspending and Dispensing Prerogative,” etc., with a foot-note explaining that “this speech was supposed to be penned by Lord Mansfield, but was, in fact, written by Mr. Macintosh, assisted by Lord Temple and Lord Lyttleton.”  It certainly seems to contain internal evidence that it was not written by any lawyer, from the sneers at and denunciations of lawyers which it contains, as a class of men who “have often appeared to be the worst guardians of the constitution, and too frequently the wickedest enemies to, and most treacherous betrayers of, the liberties of their country.”  But, by whomsoever it was “penned” and published, the arguments which it contains against the dispensing power were, probably, those which had been urged by the great Chief-justice, and as such I have ventured to cite them here.]