It is very improbable that Colonel Berkeley should have made the application without previously ascertaining the willingness of the Prince to give evidence, could such a course be permitted.  And as his Royal Highness, on receiving this opinion of the law-officers of the crown, did not come forward as a witness, that opinion may be held to have settled the question.  And, apart from the constitutional objections relied on by those able lawyers, it is evident that there would be serious practical objections to the sovereign being made a witness.  It would be derogatory to his royal character to put himself in a position where comments could be made, either by the opposing barrister or by the public outside, on his evidence.  And, on the other hand, it would be perilously unfair to one litigant for his adversary to be able to produce a witness who was not subject to cross-examination, nor to remarks upon his testimony.

The reign of George III. was now drawing to its close, and, if it produced no legislation affecting the principles of the constitution (it will presently be seen that it did produce one measure which its opponents branded as a violation of these principles), yet in its last years it witnessed the revival of an agitation which was kept up with varying animation till it was temporarily quieted by the concession of its demands.  We have seen that one of Pitt’s earliest efforts at legislation had been directed to a reform in Parliament, an object which to the end of his life he considered of great importance, though the revolutionary spirit aroused by the troubles in France, and the open sympathy with the French Jacobins and Republicans avowed by a party among ourselves—­which, if numerically weak, was sufficiently loud and active to be dangerous—­prevented him from ever re-opening the subject.  But, though the French Revolution in this way proved for the time an insurmountable obstacle to the success of the reformers, in another way it insured the revival of the question, by the general spirit of inquiry which it awakened among the population at large, and which soon went beyond the investigation of any single abuse or anomaly.  For even less far-sighted statesmen than Pitt confessed the existence of much that was not only theoretically indefensible, but practically mischievous.  The period, little short of a century, which elapsed between the death of William III. and Pitt’s accession to office had been one of almost complete stagnation and apathy.  The Scotch Union, the Septennial Bill, the establishment of a militia, and the Place Bill of 1743 were the only instances of any legislation deserving the name of constitutional which made the reigns of Anne and the first two Georges memorable.  And in the very nature of things it was impossible that, after so long a slumber, there should not be much to do, and many, whether capable or incapable, eager to bear a share in the work.  The sudden cessation of the excitement of war had begotten a