in order to await a more fitting opportunity of serving the king. In vain did the king endeavor once more to disunite the Coalition, by making separate proposals to Lord North and the Duke of Portland. The new confederacy was not to be shaken, and the king found himself at its mercy. It was long, however, before he would submit. He wrote to Lord Weymouth "to desire his support against his new tyrants; "2 and "told the Lord Advocate that sooner than yield he would go to Hanover, and had even prevailed upon the Queen to consent." From this resolution he was probably dissuaded by the rough counsels of Lord Thurlow. "Your Majesty may go," said he; "nothing is more easy; but you may not find it so easy to return, when your Majesty becomes tired of staying there." It was not until the country had been for seventeen days without a government, that the king agreed to Lord North's scheme of a Coalition ministry. But further difficulties were raised; and at length the House of Commons interposed. After several debates, in one of which Mr. Fox accused the king's secret friends of breaking off the negotiation, the House addressed his Majesty to form "an administration 24th March. entitled to the confidence of his people." The address was graciously answered; but still no ministry was formed. 23d March, 1783. Coalition Ministry, 1783. Again the king pressed Mr. Pitt to become his premier, who again firmly and finally refused.3 At length, after an extraordinary interval of thirty-seven days, from the 24th February to the 2d April, the Coalition Ministry was completed, under the Duke of Portland. Such are the vicissitudes of political life, that Lord North, who for years had been the compliant and obsequious minister of the king, was now forcing his way into office, in alliance with Mr. Fox, the king's most dreaded opponent, and lately his own. While the Efforts of the Coalition to restrain the king's influence. 1 Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 140. king was yet holding them at bay, the new friends were concerting measures for restraining his future influence. As no one had submitted to that influence so readily as Lord North, we cannot intrude into their secret conferences without a smile. Mr. Fox insisted that the king should not be suffered to be his own minister, to which Lord North replied: "If you mean there should not be a government by departments, I agree with you. I think it a very bad system. There should be one man, or a cabinet, to govern the whole, and direct every measure. Government by departments was not brought in by me. I found it so, and had not the vigor and resolution to put an end to it. The king ought to be treated with all sort of respect and attention; but the appearance of power is all that a king of this country can have. Though the government in my time was a government by departments, the whole was done by the ministers, except in a few instances." 1 ministers. But whatever were the views of ministers regarding the king's future authority, he himself had no intention The king's opof submitting to them. He did not attempt to dis- position to his guise his repugnance to the ministry which had been forced upon him; but gave them to understand that they need expect no support from him, and that he would not create any peers upon their recommendation. He told Lord Temple "that to such a ministry he never would give his confidence, and that he would take the first moment for dismissing them."2 The Coalition had not found favor in the country; and no pains were spared, by the king's friends, to increase its unpopularity. Meanwhile the king watched all the proceedings of his ministers with jealousy, criticised their policy, and assumed towards them an attitude of opposition. Thus, writing to Mr. Fox, who, as Secretary of State, was negotiating the peace, in August, 1783, he said: "I cannot say that I am so surprised at France not putting the last 1 Fox Mem., ii. 38. VOL. I. 2 Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 302. 5 strokes to the definitive treaty as soon as we may wish, as our having totally disarmed, in addition to the extreme anxiety shown for peace, during the whole period that has ensued, since the end of February, 1782, certainly makes her feel that she can have no reason to apprehend any evil from so slighting a proceeding." 1 It An opportunity soon arose for more active hostility. Mr. Mr. Fox's In- Fox's India Bill had been brought into the House dia Bill, 1783. of Commons; and, in spite of the most strenuous opposition, was being rapidly passed by large majorities. was denounced as unconstitutional, and as an invasion of the prerogatives of the Crown; but no means had been found to stay its progress. The king now concerted with his friends a bold and unscrupulous plan for defeating the bill, and overthrowing his ministers. His name was to be used, and an Use of the king's name against it. active canvass undertaken by his authority, against the measure of his own ministers. Though this plan was agreed upon eight days before the bill reached the House of Lords, it was cautiously concealed. To arrest the progress of the bill in the Commons was hopeless; and the interference of the Crown, in that House, would have excited dangerous resentment. The blow was therefore to be struck in the other House, where it would have greater weight, and be attended with less danger. Lord Temple,— who had suggested the plan, in concert with Lord Thurlow, and to whom its execution was intrusted, - after an audience with his Majesty, declared himself authorized to protest against the bill in the king's name. And in order to leave no doubt as to his commission, the following words were written upon a card: "His Majesty allows Earl Temple to say, that whoever voted for the India Bill, was not only not his friend, but would be considered by him as an enemy; and if these words were not strong enough, Earl Temple might use 1 Fox Mem., ii. 141. 2 Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 288, 289. whatever words he might deem stronger, and more to the purpose." With these credentials, Lord Temple proceeded to canvass the peers, - with what success was soon apparent. On the first reading, supported by Lord Thurlow and the Duke of Richmond, he gave the signal of attack. The peers assumed a threatening attitude, and on the 15th December, placed the ministers in a minority, on a question of adjournment. Little secrecy or reserve was maintained by the king's friends, who took care to proclaim his Majesty's wishes. The use made of the king's name was noticed by the Duke of Portland, the Duke of Richmond, and Earl Fitzwilliam; and was not denied by Lord Temple. Mr. Fitzpatrick, writing to Lord Ossory, on the 15th December, said: "The proxies of the king's friends are arrived against the bill. The public is full of alarm and astonishment at the treachery, as well as the imprudence, of this unconstitutional interference. Nobody guesses what will be the consequences of a conduct that is generally compared to that of Charles I., in 1641." 4 Declaration of against the king's name. 1783. Before the success of the court measures was complete, the Commons endeavored to arrest them. On the 17th December, Mr. Baker, after denouncing secret the Commons advice to the Crown, against its responsible min- use of the isters, and the use of the king's name, moved a 17th Dec., resolution, "that it is now necessary to declare, that to report any opinion, or pretended opinion, of his Majesty, upon any bill, or other proceeding, depending in either. House of Parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanor, derogatory to the honor of the Crown, - a breach of the fundamental 1 Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 288, 289; Fox Mem., ii. 253. 2 Many of them withdrew their proxies from the ministers a few hours before the meeting of the House. - Parl. Hist., xxiv. 211. 8 15th Dec., 1783; Parl. Hist., xxiv. 151-160; Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 222; Rose Corresp., i. 47; Lord Auckland's Corresp., i. 67. 4 Fox Mem., ii. 220. privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the constitution." 1 In vain did Mr. Pitt contend that the House could not deal with rumors, and that the hereditary councillors of the Crown had always a right to give advice to their sovereign. Mr. Fox replied in a masterly speech, full of constitutional arguments, and eloquent with indignant remonstrances.2 The resolution was voted by a majority of 153 to 80. The House then resolved to go into committee on the state of the nation, on the following Monday. But this was not enough. It was evident that the king had determined upon a change of ministers; and lest he should also attempt to overthrow the obnoxious majority by a sudden dissolution, the House, on the motion of Mr. Erskine, agreed to a resolution affirming the necessity of considering a suitable remedy for abuses in the government of the British dominions in the East Indies; and declaring "that this House will consider as an enemy to his country, any person who shall presume to advise his Majesty to prevent, or in any manner interrupt, the discharge of this important duty." 3 lost, and min missed. The strange spectacle was here exhibited, of a king plotThe India Bill ting against his own ministers, - of the ministers isters dis- inveighing against the conduct of their royal master, of the House of Commons supporting them, and condemning the king, and of the king defying at once. his ministers and the House of Commons, and trusting to his influence with the Peers. The king's tactics prevailed. On the very day on which the Commons agreed to these strong remonstrances against his interference, it was crowned with complete success. The bill was rejected by the House 1 Com. Journ., xxxix. 842; Parl. Hist., xxiv. 199. 2 Mr. Fox cited the words reported to have been used by Lord Temple, and challenged a contradiction; upon which Mr. W. Grenville said, he was authorized by his noble relative to say that he had never made use of those words. This denial, as Mr. Fox observed, amounted to nothing more than that these had not been the precise words used. — - Parl. Hist., xxiv. 207. 225. 8 Parl. Hist., xxiv. 226. |