The king's opposition isters. 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 vigour 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." But whatever were the views of ministers regardto his min- ing the king's future authority, he himself had no intention of submitting to them. He did not attempt to disguise 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 favour 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 strokes to the definitive treaty as soon as we may 1 Fox Mem., ii. 38. 2 Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 302. 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 1783. against it. An opportunity soon arose for more active hos- Mr. Fox's tility. Mr. Fox's India Bill had been brought into the India Bill, House of Commons; and, in spite of the most strenuous opposition, was being rapidly passed by large majorities. It 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 active Use of the canvass undertaken by his authority, against the king's name 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.2 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 authorised 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: 1 Fox Mem., ii. 141. 2 Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 288, 289. "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 whatever words he might deem stronger, and more to the purpose."1 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.3 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 Before the success of the court measures was comCommons plete, the Commons endeavoured to arrest them. On against the the 17th December, Mr. Baker, after denouncing secret advice to the Crown, against its responsible Declaration of the use of the king's name. 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. 3 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. + Fox Mem., ii. 220. 1783. ministers, 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 misdemeanour, derogatory to the honour of the Crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of Parliament, and subversive of the constitution." 1 1 In vain did Mr. Pitt contend that the House could not deal with rumours, 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 1 Com. Journ., xxxix. 842; Parl. noble relative to say that he had 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 authorised by his never made use of those words. The India ters dis missed. manner interrupt, the discharge of this important duty."1 The The strange spectacle was here exhibited, of a king and minis- plotting against his own ministers,-of the ministers 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. bill was rejected by the House of Lords 2, and the next day the king followed up his advantage, by at once dismissing his ministers. To make this dismissal as contemptuous as possible, he sent a message to Lord North, and Mr. Fox, commanding them to return their seals by their under-secretaries, as an audience would be disagreeable to his Majesty. Earl Temple, who had done the king this service, was entrusted with the seals for the purpose of formally dismissing the other ministers: the man who had been the king's chief agent in defeating them, was chosen to offer them this last insult. Mr. Pitt as But the battle was not yet won. The king had struck down his ministers, though supported by a vast majority of the House of Commons: he had now to support a minister of his own choice against that majority, and to overcome it. Mr. Pitt no longer hesitated to take the post of trust and danger, which the premier, 1783. 1 Parl. Hist., xxiv. 226. 2 17th Dec., 1783. By a majority of 19.-Parl. Hist., xxiv. 196. Mr. Fox, writing immediately afterwards, said: "We are beat in the House of Lords by such treachery on the part of the king, and such meanness on the part of his friends in the House of Lords, as one could not expect either from him or them."-Fox Mem., ii. 221, 253. 4 Annual Reg., xxvii. [71]; Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 230. |