& 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.'1

The king's opposition to his min isters.

But whatever were the views of ministers regarding 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, avowing that he yielded to compulsion, gave them to understand that they need expect no support from him, and that he would not create any British 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." 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, thwarted them whenever he could, criticised their policy, and openly assumed an attitude of opposition. Thus, writing to Mr. Fox, who, as

Fox Mem., ii. 38.

The

-Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 302; Wraxall's Mem., iii. See Wraxall's Mem., iv. 527.

878, iv. 490.

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 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

India Bill,

An opportunity soon arose for more active hostility. Mr. Fox's India Bill had been brought into Mr. Fox's the House of Commons; and, in spite of 1783. 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. Instead of requiring the withdrawal or amendment of the bill,-as he was entitled to do,-his name was to be used, and an active canvass under- Use of the taken by his authority, against the measure against it. 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

Fox Mem., i. 141.

king's name

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 this plan, in concert with Lord Thurlow, and to whom its execution was entrusted, having had 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:

6

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.'2

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

' Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 288, 289; Wraxall's Mem., iv. 601, et seq. 589; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 146.

Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 288, 289; Fox Mem., ii. 253; Lord John Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 40.

3

Many of them withdrew their proxies from the ministers a few hours before the meeting of the House.-Parl. Hist., xxiv. 211.

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.'2

of the Coinmons against the use of the king's

Before the success of the court measures was complete, the Commons endeavoured to arrest Declaration them. On the 17th December, Mr. Baker, after denouncing secret advice to the crown, against its responsible ministers, and the

6

name.

17th Dec.,

1783.

use of the king's name, moved a 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.' 3

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

1 15th Dec., 1783; Parl. Hist., xxiv. 151-160; Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 222; Rose Corr., i. 47; Lord John Russell's Life of Fox, i. 44; Auckland Corr., i. 67; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 146151. 2 Fox Mem., ii. 220. • Com. Journ., xxxix. 842; Parl. Hist., xxiv. 199.

masterly speech, full of constitutional arguments, and eloquent with indignant remonstrances.1 The resolution was voted by a majority of seventy-three; and the House 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.' The Commons had a right to protest against the irregular acts of the king's secret advisers: but the position assumed by ministers was indeed anomalous. It was not for them to level censures against the king himself. They should either have impeached or censured Lord Temple, or, protesting against the abuse of his Majesty's name, should have tendered their own resignation.3

'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 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. And see Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 154.

Parl. Hist., xxiv. 226.

Fox Mem., ii. 299; Lord John Russ ell's Life of Fox ü. 45–48.