in consequence of differences of opinion and personal jealousies, when the death of Lord Rockingham dissolved it. 2 burne's 1782. Mr. Fox and his friends retired, and Lord Shelburne, Lord Shelwho had represented the king in the late cabinet, was ministry. placed at the head of the new administration; while 1st July, Mr. William Pitt now first entered office, though little more than twenty-three years of age, as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The secession of the popular party restored the king's confidence in his ministers, who now attempted to govern by his influence, and to maintain their position against a formidable combination of parties. Horace Walpole represents Lord Shelburne as "trusting to maintain himself entirely by the king;' and such was the state of parties that, in truth, he had little else to rely upon. In avowing this influence, he artfully defended it, in the spirit of the king's friends, by retorting upon the great Whig families. He would never consent, he said, "that the king of England should be a king of the Mahrattas; for among the Mahrattas the custom is, it seems, for a certain number of great lords to elect a Peishwah, who is thus the creature of the aristocracy, and is vested with the plenitude of power, while their king is, in fact, nothing more than a royal pageant." By breaking up parties, the king had hoped to secure his independence and to enlarge his own influence; but now he was startled by a result which he had not anticipated. "Divide et impera" had been his maxim, and to a certain extent it had succeeded. Separation of parties had enfeebled. their opposition to his government; but now their sudden combination 2 Fox Mem., ii. 11. Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 86. Combina tion of par ties against the king. "The coalition." 17th and 21st Feb., 1783. overthrew it. When the preliminary articles of peace with America were laid before Parliament, the parties of Lord North and Mr. Fox,-so long opposed to each other, and whose political hostility had been embittered by the most acrimonious disputes,-formed a "Coalition," and outvoted the government, in the House of Commons. Overborne by numbers, the minister resigned; and the king alone confronted this powerful coalition. The struggle which ensued was one of the most critical in our modern constitutional history. The royal prerogatives on the one side, and the powers of Parliament on the other, were more strained than at any time since the Revolution. But the issue illustrated the paramount influence of the crown. The leaders of the coalition naturally expected to succeed to power; but the king was resolved to resist their pretensions. He sought Mr. Pitt's assistance to form a government; and with such a minister, would have braved the united forces of the opposition. But that sagacious statesman, though not yet twenty-four years of age, had taken an accurate survey of the state of parties, and of public opinion; and seeing that it was not yet the time for putting himself in the front of the battle, he resisted the solicitations of his Majesty, and the advice of his friends, in order to await a more fitting opportunity of serving his sovereign.3 In vain did the king endeavour 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. 1 Lord Auckland's Cor., i. 9, 41. 2 Mr. Pitt was born 28th May, 1759. * Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 140; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 103-111; Letters of the King to Mr. Pitt, Ibid., App. ii. iii. He wrote to Lord Weymouth "to desire his support against his new tyrants ;" 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 23rd several debates,-in one of which Mr. Fox accused the 1783. king's secret friends of breaking off the negotiation,the House addressed his Majesty to form "an administration entitled to the confidence of his people." The address was graciously answered; but still no ministry was formed. Again the king pressed Mr. Pitt to be- 24th come his premier, who again firmly and finally refused.2. At length, after an extraordinary interval of thirty-seven Coalition days, from the 24th February to the 2nd April, the m coalition ministry was completed, under the Duke of Portland.3 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 1 Fox Mem., ii. 42 (Horace Walpole). 2 Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 150; Letter to the King, 25th March, 1783; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. App. ii.; Wraxall's Mem., iii. 337, 353, 374, &c. The king availed himself of his freedom from ministerial re- March, March. ministry, 1783. Efforts of tion to re the coali in the king's in fluence. The king's. opposition isters. most dreaded opponent, and lately his own. While the 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 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 But whatever were the views of ministers regarding to his min- 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." 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 1 Fox Mem., ii. 38. III., i. 302; Wraxall's Mem., iii. 2 Court and Cabinets of George 378, iv. 490. 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 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." 2 India Bill, 1783. An opportunity soon arose for more active hostility. Mr. Fox's Mr. Fox's India Bill had been brought into the 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. 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 king's taken by his authority, against the measure of his own name ministers. Though this plan was agreed upon eight against it. 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 1 See Wraxall's Mem., iv. 527. 2 Fox Mem., ii. 141. |