be attended with less danger.1 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 :— "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,3 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 1 Court and Cabinets of George III., i. 288, 289; Wraxall's Mem., iv. 557, et seq. 589; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 146. 2 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. 4 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. 146-151. tion of the Commons use of the name. 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." 1 Before the success of the court measures was com- Declaraplete, the Commons endeavoured to arrest them. On the 17th December, Mr. Baker, after denouncing against the secret advice to the crown, against its responsible king's ministers, and the 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." 2 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. 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 1 Fox Mem., ii. 220. 2 Com. Journ., xxxix. 842; Parl. Hist., xxiv. 199. 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 17th Dec., 1783. The India 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.2. But the strange spectacle was here exhibited, of a and minis-king plotting against his own ministers,—of the ministers inveighing against the conduct of their royal master, ters dismissed. 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 of Lords 3, and the next day the king followed up his advantage, by at once dismissing his ministers. To make this dismissal as 1 Parl. Hist., xxiv. 226. 2 Fox Mem., ii. 229; Lord John Russell's Life of Fox, ii. 45-48. 3 17th Dec., 1783. By a majority of 19.—Parl. Hist., xxiv. 196. 4 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 premier, 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 affront. But the battle was not yet won. The king had Mr. Pitt as struck down his ministers, though supported by a 1783. 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 king at once conferred upon him. His time had now come; and he resolved to give battle to an angry majority, under leaders of great talents and experience, -smarting under defeat, and full of resentment at the unconstitutional means by which they had been overthrown. He accepted the offices of first lord of the Treasury and chancellor of the Exchequer; and the king's sturdy friend, Lord Thurlow, was reinstated as lord chancellor. Mr. Pitt had also relied upon the assistance of Earl Temple,2 whose zeal in the king's service was much needed in such a crisis; but that nobleman resigned the seals a few days after he had received them, assigning as his reason a desire to be free to answer any charges against him, arising out of his recent conduct.3 friends in the House of Lords, as one could not expect either from him or them."- Fox Mem., ii. 221, 253. 1 Annual Reg., xxvii. [71]; Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 230. 2 He was intended to lead the House of Lords.-Tomline's Life of 3 Parl. Hist., xxiv. 237. As to Opposition in the Com mons. Attempts a tion. The contest which the youthful premier had now to conduct, was the most arduous that had ever devolved upon any minister, since the accession of the House of Hanover. So overpowering was the majority against him, that there seemed scarcely a hope of offering it an effectual resistance. His opponents were so confident of success, that when a new writ was moved for Appleby, on his acceptance of office, the motion was received with shouts of derisive laughter. And while the presumption of the boy minister was ridiculed2, the strongest measures were immediately taken to deprive him of his authority, and to intimidate the court, whose policy he supported. Many of Mr. Pitt's advisers, despairing of his prospects with the present Parliament, counselled an immediate dissolution but the same consummate judgment and foresight which, a few months earlier, had induced him to decline office, because the time was not yet ripe for action, now led him to the conviction that he must convert public opinion to his side, before he appealed to the people. Though standing alone,-without the aid of a single cabinet minister, in the House of Commons 4, -he resolved, under every disadvantage, to meet the assaults of his opponents on their own ground; and his talents, his courage, and resources ultimately won a signal victory. Secure of their present majority, the first object of to prevent the opposition was to prevent a dissolution which they believed to be 'impending. They could withhold the supplies, and press the king with representations against his ministers. His Majesty had the unquestioned pre 19th Dec., 1783. 1 Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 237. 277. In the Rolliad, his youth was thus ridiculed : "A sight to make surrounding nations stare,A kingdom trusted to a schoolboy's care." 3 Tomline's Life of Pitt, i. 241, 242. 4 Ibid., i. 236. |