must be the Protestant king of a Protestant country, or no king." Such fears, however, were idle in a monarch who could cast down ministers and sway Parliaments, at his pleasure. He had overcome the giant power of Mr. Pitt, and Lord Grenville was now at his feet. on the 1807. The dismissal of ministers, and the constitutional Proceedings in the dangers involved in such an exercise of prerogative, Commons did not pass without animadversion in Parliament. change of They were discussed in both houses on the 26th ministry, March2; and on the 9th April, Mr. Brand moved a resolution in the Commons, "that it is contrary to the first duties of the confidential servants of the crown to restrain themselves by any pledge, expressed or implied, from offering to the king any advice which the course of circumstances may render necessary for the welfare and security of the empire." In support of this motion it was argued, that the king being irresponsible, if ministers should also claim to be absolved from responsibility, by reason of pledges exacted from them, there would be no security for the people against the evils of bad government. Had ministers agreed to such a pledge, they would have violated their oaths as privy-councillors, and the king would have become absolute. Nor did the conduct of secret advisers escape notice, who had counteracted the measures of the public and responsible advisers of the crown.3 3 On the other side it was contended that the stipulation proposed by ministers, of being at liberty to support in debate a measure which they had withdrawn,—and of which the king disapproved,-was unconstitutional, as tending to place the king in direct opposition to Parliament, an evil which was ordinarily avoided by Mr. Plunket, Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 312. 1 Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 34. 2 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 231279. ministers refraining from supporting any measure to which the king might hereafter have to give his veto. The late ministers were even charged with having, in the explanation of the causes of their retirement, arraigned their sovereign at the bar of Parliament.1 Mr. Perceval denied that the king had conferred with any secret advisers until after the ministers were dismissed; and said that, in requiring the pledge, he had acted without any advice whatever. Ministers, he declared, had brought the pledge upon themselves, which would never have been suggested, had they not desired to impose conditions upon his Majesty. Sir Samuel Romilly went so far as to maintain that if ministers had subscribed such a pledge, they would have been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor.2 With regard to Mr. Perceval's statement, that the king had acted without advice, Sir Samuel affirmed, that there could be no exercise of prerogative in which the king was without some adviser. He might seek the counsels of any man, however objectionable: but that man would be responsible for the advice given, and for the acts of the crown. There was no constitutional doctrine more important than this, for the protection of the crown. History had unfolded the evils of a contrary principle having prevailed." It was also well observed by Mr. Whitbread, that the avowal of ministers that the king had acted without advice, amounted to a declaration on their part, that they disowned the responsibility of the act complained of, and left his Majesty to bear the blame of it himself, without that protection which the constitution had provided: but 66 1 General Craufurd, Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 299; Mr. Perceval, ibid., 316; Mr. Bathurst, ibid., 331; Mr. Canning, ibid., 342. 2 that from this responsibility they could not escape; for by accepting office, they had assumed the responsibility which they had shown so much anxiety to avoid. But Lord Howick denied that the king had acted without advice, and asserted that there had been secret advisers, who had taken pains to poison the royal mind. On the Saturday before the pledge had been required, Lord Eldon had an audience; and both Lord Eldon and Lord Hawkesbury were consulted by the king, before measures were taken for forming a new administration. They were, therefore, the king's responsible advisers. In answer to these allegations, Mr. Canning stated that Lord Eldon's visit to Windsor had taken place on Saturday se'nnight, preceding the change of ministry; that it had reference to a matter of extreme delicacy, unconnected with these events, and that before he went, Lord Eldon had explained to Lord Grenville the object of his visit, and promised to mention no other subject to his Majesty." He added, that the Duke of Portland, Mr. Perceval, and himself, had endeavoured to prevent the separation between the late ministers and the king, by amicable explanations. Mr. Canning concluded by saying, that the ministers were "determined to stand by their sovereign, even though circumstances should occur in which they may find it their duty to appeal to the country."3 1 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 339. 2 Lord Eldon himself expressly denied having had any communication with the king on the Catholic Question or the Ministers.- Twiss's Life, ii. 36-38. s Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 346. According to Sir S. Romilly, Mr. Canning said" he had made up his mind, when the Catholic Bill was first mentioned, to vote for it if the In Proceedings in the Lords. answer to this threat, Lord Henry Petty said that a great constitutional wrong had been done, and that no such intimidation would induce the House to refrain from expressing their sense of it. During the division, Lord Howick addressed the members in the lobby, and said that, being nearly certain of a majority1, they must follow up their success with "an address to the throne, to meet the threat which had been thrown out that evening, a threat unexampled in the annals of Parliament." But the king and his adherents were too strong for the opposition, whose friends, already looking to the court, left them in a minority of thirty-two.3 "2 On the 13th April, a discussion was raised in the House of Lords upon a motion to the same effect, proposed by the Marquess of Stafford. The most remarkable speech was that of Lord Erskine, who had already expressed his opinions on the subject, to the king himself. Not being himself, on account of religious scruples, favourable to the Catholic claims, he yet ridiculed the argument that the king had been restrained by his coronation oath, from assenting to the late measure. He had assented to the Act of 1793, which admitted Catholic majors and colonels to the army, without perjury-how then could his oath be violated by the admission of staff-officers? On the question of the pledge he asked, "Is it consistent with the laws and customs of the realm that the king shall make a rule for his own conduct, which his councillors shall not break in upon, to disturb with their advice?" If it were, "the king, instead of submitting to be advised 1 A majority of twenty was expected.-Romilly's Life, ii. 195. 2 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 348. It was intended to follow up this motion, if carried, by resolutions ex pressing want of confidence in the by his councillors, might give the rule himself as to what he will be advised in, until those who are solemnly sworn to give full and impartial counsel, and who are responsible to the public for their conduct as his advisers, might be penned up in a corner of their duties and jurisdiction, and the state might go to ruin." Again, as to the personal responsibility of the king, he laid it down that "the king can perform no act of government himself, and no man ought to be received within the walls of this House, to declare that any act of government has proceeded from the private will and determination, or conscience of the king. The king, as chief magistrate, can have no conscience which is not in the trust of responsible subjects. When he delivers the seals of office to his officers of state, his conscience, as it regards the state, accompanies them." "No act of state or government can, therefore, be the king's: he cannot act but by advice; and he who holds office sanctions what is done, from whatever source it may proceed." 1 By Lord Harrowby the motion was represented as placing the House in the situation" of sitting in judgment upon the personal conduct of their sovereign." But perhaps the best position for the crown was that assumed by Lord Selkirk. The king, he said, could not be accountable to Parliament for his conduct in changing his advisers; and the proposed pledge was merely a motive for such a change, beyond the reach of parliamentary investigation. Another view was that of Lord Sidmouth. Admitting that for every act of the executive government there must be a responsible adviser, he "contended that there were many functions of the sovereign which, though strictly legitimate, not only might, but must be performed 1 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., ix. 355-365. |