ceval, and himself, had endeavored 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." In 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. This motion had been met by one for reading the other orders of the day, and the latter was carried by a majority of thirty-two. The Opposition were so little prepared for this result, that, during the division, Lord Howick addressed the members in the lobby, and said that being nearly certain of a majority, 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 anThe House adjourned at half-past nals of Parliament." six in the morning. in the Lords. effect, pro- Proceedings The most Erskine, who had al On the 13th April, a discussion was raised in the House of Lords upon a motion to the same posed by the Marquess of Stafford. remarkable speech was that of Lord ready expressed his opinions on the subject, to the king himself. Not being himself, on account of religious scruples, 1 Hans. Deb., 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 king was for it, and against it if the king was against it. Every art was used to interest persons for the king; his age was repeatedly mentioned, his pious scruples, his regard for his coronation oath, which some members did not scruple to say would have been violated if the bill had passed."- Romilly's Life, ii. 194. 2 Ayes, 258; Noes, 226. 3 A majority of twenty was expected. — Romilly's Life, ii. 195. 4 Hans. Deb., ix. 348. It was intended to follow up this motion, if carried, by resolutions expressing want of confidence in the ministers. Romilly's Life, ii. 194. 5 It embraced all the words of Mr. Brand's motion, but prefixed a preamble. 6 Romilly's Life, ii. 188. favorable 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 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 the Earl of Selkirk. The king, he said, could not be accountable to 1 Hans. Deb., ix. 355-865. 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 without any such responsibility being attached to them, and which must, therefore, be considered as the personal acts of the king. Of these the constitution does not take cognizance.” 1 It was the object of this ingenious argument to absolve from responsibility both the king, who could do no wrong, and his present advisers, who, by accepting office, had become responsible for the measures by which their predecessors had been removed. This unconstitutional position was well exposed by the Earl of Lauderdale. The example of Lord Danby was felicitously cited both by the Earl of Lauderdale and Lord Holland in support of the constitutional principle that the king can have no separate responsibility. Lord Danby, having been impeached for offences committed as a minister, had produced a written authority from the king in his defence, but was yet held responsible for the execution of the king's commands: nay, the House of Commons voted his plea an aggravation of his offences, as exposing the king to public odium.2 This doctrine, in truth,— that for every act of the Crown some adviser must be responsible, - could not be denied; but the artifice of putting forth the king personally, and representing him as being on his trial at the bar, this repeated use of the king's name, was a tower of strength to the ministerial party. 8 Lord Stafford's motion had been met by the previous 1 Hans. Deb., ix. 399. 2 Ibid., 405, 414. 3 Romilly's Life, ii. 197. question; but eventually the division was taken upon the adjournment of the House, which was carried by a majority of eighty-one; and thus the motion was superseded.1 The House did not adjourn until seven o'clock in the morning. Mr. Lyttle 15th April, 1807. But even now the question was not set at rest. On the 15th April, Mr. W. H. Lyttleton renewed the ton's motion, discussion, in proposing a resolution expressing regret at the late changes in his Majesty's councils. The debate added little to the arguments on either side, and was brought to a close, at half-past six in the morning, by the House resolving to pass to the orders of the day.2 Impolicy of the cabinet minute. As a question of policy, it had obviously been a false step, on the part of the ministers, to give expression to their reservations in the minute of the Cabinet. They had agreed to abandon the bill which had caused the difference between themselves and his Majesty; and, by virtue of their office, as the king's ministers, were free, on any future occasion, to offer such advice as they might think proper. By their ill-advised minute, they invited the retaliation of this obnoxious pledge. But no constitutional writer would now be found to defend the pledge itself, or to maintain that the ministers who accepted office in consequence of the refusal of that pledge, had not taken upon themselves the same responsibility as if they had advised it. The dissolu 1807. Meanwhile, though this was the first session of a new Parliament, a speedy dissolution was determined tion, April upon. Advantage was taken of the prevalent anti-Catholic feeling which it was feared might subside; but the main issue raised by this appeal to the country was the propriety of the recent exercise of prerogative. In the Lords Commissioners' speech, on the 27th 1 Contents, 171; Non-contents, 90. Hansard's Debates, ix. 422. April, the king said he was "anxious to recur to the sense of his people, while the events which have recently taken place are yet fresh in their recollection." And he distinctly invited their opinion upon them, by declaring that "he at once demonstrates, in the most unequivocal manner, his own conscientious persuasion of the rectitude of those motives upon which he has acted, and affords to his people the best opportunity of testifying their determination to support him in every exercise of the prerogatives of his crown, which is conformable to the sacred obligations, under which they are held, and conducive to the welfare of his kingdom, and to the security of the constitution." The recent exercise of prerogative is thus associated with the obligations of his coronation oath, so as to unite, in favor of the new ministers, the loyalty of the people, their personal attachment to the sovereign, and their zeal for the Protestant establishment. Without such appeals to the loyalty and religious feelings of the people, the influence of the Crown was alone. sufficient, at that time, to command a majority for ministers; and their success was complete. Parliament. On the meeting of the new Parliament, amendments to the address were proposed in both Houses, con- Meeting of demning the dissolution, as founded upon "ground- Amendments less and injurious pretences," but were rejected by large majorities. to address, 26th June, 1807. the regency. The king's will had prevailed, and was not again to be called in question. His own power, confided to The three the Tory ministers who were henceforth admit- years prior to ted to his councils, was supreme. Though there was still a party of the king's friends, his Majesty agreed too well with his ministers, in principles and policy, to require the aid of irresponsible advisers. But his rule, once more absolute, after the struggles of fifty years, was 1 In the Lords by a majority of 93, and in the Commons by a majority of 195. Hansard's Debates, ix. 557-658. 2 Lord Sidmouth's Life, ii. 469; Romilly's Life, ii. 220. |