self-reliance, and he sought to maintain himself by the King's favour, and by deprecating the hostility of strong opponents. This conduct may be harshly characterised by the epithets mean, selfish, and low-minded,' but it seems to me to come very near it.

6

It is also to be remembered that Addington encouraged or allowed his pamphleteers and writers in the press to attack Pitt with great bitterness at particular moments.

With respect to Addington's hold upon the country, and his patriotic abstinence from a dissolution in 1804 on account of the precarious state of the King's mind, I confess I do not quite see its bearing upon the facts. I observe that Lord Grey makes a similar statement in his recently published work on Reform. Addington did not resign because the country and the House differed in opinion. He was never in a minority, though his majority diminished. He resigned because Pitt openly joined the Opposition against him, and he did not choose to face a hostile combination of all the Parliamentary leaders and speakers. A dissolution would have been no remedy for this state of things, for it was the general opinion of the country that Addington, though an honest, wellmeaning and respectable man, had not sufficient ability for carrying on the war with so powerful an opposition in Parliament.

Lord Harrowby told me that his father's view of Pitt's conduct at this period was, that he had given Addington an honest support, but had been forced back into office by public opinion. This is the Pittite view-but I cannot think that Addington would have been able to maintain himself in power, if with his actual colleagues he had appealed to the country against Pitt, Fox, Lord Grenville, Windham, Sheridan, and the other prominent men who were then in active opposition, and whom, in order to

make this policy successful, it would have been necessary for him to set at defiance.

With respect to the real motive of Pitt's resignation in 1801, it is difficult to penetrate his heart and discover all he really felt. But it is, I think, proved by overwhelming evidence that the only ground which he alleged to the King, to his colleagues, and to his intimate friends was the Catholic question. If his real wish was to let in a minister to make peace with France, why was he so ready to return a month afterwards? I cannot help thinking that the point of honour about the assurance given to the Irish Catholics, and the pressure of Lord Cornwallis and Lord Castlereagh, not altogether unmixed with reproaches, weighed with him. His conduct in 1801 is strange upon any hypothesis; but I have a strong impression that, but for the King's scruple about the Coronation oath, he would have remained minister, and perhaps have quarrelled with Lord Grenville about negotiation with the First Consul.

283

V.

THE GRENVILLE, PORTLAND, AND PERCEVAL

ADMINISTRATIONS.1

IN a former article we followed the history of the Ministerial changes which occurred in this country between the resignation of Mr. Pitt in 1801, and his death in January 1806; and we showed how, at the renewal of the war with Bonaparte after the Peace of Amiens, there was a general wish among the leading statesmen for the formation of a comprehensive Administration, independent of party connections; which wish was frustrated by the King's refusal to admit Mr. Fox into the Cabinet. As the exclusion of Mr. Fox from the counsels of the King involved the refusal of Lord Grenville and his friends to join the new Government, the second Administration of Mr. Pitt never acquired the strength which his first Administration maintained throughout its long existence, and at his death it lost not only its principal, but almost its sole element of vitality.

The King, indeed, made an attempt to infuse a posthumous life into Pitt's Ministry after the death of its founder and chief. The first step which he took upon this event was to authorise the Home Secretary, Lord Hawkesbury, to form a new Administration. Lord Hawkesbury requested a short time for consideration, and then declined the task. But though he did not now feel himself equal

1 Review of Memoirs of the Court of England during the Regency, 18111820. From original family documents. By the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, K.G. 2 vols. 8vo. 1856.

1806.

1806.

to the enterprise of succeeding Mr. Pitt in the more arduous and honourable part of his functions-though he could not claim the inheritance of Elijah's mantle-he secured for himself, during this brief interval, the lucrative sinecure of Warden of the Cinque Ports, which Mr. Pitt's death had rendered vacant. A statement has been preserved by Mr. Horner that Pitt's remaining colleagues endeavoured to induce Lord Wellesley, who had recently returned from India, to assume the office of Prime Minister at the head of the existing Cabinet, but that the offer was instantly refused.1 Lord Wellesley was at this time under the threat of impeachment for his acquisitions of territory in India, and his acceptance of a high Ministerial office would probably have been the signal for a repetition of Hastings' trial. Whatever overtures may have been made to Lord Wellesley, it is certain that they were not backed by any royal authority.

The King was by this time too well aware of Lord Sidmouth's hopeless incapacity to entertain any idea of falling back upon his assistance; and his next step, taken by the advice of his late Ministers,2 was to send for Lord Grenville, to whom the royal message was conveyed on the 26th of January, three days after Pitt's death. Lord Grenville repeated to the King his previous opinion as to the advantages of a comprehensive Administration, not founded on a principle of exclusion. In answer to the

1 Life of Horner, vol. i. p. 332. In a letter to Mr. Wilberforce, dated January 24, 1806, the day after Pitt's death, Lord Wellesley states that 'he knows nothing of public arrangements, and all the reports in the newspapers respecting himself are utterly groundless.' He adds: 'Having no personal object of pursuit, I shall not easily be deluded from the solemn conviction of my mind, that our recent loss cannot be repaired, nor our imminent perils be averted, otherwise than by an union of the approved talents and highest characters of the nation' (Pearce's Memoirs of Lord Wellesley, vol. ii. p. 389).

2 This fact is stated by Lord Sidmouth (Life, vol. ii. p. 414).

King's inquiry as to the persons whom he proposed to include, Lord Grenville stated at once that the person whom he should consult was Mr. Fox. I thought so, and meant it so,' was the King's reply. The result of this interview must be considered as a conclusive proof that Pitt might have obtained the same concession from the King, if he had resisted the exclusion of Mr. Fox in 1804; and that, however strong were the King's objections to particular men or measures, he would, when his position became untenable, yield to constitutional pressure."

3

On this occasion an entirely new Administration was formed, and it was composed in the following manner :Lord Grenville was First Lord of the Treasury, with Lord Henry Petty (afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne), who had established an early reputation as a statesman and orator,3 as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Fox was Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, and leader of the House of Commons; Lord Spencer and Mr. Windham held the Seals of the other two Secretaries; and the late Lord Grey, as Lord Howick, was First Lord of the Admiralty. The Great Seal was first offered to Lord Ellenborough, with the view of appointing Mr. Erskine his successor as Chief Justice, but was declined. It was then proposed to Sir James Mansfield, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas ; but this great legal prize was again refused, and Erskine

1 The account of this conversation given in Mr. Horner's Journal (Life, ibid. p. 331) agrees with that in the Annual Register, written by Mr. Allen. 2 In a letter to the Marquis of Buckingham, of March 16, 1809, Lord Grenville says, in reference to the affair of the Duke of York and Mrs. Clarke: 'The King's mind is, I believe, more difficult to satisfy. He holds out, as he has always done, just as long as he thinks his perseverance is likely to be of any use in carrying his point; and when he sees there is no longer any hope of that, he will give way as he has always done in such cases' (Court and Cabinets of George III., vol. iv. p. 333).

3 See the very favourable opinions of him expressed at the time, recorded in Horner's Correspondence, vol. i. pp. 300, 330.

1806.