As Prime Minister, Walpole insisted upon unanimity as none of his predecessors had done. As he was more severe in enforcing discipline in Parliament than in the country, so he was more rigorous in his discipline in Cabinet and administration than in Parliament. Whenever it was possible, he dismissed refractory ministers. We have seen how he dealt with Carteret. Soon after he had got rid of him, a bill was passed levying a tax on ale in Scotland. As a consequence, there were disturbances in that country. The Duke of Roxburgh, the Secretary of State for Scotland, did his best to help on these disturbances. Walpole wrote to Townshend, "I beg leave to observe that the present administration is the first that ever yet was known to be answerable for the whole government with a Secretary of State for one part of the kingdom, who, they are assured, acts counter to all their measures, or, at least, whom they cannot in the least confide in."1 Soon afterward, Roxburgh was dismissed.

Out of deference to the wishes of at least a large minority in the House of Commons, and a large majority in the country, Walpole withdrew his Excise Bill. But none the less for that did he discipline the members of the Cabinet and other prominent officials who had opposed it. Chesterfield, who was Lord Steward at the time, had expressed his disapproval of the bill,

1 Coxe, "Walpole," Vol. II. p. 474.

and his brothers had voted against it in the House of Commons. He was dismissed, as were also Lord Clinton, Lord of the Bedchamber, the Earl of Burlington, Captain of the Board of Pensioners, the Duke of Montrose, the Earl of Marchmont, and the Earl of Stair, all of whom held office in Scotland. The Duke of Bolton and Lord Cobham were deprived of their regiments. Yet Walpole thought it necessary to deny that any servant of the Crown had been removed from office on account of having opposed measures of the administration. "Certain persons," he said, "had been removed because his Majesty did not think best to continue them longer in service. His Majesty has a right so to do, and I know of no one who has a right to ask him, What doest thou? If his Majesty had a mind that the favors of the Crown should circulate, would not this of itself be a good reason for removing any of his servants? . . . I cannot see, therefore, how this can be imputed as a crime, or how any of the King's ministers can be blamed, for his doing what the public has no concern in, for if the public be well and faithfully served, it has no business to ask by whom."

At another time there was a difference of opinion in the Cabinet as to an application to be made to certain foreign courts. Walpole was overruled. He complained to the King that business was stopped, on account of the differences in the Cabinet. The King sent for New

castle and reproved him. "As to business in Parliament," he said, "I do not value the opposition, if all my servants act together and are united; but if they thwart one another, and create difficulties in the transaction of public business, then indeed it will be another case." Later, Newcastle met Walpole, and charged him with having directed the King to say this. Walpole denied it, but said that he agreed with the sentiments. Toward the close of his administration, Walpole was unable to control his Cabinet.1 His fall was due almost

1 In 1739, when Walpole was doing all that he could to prevent war with Spain, Newcastle and Hardwicke were both in favor of such a war. Newcastle did what he could to raise factions in the Cabinet. Yet Walpole dared not dismiss him. At one time Newcastle wished to send all the ships that could be spared from the fleet to strengthen the squadron of Vernon and Ogle. Walpole objected and exclaimed: "I oppose nothing. I give in to everything, am said to do everything, am to answer for everything, and yet God knows I dare not do what I think right. I am of the opinion for having more ships of Sir Chaloner Ogle's squadron behind, but I dare not. I will not make any alterations." The Archbishop of Canterbury proposed that the matter be reconsidered. Walpole opposed reconsideration, and said, “Let them go, let them go!"-"Hardwicke Papers," Newcastle to Hardwicke, October 1, 1740.

Lord Hervey gives us the following scene at the end of a long meeting of Cabinet: “Just as Sir Robert Walpole was upon his legs to go away, the Duke of Newcastle said, 'If you please, I would speak one word with you before you go.' To which Sir Robert Walpole replied, 'I do not please, my lord; but if you will, you must.' 'Sir, I shall not trouble you long.'

'Well, my

as much to the opposition of his colleagues, as to opposition in the House of Commons. In his resignation he was true to his principles. So long as it was possible to maintain discipline in the administration, he maintained it. When this was no longer possible, he resigned.

During the Pelham administration, there was a curious attempt on the part of the Cabinet to act as a court of justice. A certain person stated that he had seen a bishop, the Solicitor General, and another person drink to the health of the Pretender. He was summoned before the Cabinet and examined under oath. The other side of the question was also heard, and a report of the examination was submitted to the King. There was a debate upon this proceeding in the House of Lords. The action of the Cabinet was denounced as a revival of the Star Chamber and the Inquisition, and an attempt to establish a new jurisdiction.1 Since that time there has been no similar attempt on the part of the Cabinet.

lord, that's something; but I had rather not be troubled at all. Won't it keep cold until to-morrow?' 'Perhaps not, sir.' 'Well, come then, let's have it.' Upon which they retired to a corner of the room, where his Grace whispered very softly, and Sir Robert answered nothing but aloud, and said nothing aloud but every now and then, Pooh! Pshaw! O Lord! O Lord! pray be quiet. My God, can't you see it is over?'" — HERVEY, " Memoirs," Vol. II. P. 564.

1 "Pelham Administration," Vol. III. pp. 254-263.

CHAPTER IX.

LATER CABINET DEVELOPMENT

Attempt of George III. to rule as well as reign-No change in legal position of sovereign since William III.—The people in the main with George III.-Exclusion of the Tories from power considered unjust — Bolingbroke's “Patriot King” — "Seasonable Hints from an Honest Man"-General plans of George III. His first speech to Parliament - Pitt leaves the Cabinet Lord Bute real Prime Minister-Newcastle resigns -Administration of Bute - His resignation — Letter of Bute to Bedford - Administration of Grenville — The King tries in vain to get rid of him— Bute banished from Court - The King attempts to govern in spite of his ministry-The first Rockingham administration - Dissensions in the ministry-Opposition of the Court - Resignation of Rockingham-Chatham administration Dissensions and weakness - Illness of ChathamFormation of an opposition to the Court-The country is roused Administration of North-Temporary triumph of King, but as King of party- Parliamentary reporting — Opposition of country to ministry-Its fall - Second Rockingham administration Disfranchisement of revenue officers, and Economical Reform Act-Shelburne administration Coalition ministry Opposition of the King and the country - The India Bill Fall of the Coalition — Appointment of Pitt — The opposition opposes dissolution - Discussion in Parliament for