treatment I am to expect from Opposition, if I was to call them into my service. To obtain their support, I must deliver up my person, my principles, and my dominions into their hands." In other words, the king dreaded the admission of any ministers to his councils, who claimed an independent judgment upon the policy for which they would become responsible. In the mean time, the increasing influence of the Crown, and the active personal exercise of its prerogatives, were attracting the attention of the people and of Parliament. In the debate on the address Protests against the influence of the Crown, 1779-80. at the opening of Parliament, 25th November, 1779, Mr. Fox said: "He saw very early indeed, in the present reign, the plan of government which had been laid down, and had since been invariably pursued in every department. It was not the mere rumor of the streets that the king was his own minister; the fatal truth was evident, and had made itself evident in every circumstance of the war carried on against America and the West Indies." 2 This was denied by ministers; but evidence, not accessible to contemporaries, has since made his statement indisputable. 8 Early in the following year, numerous public meetings were held, associations formed, and petitions presented in favor of economic reforms; and complaining of the undue influence of the Crown, and of the patronage and corruption by which it was maintained.* It was for the redress of these grievances that Mr. Burke offered his celebrated scheme of economical reform. He confessed that the main object of this scheme was "the reduction of that corrupt influence, which is itself the perennial spring of all prodigality and of all disorder; — which loads us more than millions of debt; which takes away vigor from our arms, wisdom from our 1 Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 140; Fox Mem., i. 238. 2 Parl. Hist., xx. 1120. 8 See the speeches of the Lord Advocate, the Secretary-at-War, and Attorney-General, ibid., 1130, 1138, 1140. 4 Parl. Hist., xx. 1370; Ann. Reg., xxiii. 85. councils, and every shadow of authority and credit from the most venerable parts of our constitution." 1 Mr. Dun On the 6th April, Mr. Dunning moved resolutions, in a committee of the whole House, founded upon these petitions. The first, which is memorable in politi- ning's resolutions, 1780. cal history, affirmed "that the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished." 2 The Lord Advocate (Mr. Dundas) endeavored to diminish the force of this resolution by the prefatory words, "that it is necessary to declare;" but Mr. Fox, on behalf of the Opposition, at once assented to this amendment, and the resolution was carried by a majority of eighteen. A second resolution was agreed to without a division, affirming the right of the House to correct abuses in the civil list expenditure, and every other branch of the public revenue; and also a third, affirming "that it is the duty of this House to provide, as far as may be, an immediate and effectual redress of the abuses complained of in the petitions presented to this House." The Opposition, finding themselves in a majority, pushed forward their success. They would consent to no delay; and these resolutions were immediately reported and agreed to by the House. This debate was signalized by the opposition speech of Sir Fletcher Norton, the Speaker, who bore his personal testimony to the increased and increasing influence of the Crown. The king, writing to Lord North on the 11th April concerning these obnoxious resolutions, said: "I wish I did not feel at whom they were personally levelled." 4 The same matters were also debated, in this session, in the House of Lords. The debate on the Earl of Lord ShelShelburne's motion, February 8th, for an inquiry tion on public into the public expenditure, brought out further expenditure. 1 Feb. 11th, 1780; Parl. Hist., xxi. 2 (published speech). 2 Parl. Hist., xxi. 339. burne's mo 3 See also Chapter IV. (Civil List), and Chapter VI. (House of Commons). 4 King's Letters to Lord North; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 144. testimonies to the influence of the Crown. Of these the most remarkable was given by the Marquess of Rockingham; who asserted that since the accession of the king, there had been "a fixed determination to govern this country under the forms of law, through the influence of the Crown." "Everything within and without, whether in cabinet, Parliament, or elsewhere, carried about it the most unequivocal marks of such a system: the whole economy of executive government, in all its branches, proclaimed it, whether professional, deliberative, or official. The supporters of it in books, pamphlets, and newspapers, avowed it and defended it without reserve. It was early in the present reign promulged as a court axiom, 'that the power and influence of the Crown alone was sufficient to support any set of men his Majesty might think proper to call to his councils.' The fact bore evidence of its truth; for through the influence of the Crown, majorities had been procured to support any men or any measures, which an administration, thus constituted, thought proper to dictate."1 of peers. This very motion afforded an occasion for the exercise Intimidation of the prerogative in an arbitrary and offensive manner, in order to influence the votes of peers, and to intimidate opponents. The Marquess of Caremarthen and the Earl of Pembroke had resigned their offices in the household, in order to give an independent vote. Before the former had voted, he received notice that he was dismissed from the lord lieutenancy of the East Riding of the county of York; 2 and soon after the latter had recorded his vote, he was dismissed from the lord lieutenancy of Wiltshire, an office which had been held by his family, at different times, for centuries. This flagrant exercise of prerogative could not escape the notice of Parliament, and 1 Parl. Hist., xx. 1346. 2 Ibid., 1340. 8 His dismissal was by the personal orders of the king, who wrote to Lord North, 10th Feb., 1780: "I cannot choose the lieutenancy of Wiltshire should be in the hands of Opposition." on the 6th March, Lord Shelburne moved an address praying the king to acquaint the House whether he had been advised, and by whom, to dismiss these peers "from their employments, for their conduct in Parliament." The motion was negatived by a large majority; but the unconstitutional acts of the king were strongly condemned in debate; and again animadversions were made upon the influence of the Crown, more especially in the administration of the army and militia.1 of the Crown, On the meeting of Parliament, on the 27th November, 1781, amendments were moved in both Houses, in Complaints of answer to the king's speech, which gave occasion the influence to the expression of strong opinions regarding the 1781. influence of the Crown, and the irregular and irresponsible system under which the government of the country was conducted. The Duke of Richmond said, "that the country was governed by clerks, each minister confining himself to his own office, and consequently, instead of responsibility, union of opinion, and concerted measures, nothing was displayed but dissension, weakness, and corruption." The "interior cabinet," he declared, had been the ruin of this country. The Marquess of Rockingham described the system of government pursued since the commencement of the reign as "a proscriptive system, a system of favoritism and secret influence." Mr. Fox imputed all the defeats and disasters of the American War to the influence of the Crown.1 North's min The king was never diverted by defeat and disaster from his resolution to maintain the war with America: Final overbut the House of Commons was now determined throw of Lord upon peace; and a struggle ensued which was to istry. decide the fate of the minister, and to overcome, by the power of Parliament, the stubborn will of the king. On the 22d February, 1782, General Conway moved an address 1 Parl. Hist., xxi. 218 2 Ibid., xxii. 651. 8 Ibid., 655. deprecating the continuance of the war, but was defeated by a majority of one.1 On the 27th, he proposed another address with the same object. Lord North begged for a short respite but an adjournment being refused by a majority of nineteen, the motion was agreed to without a division.2 On the receipt of the king's answer, General Conway moved a resolution that "the House will consider as enemies to the king and country all who shall advise, or by any means attempt, the further prosecution of offensive war, for the purpose of reducing the revolted colonies to obedience by force." In reply to this proposal, Lord North astonished the House by announcing, – not that he proposed to resign on the reversal of the policy, to which he was pledged, but that he was prepared to give effect to the instructions of the House! Mr. Fox repudiated the principle of a minister remaining in office, to carry out the policy of his opponents, against his own judgment; and General Conway's resolution was agreed to. Lord North, however, persevered with his propositions for peace, and declared his determination to retain office until the king should command him to resign, or the House should point out to him, in the clearest manner, the propriety of withdrawing. No time was lost in pressing him with the latter alternative. On the 8th March, a motion of Lord John Cavendish, charging all the misfortunes of the war upon the imcompetency of the ministers, was lost by a majority of ten.5 On the 15th, Sir J. Rous moved that "the House could no longer repose confidence in the present ministers," and his motion was negatived by a majority of nine. On the 20th the assault was about to be repeated, when Lord North announced his resignation." 1 Parl. Hist., xxii. 1028. 8 4th March. Ibid., 1067. 4 Ibid., 1107. 5 Parl. Hist., xxii. 1114. 6 Ibid., 1170. 7 Ibid., 1214. |
