Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

the management of the army should be effected without his Majesty's approbation. To the doctrine thus amended, there could be no reasonable objection, and the king assented to it.

Differences

on the Army

vice Bill.

[ocr errors]

2

The Grenville ministry fell, like that of Mr. Pitt in 1801, by proposing a measure affecting the king's religwith the king ious scruples. As all the circumstances regarding and Navy Ser- this measure will be described elsewhere, it is sufficient here to say that on proposing the Army and Navy Service Bill, - by which some of the disqualifications of officers in the army and navy, being Roman Catholics and Dissenters, were removed, the ministers either neglected to explain its provisions with sufficient distinctness to the king, or failed to make themselves understood. After the bill had been introduced, as they believed, with his "reluctant assent," his Majesty's distaste for it became inflamed into violent disapprobation. To propose such a measure at all, was a strange indiscretion. Knowing the king's repugnance to every concession to the Catholics, they might have profited by the experience of Mr. Pitt. The Chancellor foresaw the danger they were incurring, and with Lord Ellenborough and Lord Sidmouth, protested against the measure. The friends of the Government called it an act of suicide.3

Activity of the king's friends.

The king's friends, and the opponents of the ministry, did not neglect this favorable opportunity of turning his Majesty's well-known religious scruples to account; but soon directed his personal influence against his ministers. On the 4th March, Lord Sidmouth "apprised his Majesty of the nature and details of the measure;" said he should himself oppose it; and soon afterwards tendered his resignation to Lord Gren

1 Ann. Reg., 1806, 26; Lord Sidmouth's Life, ii. 416.

2 Chapter XII., on Civil and Religious Liberty.

8 Lord Malmesbury's Corresp., iv. 381-384.

4 Lord Sidmouth's Life, ii. 459–462.

ville. On the 12th, the Duke of Portland wrote to the king, expressing his belief that the measure had not received his Majesty's consent, and that it could be defeated in the House of Lords. "But for this purpose," said his grace, "I must fairly state to your Majesty, that your wishes must be distinctly known, and that your present ministers should not have any pretext for equivocating upon the subject, or any ground whatever to pretend ignorance of your Majesty's sentiments and determination, not only to withhold your sanction from the present measure, but to use all your influence in resisting it." Writing on the same day, his grace said: "His Majesty has signified his orders to my nephews, Lords George and James Thynne, to vote against it."2 On the following day a person came to Lord Malmesbury from the Queen's house, authorized to say, "that his Majesty's wishes, sentiments, and intentions, respecting every measure which may lead to alter the legal restrictions the Catholics are liable to, are invariably the same as they always have been, and always will be so." The king himself also intimated to Lord Grenville, that "he should certainly think it right to make it known that his sentiments were against the measure." 4

[ocr errors]

Hence it appears that courtiers and intriguing statesmen were still as ready as they had been twenty-five years before, to influence the king against his ministers, and to use his name for the purpose of defeating measures in Parliament; while the king himself was not more scrupulous in committing himself to irregular interference with the freedom of parliamentary deliberations. On this occasion, however,

Withdrawal

opposition to the ministry in Parliament by the king's friends, was averted by the withdrawal of of the obnoxthe measure. On announcing its abandonment

1 Lord Malmesbury's Corresp., v. 369.

2 Ibid., 371.

8 Ibid., 373.

ious bill.

4 Letter to Mr. T. Grenville, 14th March, 1807 (Court and Cabinets of Geo. III., iv. 135).

Pledge pro

posed by the king, and removal of the

ministers.

to the king, the ministers committed a second indiscretion. They reserved to themselves, by a minute of the cabinet, the right of openly avowing their sentiments, should the Catholic Petition be presented, and of submitting to his Majesty, from time to time, such measures as they might deem it advisable to propose. The king not only desired them to withdraw this part of the minute, but demanded from them a written declaration that they would never, under any circumstances, propose to him further concessions to the Catholics, or even offer him advice upon the subject.2 To such a pledge it was impossible for constitutional ministers to submit. They were responsible for all public measures, and for the good government of the country; and yet, having abandoned a measure which they had already proposed, they were now called upon to fetter their future discretion, and to bind themselves irrevocably to a policy which they thought dangerous to the peace of Ireland. The king could scarcely have expected such submission. The ministers refused the pledge, and the king proceeded to form a new administration under Mr. Perceval. He had regarded this contest with his ministers as a struggle for his throne;" saying, "he must be the Protestant king of a Protestant country, or no king." 3

66

In the Commons, the dismissal of the Government on Proceedings these grounds, and the constitutional dangers in

in the Commons on the change of ministry, 1807.

volved in such an exercise of the prerogative, did not pass without animadversion. On the 9th April, Mr. Brand moved a resolution, "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

1 Hans. Deb., ix. 231-247; Life of Lord Sidmouth, ii. 463; Lord Malmesbury's Corresp., iv. 380; Rose's Corresp., ii. 321-327.

2 Hans. Deb., ix. 243; Lord Sidmouth's Life, ii. 464; Rose's Correspondence, ii. 328-331.

8 Twiss's Life of Lord Eldon, ii. 34.

and security of the empire." In the debate it was argued, that as the king was not responsible by law, if the ministers should also claim to be absolved from responsibility, by reason of pledges given to the king, there would be no security for the people against the evils of bad government. Had the ministers agreed to such a pledge, they would have violated their oaths as privy-councillors, and the king would have become absolute. To what dangers would the country be exposed if ministers might bind themselves to give such advice only as should be agreeable to the sovereign?1 Nor did the conduct of secret advisers escape notice, who had counteracted the measures of the public and responsible advisers of the Crown.2 On the other side it was contended that the stipulation proposed by the 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 the Parliament, an evil which was ordinarily avoided by the 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.3 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. The ministers, he declared, had brought upon themselves the pledge proposed by the king, 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

1 See also Chapter XII., on Civil and Religious Liberty.

2 Mr. Plunkett, Hans. Deb., ix. 312.

8 General Craufurd, Hans. Deb., ix. 299; Mr. Perceval, ib., 316; Mr. Bathurst, ib., 331; Mr. Canning, ib., 342.

[blocks in formation]

been guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor. With regard to Mr. Perceval's statement, that the king had acted without advice, Sir Samuel said, 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 protec tion 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 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. Per1 Hans. Deb., ix. 327.

8

2 lbid., 339.

8 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.

« ForrigeFortsæt »