He discovered, when it was too late, that the king had been more sagacious than himself, and that while his own power and connexions had crumbled away, the court party had obtained a dangerous ascendency. Parties had been broken up, and prerogative triumphed. The leaders of parties had been reduced to insignificance, while the king directed public affairs according to his own will, and upon principles dangerous to public liberty. According to Burke, "when he had accomplished his scheme of administration, he was no longer minister." To repair the mischief which had been done, he afterwards sought an alliance with the party which, when in power, he had alienated from him. "Former little differences must be forgotten," he said, "when the contest is pro aris et focis." 2 Meanwhile, other circumstances contributed to increase the influence of the king. Much of Lord Chatham's popularity had been sacrificed by the acceptance of a peerage; and his personal influence was diminished by his removal from the House of Commons, where he had been paramount. His holding so obscure a place as that of Privy Seal, also took much from his weight as a minister. His melancholy prostration soon afterwards increased the feebleness and disunion of the administration. Though his was its leading mind, for months he was incapacitated from attending to any business. He even refused an interview to the Duke of Grafton, the premier 3, and to General Conway, though commissioned by the king to confer with him. It is not surprising that the Duke of Grafton should complain of the languor under which "every branch of the adminis 1 Speech on American Taxation. 2 Rockingham Mem., ii. 143. 3 Chatham Corresp., iii. 218. tration laboured from his absence." Yet the king, writing to Lord Chatham, January 23rd, 1768, to dissuade him from resigning the Privy Seal, said: "Though confined to your house, your name has been sufficient to enable my administration to proceed."" At length, however, in October, 1768, completely broken down, he resigned his office, and withdrew from the administration.3 The absence of Lord Chatham, and the utter disorganisation of the ministry, left the king free to exercise his own influence, and to direct the policy of the country, without control. Had Lord Chatham been there, the ministry would have had a policy of its own: now it had none, and the Duke of Grafton and Lord North, -partly from indolence, and partly from facility,-consented to follow the stronger will of their sovereign.1 On his side, the king took advantage of the disruption of party ties, which he had taken pains to promote. In the absence of distinctive principles, and party leaders, members of Parliament were exposed to the direct influence of the Crown. According to Horace Walpole, everybody ran to court, and voted for whatever the court desired." 5 The main object of the king in breaking up parties, had thus been secured. 66 North's On the resignation of the Duke of Grafton, the king's Lord ascendency in the councils of his ministers was further ministry, increased by the accession of Lord North to the chief 1770. 1 Letter to Lord Chatham, 8th February, 1767; Chatham Corresp., iii. 194. 2 Chatham Corresp., iii. 318. $ In his letter to the king, October 14th, he said, "All chance of recovery will be precluded by my continuing longer to hold the Privy Seal."-Chatham Corresp., iii. 314. So little had Lord Chatham's ill ness been assumed for political pur- 4 Walp. Mem., iii. 62, 67, n. Public affairs di rected by the King. direction of public affairs. That minister, by principle a Tory, and favourable to prerogative,-in character indolent and good tempered,—and personally attached to the king,-yielded up his own opinions and judgment; and for years consented to be the passive instrument of the royal will.' The persecution of Wilkes, the straining of parliamentary privilege, and the coercion of America, were the disastrous fruits of the court policy. Throughout this administration, the king staked his personal credit upon the success of his measures; and regarded opposition to his ministers as an act of disloyalty, and their defeat as an affront to himself.2 In 1770, Lord Chatham stated in Parliament, that since the king's accession there had been no original (i. e. independent) minister ; and examples abound of the king's personal participation in every political event of this period. While the Opposition were struggling to reverse the proceedings of the House of Commons against Wilkes, and Lord Chatham was about to move an address for dissolving Parliament, the king's resentment knew no bounds. In conversations with General Conway, at this time, he declared he would abdicate his crown rather than comply with this address. "Yes," said the king, laying his hand on his sword, "I will have recourse to this, sooner than yield to a dissolution of Parliament."4 And opinions have not been wanting, that 1 Walp. Mem., ii. 95, n.; ib., iii. 106, n.; Wraxall's Mem., i. 123. Mr. Massey says, Lord North was "the only man of parliamentary reputation who would not have insisted" on the expulsion of the king's friends.-Hist., i. 424. Always in favour of power and authority, "he supported the king against the aristocracy, the Parliament against the people, and the nation against the colonies."-Ibid., 425. 75. 2 Walp. Mem., iii. 200 and n. ; iv. 3 Ibid., iv. 94; Hansard's Parl. Hist., xvi. 842 (March 2nd, 1770). +14th May, 1770. Rockingham Mem., ii. 179. the king was actually prepared to resist what he deemed an invasion of his prerogative, by military force.' On the 26th February, 1772, while the Royal Marriage Bill was pending in the House of Lords, the king thus wrote to Lord North: "I expect every nerve to be strained to carry the bill. It is not a question relating to administration, but personally to myself, therefore I have a right to expect a hearty support from every one in my service, and I shall remember defaulters."2 Again, on the 14th March, 1772, he wrote: "I wish a list could be prepared of those that went away, and of those that deserted to the minority (on division in the committee). That would be a rule for my conduct in the drawing-room tomorrow."3 Again, in another letter, he said: "I am greatly incensed at the presumption of Charles Fox, in forcing you to vote with him last night." 4 "I hope you will let him know that you are not insensible of his conduct towards you."5 And the king's confidence in his own influence over the deliberations of Parliament, appears from another letter, on the 26th June, 1774, where he said: "I hope the Crown will always be able, in either House of Parliament, to throw out a bill; but I shall never consent to use any expression which tends to establish, that at no time the right of the Crown to dissent is to be used."6 The king not only watched how members spoke and voted', or whether they abstained from voting; but 1 Massey, Hist., i. p. 489. Fox Mem., i. 76; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 79. 3 Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 80. 15th February, 1774. In proceedings against printers of a libel on the speaker, Sir F. Norton. Fox Mem., i. 99; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 84. Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 85. 7 King to Lord North, 5th April, 1770; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 71, 88, 106, 108. 8 King to Lord North, 12th March, 1772; 6th April, 25th Oct.,1778; 28th Feb., 4th and 9th March, 1779. Dismissal even if they were silent, when he had expected them to speak. No "whipper-in " from the Treasury could have been more keen or full of expedients, in influencing the votes of members in critical divisions.2 He was ready, also, to take advantage of the absence of opponents. Hearing that Mr. Fox was going to Paris, he wrote to Lord North, 15th November, 1776: "Bring as much forward as you can before the recess, as real business is never so well considered as when the attention of the House is not taken up with noisy declamation." 3 Military officers were still exposed to marks of the of officers. king's displeasure. In 1773, Lieutenant-Colonel Barré and Sir Hugh Williams, both refractory members of Parliament, were passed over in a brevet, or promotion; and Colonel Barré, in order to mark his sense of the injustice of this act of power, resigned his commission in the army. The king, however, appears to have modified his opinions as to his right of depriving members of military commands, on account of their conduct in Parliament. Writing to Lord North, 5th March, 1779, he says: "I am strongly of opinion that the general officers, who through Parliament have got governments, should, on opposing, lose them. This is very different from removing them from their military commands."5 The king identifies Not without many affronts, and much unpopularity, 66 1 King to Lord North, 7th Jan., 1770. Surprised that T. Townsend was silent."-King to Lord North, 19th Dec., 1772. Ibid., 81. "I should think Lord G. Germaine might with great propriety have said a few words to put the defence in motion."-King to Lord North, 2nd Feb., 1778. Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 105. He was incensed against Dundas for the same reason, 24th Feb., 1778.-Ibid., 106. 2 King to Lord North, 9th Feb., 1775; 5th and 9th March, 1779. 3 Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 97. 4 Chatham Corresp., iv. 243, 251. 5 Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 130. |