North's the king and his minister long triumphed over all himself opposition in Parliament1; but in 1778, the signal failure with Lord of their policy, the crisis in American affairs, and the ministry. impending war with France, obliged them to enter into negotiations with Lord Chatham, for the admission of that statesman and some of the leaders of Opposition into the ministry. The king needed their assistance, but was resolved not to adopt their policy. He would accept them as instruments of his own will, but not as responsible ministers. If their counsels should prevail, he would himself be humiliated and disgraced. In a letter to Lord North, 15th March, 1778, the king says: "Honestly, I would rather lose the crown I now wear, than bear the ignominy of possessing it under their shackles."2 And, again, on the 17th of March, he writes: "I am still ready to accept any part of them that will come to the assistance of my present efficient ministers: but, whilst any ten men in the kingdom will stand by me, I will not give myself up to bondage. My dear Lord, I will rather risk my crown than do what I think personally disgraceful. It is impossible this nation should not stand by me. If they will not, they shall have another king, for I never will put my hand to what will make me miserable to the last hour of my life." 3 Again, on the 18th, he writes: "Rather than be shackled by those desperate men (if the nation will not stand by me), I will rather see any form of government introduced into this island, and lose my crown, rather than wear it as a disgrace.” 4 The failure of these negotiations, followed by the death 1 Fox Mem., i. 115, 119. Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 108; Fox Mem., i. 189. 3 Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 110; Fox Mem., i. 191. 4 Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 111; Fox Mem., i. 193. The king own policy. of Lord Chatham, left unchanged the unfortunate administration of Lord North. Overtures, indeed, were made to the Whig leaders, enforces his to join a new ministry under Lord Weymouth, which were, perhaps unwisely, declined1; and henceforth the king was resolved to admit none to his councils without exacting a pledge of compliance with his wishes. Thus, on the 4th February, 1779, writing to Lord North, he says: "You may now sound Lord Howe; but, before I name him to preside at the Admiralty Board, I must expect an explicit declaration that he will zealously concur in prosecuting the war in all the quarters of the globe."2 Again, on the 22nd June, 1779, he writes: "Before I will hear of any man's readiness to come into office, I will expect to see it signed under his own hand, that he is resolved to keep the empire entire, and that no troops shall consequently be withdrawn from thence (i. e. America), nor independence ever allowed."3 At this time it was openly avowed in the House of Commons by Lord George Germaine, that the king was his own minister, and Mr. Fox lamented "that his Majesty was his own unadvised minister." 4 Nor was it unnatural that the king should expect such submission from other statesmen, when his first minister was carrying out a policy of which he disapproved, but wanted resolution to resist 5, and when Parliament had hitherto supported his ill-omened measures. In October, 1779, Lord North, writing to the king concerning the resignation of Lord Gower, who was averse to the continuance of the American war, which, in his 1 Fox Mem., i. 207; Lord J. Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 4 Dec. 4th, 1778, on Mr. Coke's motion upon Clinton's proclamation; Fox Mem., i. 203. 5 Fox Mem., i. 211, 212. opinion, "must end in ruin to his Majesty and the country," says: "In the argument Lord North had certainly one disadvantage, which is that he held in his heart, and has held for three years past, the same opinion as Lord Gower."1 Again, however, the king was reduced to treat with the Opposition; but was not less resolute in his determination that no change of ministers should affect the policy of his measures. On December 3rd, 1779, he was prevailed upon to give Lord Thurlow authority to open a negotiation with the leaders of the Opposition, and expressed his willingness "to admit into his confidence and service any men of public spirit and talents, who will join with part of the present ministry in forming one on a more enlarged scale, provided it be understood that every means are to be employed to keep the empire entire, to prosecute the present just and unprovoked war in all its branches, with the utmost vigour, and that his Majesty's past measures be treated with proper respect."2 Finding the compliance of independent statesmen less ready than he desired, he writes to Lord Thurlow, 18th December, 1779:"From the cold disdain with which I am treated, it is evident to me what 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 meantime, the increasing influence of the Crown, and the active personal exercise of its preroga 1 King's Letters to Lord North; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 151. 2 Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 139; Fox Mem., i. 237. 3 Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 140; Fox Mem., i. 238. Mr. Dun ning's resolutions, 1780. tives, were attracting the attention of the people and of Parliament. In the debate on the address 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 rumour 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.' This was denied by ministers2; but evidence, not accessible to contemporaries, has since made his statement indisputable. Early in the following year, numerous public meetings were held, associations formed, and petitions presented in favour of economic reforms; and complaining of the undue influence of the Crown, and of the patronage and corruption by which it was maintained.3 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 vigour from our arms, wisdom from our councils, and every shadow of authority and credit from the most venerable parts of our constitution."4 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 political 1 Parl. Hist., xx. 1120. 2 See the speeches of the Lord Advocate, the Secretary-at-War, and Attorney-General, ibid., 1130, 1138, 1140. 3 Parl. Hist., xx. 1370; Ann. Reg., xxiii. 85. + Feb.11th, 1780; Parl. Hist., xxi. 2 (published speech). history, affirmed "that the influence of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished."1 The Lord Advocate (Mr. Dundas) endeavoured 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 signalised by the opposition speech of Sir Fletcher Norton, the Speaker, who bore his personal testimony to the increased and increasing influence of the Crown.2 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."3 burne's motion on public expenditure. The same matters were also debated, in this session, Lord Shelin the House of Lords. The debate on the Earl of Shelburne's motion, February 8th, for an inquiry into the public expenditure, brought out further testimonies to the influence of the Crown. Of these the most remarkable was given by the Marquess of Rockingham ; 1 Parl. Hist., xxi. 339. * See also Chapter IV. (Civil List), and Chapter VI. (House of Commons). 3 King's Letters to Lord North; Lord Brougham's Works, iii. 144. |